Current Editor: Chris Merrill, firstname.lastname@example.org
Previous Editors: Mark Sanders 1989-1997; James LaPorte: 1997-2010
As an open access journal, the JTE does not charge fees for authors to publish or readers to access.
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Change to Technology Teacher Education Daniel L. Householder & Richard A. Boser Many institutions which formerly pre- pared teachers of industrial arts are cur- rently implementing technology teacher education programs. As these institutions change to implement technology teacher educa- tion, it is important to obtain an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the inno- vation. Change in the teacher education cur- riculum may be assessed in a number of possible ways, each with several potential advantages. However, there is no generally accepted model for assessing the overall ef- fectiveness of such a major change in tech- nology teacher education. To address this problem, a study was undertaken to develop and verify a set of measures that could be used to assess the ef- fectiveness of the move to technology teacher education. Specifically, the study sought answers to two research questions: "What measurements should be used to determine the effectiveness of the change?" and "How should these mea- surements be validated?" BACKGROUND The literature relevant to the assess- ment of change and program implementation may be categorized into three areas: (a) educa- tional program evaluation; (b) program evalu- ation in higher education, specifically in teacher education; and (c) change and program implementation in teacher education programs. Studies in each of these areas were reviewed to establish the research base for the devel- opment of the formative evaluation system for technology teacher education programs. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM EVALUATION In a literature search for an applicable model for the evaluation of teacher education programs, Ayers, Gephart, and Clark (1989) reported "approximately 40 references to evaluation models" (p. 14). Stufflebeam and Webster (1980) identified and assessed 13 al- ternative evaluation approaches in terms of their adherence to the definition: "an educa- tional evaluation study is one that is de- signed and conducted to assist some audience to judge and improve the worth of some educa- tional object" (p. 6). Their analysis re- sulted in three categories of evaluation studies: (a) politically oriented, or pseudo evaluations; (b) question oriented, or quasi- evaluations; and (c) values oriented, or true evaluations. Stufflebeam and Webster ad- dressed the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each evaluation approach in order to pro- vide evaluators with a variety of frameworks for conducting evaluation studies. However, as Popham (1975) noted, compar- ing evaluation approaches in order to select the best model is usually a fruitless en- deavor. Popham stated: Instead of engaging in a game of "sames and differents," the educational evalu- ator should become sufficiently conversant with the available models of evaluation to decide which, if any to employ. Often, a more eclectic ap- proach will be adopted whereby one se- lectively draws from the several available models those procedures or constructs that appear most helpful. (p. 21) Cronbach (1982) echoed this need for eclecticism by noting that "the [evaluation] design must be chosen afresh in each new undertaking, and the choices to be made are almost innumerable" (p. 1). Indeed, an eclectic approach seemed most appropriate for the formative evaluation of the change to technology teacher education. The review of the evaluation literature identified two approaches that could be com- bined to develop appropriate instrumentation and procedures. These were the Context, In- put, Process, and Product (CIPP) Model origi- nated by Stufflebeam et al. (1971), and the Discrepancy Model proposed by Provus (1971). These models have many commonalities. Both models: 1. Were conceptualized and developed in the late 1960s in response to the need to evaluate projects funded through the Ele- mentary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. 2. Represented efforts to broaden the view of educational evaluation to include more than an assessment of the terminal objec- tives. 3. Emphasized the systems view of the educa- tion by stressing the relationship be- tween context, inputs, processes, and products. 4. Emphasized the importance of collecting information on key developmental factors to aid decision-makers in assessing pro- gram progress at a given point (Brinkerhoff, Brethower, Hluchyj, and Nowakowski, 1983). 5. Were concerned with the developmental as- pects of program design and implementa- tion, and recommended close collaboration with program developers. 6. Have been used in a variety of evaluation environments (Roth, 1978; Provus, 1971; and Stufflebeam, et al., 1971), though they are not specifically designed for the evaluation of teacher education pro- grams. THE CIPP MODEL. Bjorkquist and Householder (1990) noted that "programs in which goals are accomplished are usually con- sidered to be effective" (p. 69). In an overview and assessment of evaluation studies, Stufflebeam and Webster (1980) stated that the objectives-based view of pro- gram evaluation "has been the most prevalent type used in the name of educational evalu- ation" (p. 8). Indeed, prior to the ESEA, educational evaluation had focused upon "the determination of the degree to which an in- structional program's goals were achieved" (Popham, 1975, p. 22). However, a group lead by Stufflebeam proposed an evaluation process that focused upon program improvement by evaluating virtually all aspects of the edu- cational program. Stufflebeam (1983) stated: Fundamentally, the use of the CIPP Model is intended to promote growth and to help the responsible leadership and staff of an institution systematically to obtain and use feedback so as to ex- cel in meeting important needs, or at least, to do the best they can with the available resources. (p. 118). In short, the CIPP Model placed a premium on information that can be used proactively to improve a program. DISCREPANCY MODEL. This model was de- veloped to be put in place as the new pro- grams were designed and implemented in the Pittsburgh public schools. A systems ap- proach was used to determine whether program performance met accepted program standards. Provus (1971) conceptualized a three-step process of program evaluation: (a) defining program standards, (b) determining whether a discrepancy exists between some aspect of program performance and the standards govern- ing that aspect of the program, and (c) using discrepancy information either to change per- formance or to change program standards (p. 183). According to Provus, this operational definition of program evaluation leads to four possible alternatives: (a) the program can be terminated, (b) the program can pro- ceed unaltered, (c) the performance of the program can be altered, or (d) the standards governing the program can be altered (Popham, 1975). The Discrepancy Model has five stages: (a) design; (b) installation; (c) process; (d) product; and (e) program comparison. Provus (1971) noted that, "at each of these stages a comparison is made between reality and some standard or standards" (p. 46). The first four stages are developmental in nature and designed to evaluate a single program. The fifth stage, which Provus designated as optional, provides information for making comparisons with alternative programs. MERGING THE EVALUATION MODELS. With the commonalities of the two models previously stated and the thoroughness of the CIPP Model reviewed, one might well ask why the two mod- els should be merged. The answer lies in the complementing strengths of the two models. CIPP, with its use of both quantitative and qualitative procedures and its emphasis on proactive evaluation, provides an overarching evaluation model. Because of its thoroughness, it is also extremely expensive and time consuming. As Stufflebeam and Webster (1980) noted, values-oriented studies, such as CIPP, aimed at assessing the overall merit or worth of a program are overly ambitious "for it is virtually impos- sible to assess the true worth of any object" (p. 18). However, the CIPP model provides an excellent framework for approaching the mul- titude of possible variables in program eval- uation. What does the discrepancy evaluation model add to this customized assessment ap- proach? Stufflebeam and Webster (1980) stated that question-oriented studies that focus on program objectives or standards "are frequently superior to true evaluation studies in the efficiency of methodology and technical adequacy of information employed" (p. 18). In particular, the discrepancy model championed by Provus adds three useful constructs to the evaluation process: 1. The broadening of the evaluation proce- dure to include the possibility of alter- ing the standards to conform with reality. In light of the current empha- sis on standards external to the program, such as National Council for Accredi- tation of Teacher Education (NCATE) cri- teria, this approach seemed particularly appropriate. 2. The emphasis upon high-fidelity implemen- tation addressed major concerns in the change process. 3. The emphasis upon problem solving sol- utions to program performance alteration appeared to be consistent with the es- poused philosophy of technology educa- tion. Since technology teacher education pro- grams are still largely in the implementation stage, assessments of their effectiveness could most profitably focus on discrepancies between the performances and standards that are concerned with the inputs and the proc- esses of the technology teacher education programs. Taken together, it seems reason- able to consider an evaluation approach that focuses on input and process evaluation com- ponents as Stufflebeam uses the terms by com- paring actual performance with defined standards. PROGRAM EVALUATION IN TEACHER EDUCATION Few studies have related specific pro- gram evaluation approaches to the assessment of teacher education programs. Perhaps the dearth of references in the literature to specific evaluation approaches used in teacher education programs is the result of the emphasis placed on the accreditation of those programs. Accreditation procedures re- quire that teacher education institutions pe- riodically undertake systematic formative and summative evaluations. Taking this reality into consideration, Ayers, Gephart, and Clark (1989) proposed the Accreditation Plus Model that integrates the accreditation process and existing evaluation approaches. While focus- ing on the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (1987) standards and criteria for compliance, the model suggests a process that is "active, continual, and form- ative" (p. 16). The Accreditation Plus Model seems to be a logical extension of an already required practice. While this model was designed to be used for the evaluation of professional educational units, the process seems adapt- able to the more specific evaluation concerns of technology teacher education programs. CHANGE AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Gee and Tyler (1976) suggested that "reasonable people will assume moderate risk for great benefits, small risks for moderate benefits, and no risk for no benefit" (p. 2). While this statement makes explicit the per- sonal nature of the change process, organiza- tional characteristics are also important factors in facilitating change. Hopkins (1984) argued that the nature of the educa- tional organization itself is a major imped- iment to change. He noted that in spite of considerable external pressure for change in teacher education, there were few observable differences in the routines of professors and students. Hopkins made the provocative sug- gestion that "teacher training institutions as organizations appear unable effectively to manage self-initiated change" (p. 37). Giacquinta (1980), even less charitable, sug- gested that schools of education find that "change is a necessary, often bitter pill taken for the sake of survival" (Hopkins, 1984, p. 43). These opinions seem to be shared by several state legislatures which have recently mandated changes in teacher ed- ucation requirements and practices. A MODEL FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE A model of the innovation-decision proc- ess in an organization, developed by Rogers (1983), focuses on the process of adoption, implementation, and the incorporation of the innovation into the organization. The five steps in the model are divided into two stages: initiation and implementation. INITIATION STAGE. During this stage, organizational activities center around the information-gathering, conceptualizing, and planning that is required to make the deci- sion to change. The two steps included at this stage are: (a) agenda setting, where the initial idea search occurs and the motivation to change is generated; and (b) matching, where organizational problems and possible solutions are analyzed for compatibility. The initiation stage is essentially a problem solving exercise. As the organiza- tion becomes cognizant of a performance shortfall, it initiates a search of the envi- ronment for possible solutions to the prob- lem. For example, industrial arts programs were generally faced with declining enroll- ments. At the same time, many studies cited the need for students to possess increased scientific and technological literacy. In response, the field started to focus on tech- nology education as an emergent solution to both problems. IMPLEMENTATION STAGE. The second stage, implementation, begins after the decision to make the change has been made by the organ- ization. This stage includes the decisions, actions, and procedures involved in putting an innovation into regular use. The imple- mentation stage includes three steps: (a) redefining/restructuring the innovation and the organization to accommodate the change; (b) clarifying the innovation as it is put into regular use; and ultimately (c) routinizing or institutionalizing the change as an integral part of the ongoing activities of the organization. According to Rogers (1983) each step is "characterized by a particular range of events, actions, and decisions" (p. 362). Further, the latter steps cannot occur until the issues in the earlier steps have been re- solved. Citing the work of Pelz (1981) as a source of support for the model, Rogers noted that innovations imported into an organiza- tion "usually occur in the time-order se- quence" (p. 366). However, innovations that originated within an organization are not characterized by a similarly clear pattern of adoption. Since technology teacher education programs are currently changing in an attempt to meet largely external innovations (NCATE accreditation standards and state certif- ication requirements), it appears that the time-order sequence is expected to apply. The linear nature of the innovation-decision model highlights the need to nurture the change to technology teacher education throughout the stages of the entire change process. SUMMARY In light of the review of literature and the specific goals of this research effort, the decision was made to develop an evalu- ation design incorporating an eclectic mix of program evaluation approaches, the NCATE ac- creditation process, and descriptions of the process of change as that process may be ex- pected to occur in teacher education organ- izations. Stufflebeam's CIPP Model provided an overall framework from which to assess the effectiveness of change to technology teacher education. Provus's Discrepancy Model added the possibility of adjusting the measurement standards to conform to program performance reality. And, because accreditation is an overarching evaluation concern for teacher education, the Accreditation Plus Model sug- gested a way of integrating program evalu- ation and accreditation. Further, because technology teacher education programs are presently in the early implementation stage, measures that reflect the process of change seemed to be appropriate for inclusion. PROCEDURES A modified Delphi design was used in this study. Nominations of leading practi- tioners and advocates in technology education who might serve as Delphi panelists were so- licited from officers of the Council on Tech- nology Teacher Education and the International Technology Education Associ- ation. This process resulted in the se- lection of a panel comprised of the 22 individuals who were recommended by at least two of the CTTE or ITEA officers. On an open-ended questionnaire, panel- ists were asked to suggest criteria and pro- cedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the change from industrial arts teacher edu- cation to technology teacher education pro- grams. Fourteen panelists returned the first round questionnaire. The reponses were tabu- lated, duplications were eliminated, and sim- ilar suggestions were combined. This process resulted in a list of 58 criteria and 33 pro- cedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the change to technology teacher education. The criteria were sorted into four catego- ries: (a) the technology teacher education program, (b) faculty members, (c) student skills, and (d) capabilities of graduates. The second round questionnaire asked the 22 panelists to rate the importance of the 58 criteria and 33 procedures on a scale which ranged from 0 to 10. The instructions de- fined a rating of 0 as a recommendation that the criterion or procedure be dropped. A rating of 10 meant that the criterion or pro- cedure was considered to be absolutely vital to the assessment of the effectiveness of the change to technology teacher education. Pan- elists were asked to offer editorial sug- gestions on the statements of criteria and procedures and also to suggest additional criteria and procedures (and to rate any ad- ditional statements). Eighteen of the 22 second round ques- tionnaires were returned promptly. The re- sponses were tabulated and the mean rating of importance for each item was calculated. The statements of criteria and procedures were then listed in order of their mean rating of importance. The ranked listings for each criterion with a mean value greater than 9.0 on the 10 point scale are included in Table 1. TABLE 1 HIGHLY RANKED CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES SORTED BY CATEGORY --------------------------------------------- Mean Criteria and Procedures --------------------------------------------- TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM ... 9.55 Laboratory instruction provides op- portunities for students to reinforce abstract concepts with concrete experiences. 9.50 Instructional strategies emphasize conceptual understanding and problem solving. 9.23 Professional studies component emphasizes the study of technology, including social- cultural affects. 9.22 Laboratories facilitate the learning of broad based technological concepts. 9.22 Instruction incorporates current technological activities. 9.17 Philosophy, mission statement, goals and curriculum emphasize technological skills rather than technical skills. 9.17 Social-cultural impacts of technology are emphasized. 9.12 Field experiences are technology cen- tered. 9.05 Problem solving and decision making abilities are emphasized. 9.00 Curricula are based on recent re- search findings. FACULTY MEMBERS ... 9.50 Display a positive attitude toward the technology teacher education curriculum. 9.22 Participate in planned professional development activities to update their knowledge and skills. 9.05 Communicate their understanding of the meaning and implications of technology education both within and outside the classroom. STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO ... 9.78 Be people oriented. 9.44 Be future oriented. 9.39 Demonstrate the ability to teach problem solving techniques. 9.33 Effectively plan and implement tech- nology education in grades 5-12. 9.28 Develop and implement curriculum ma- terial that reflect a broad technological system area. 9.28 Demonstrate an awareness of society's reliance on technological systems. 9.22 Plan and implement teaching-learning activities. 9.17 Use a vocabulary that reflects the concepts of technology education. 9.11 Apply current instructional theory. 9.06 Formulate appropriate objectives. 9.05 Be open to change and willing to ini- tiate change. 9.05 Consider global perspectives in tech- nology education. 9.00 Demonstrate a basic understanding of tools, machines and process and their applications in manufacturing, construction, communication, and transportation. GRADUATES OF THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM ... 9.78 Employ a philosophy which reflects a technological base. 9.61 Teach concepts and use teaching tech- niques that are technology based. PROCEDURE STATEMENTS ... 9.50 Examine the curriculum to determine if the philosophy, definition, mission statement, goals and objectives, course content, and learning experience reflect technology education. 9.22 Analyze the courses required in the program, the content contained in each of the courses, teaching strategies and methods, assignments, tests, and student field experience to determine if they reflect technology education. --------------------------------------------- DEVELOPING THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION CHECKLIST (TTEC) An initial review of the listing of cri- teria and procedures identified by the panel- ists in this research suggested many parallels to the NCATE approved curriculum guidelines as specified in the BASIC PROGRAM IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION (1987). The intent of this investigation was not to duplicate the NCATE assessment process, but to identify essential elements in the implementation of technology teacher education that would serve as key indicators of the effectiveness of the change from industrial arts teacher educa- tion. In order to concentrate the assessment effort, therefore, criteria were selected for inclusion in the measurement instrument if they were: 1. Highly ranked within their criteria cate- gory but not addressed by NCATE curric- ulum guidelines; 2. Correlated to NCATE curriculum guidelines for technology teacher education and dis- tinctly different from usual practices in industrial arts teacher education; or 3. Considered to be essential to support the process of organizational change. Other suggested items were not included in the TTEC because they were measurements of program outcome, such as performance of pro- gram graduates. These items were excluded from the measurement instrument since tech- nology teacher education is in the implemen- tation phase, a stage when Hall and Hord (1987) noted that "interpreting any outcome data is extremely risky" (p. 343). Further, the procedures proposed for this formative evaluation design were pur- posely limited by the following criteria: 1. The time required for on-site data col- lection by the external evaluator(s) should not exceed two observer-days. 2. With the exception of interviews and classroom and laboratory observation ses- sions, the data gathering should not re- quire additional faculty time. 3. Existing data should be used whenever possible. 4. Data gathering should not seriously dis- rupt on-going instructional activities. In this way, the evaluation may be conducted in a reasonable time with a minimum of dis- ruption to departmental activities. VERIFICATION OF THE TTEC In order to verify the measures selected for inclusion in the checklist, a draft of the TTEC was sent to the panel for editorial suggestions and additional comments. Sixteen of the twenty-two panelists responded. Most respondents suggested editorial revisions or made other comments. Careful consideration was given to these suggestions as revisions were made in the TTEC. The TTEC, revised to incorporate suggestions from panelists, is reproduced below. TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION CHECKLIST 1. Examine the catalog, a sample of curric- ulum documents, and a sample of course syllabi to verify the degree to which: a. The philosophy, mission statement, and goals and objectives of the pro- gram reflect the definition(s) of technology education suggested by ITEA, CTTE, and relevant groups in the state/province. b. Study is required in technological systems such as communication, pro- duction (construction and manufactur- ing), transportation, and biotechnology. c. Courses in mathematics, science, and computing science are required. d. Required full-time student teaching and early field experiences are con- ducted in an exemplary technology ed- ucation setting. e. Required reading lists provide com- prehensive coverage of technology and technology education. f. Learning activities and experiences are representative of technology edu- cation. 2. Interview the department head with regard to the change to technology teacher edu- cation to discern the degree to which: a. Funding is adequate to support the current technology teacher education program and plans are in place for periodic replacement and upgrading of facilities and equipment. b. Faculty and staff allocations are ad- equate to serve student enrollments in technology teacher education. c. The written departmental plan for faculty professional development and technological updating is adequate to prepare faculty members for contempo- rary technology teacher education. d. Enrollments in the major are ade- quate, stable, or increasing. e. The written departmental implementa- tion plan for technology teacher edu- cation addresses the process of organizational change. f. Faculty are committed to the philoso- phy and objectives of technology edu- cation. 3. Interview faculty members and review re- cent annual reports, biodata information, faculty publications, copies of presenta- tions, and manuscripts being considered for publication to verify whether: a. Faculty are writing scholarly papers, developing instructional materials, and giving presentations about tech- nology education. b. Current faculty research and service activities are directed toward topics and issues in technology education. c. Faculty are actively involved in pro- fessional organizations in technology education. 4. Observe professional and technical classes to discern the degree to which: a. Instructional methods emphasize tech- nological problem solving and decision-making. b. Instructional materials reflect con- temporary technology. c. Major elements of technology educa- tion (e.g., systems, environmental and social impacts, and the applica- tions of technological devices) are emphasized in the course activities. 5. Inspect laboratory facilities to ascer- tain the degree to which: a. Laboratories are adequate for effec- tive instruction. b. Equipment and space provide students adequate opportunities for experi- ences in state-of-the-art applica- tions of technology (e.g., CAD/CAM, CIM, robotics, desk-top publishing, lasers, table-top technology, hydroponics). 6. Interview students, and examine student logs and required student work to discern whether: a. The elements of technology education are understood and integrated into their total philosophy of education. b. They are active in a TECA chapter. c. The problem solving process and decision-making rationale are incor- porated into grading. d. Environmental consequences and social-cultural effects of technology are reflected in student activities. 7. Interview chairs of related departments and administrators (dean, provost, or president) to ascertain the degree of philosophical support that is provided for technology education. 8. Listen to conversations and discussions and observe student activity to discern the degree to which: a. The terminology used by faculty and students reflects technology and technology education. b. Faculty and students appear to be en- thusiastic about technology educa- tion. 9. Interview principals who have experience with student teachers and graduates of the technology education program to dis- cern whether the program prepares profes- sionals to: a. Plan and implement technology educa- tion. b. Use problem solving strategies. c. Apply current instructional theory. USING THE INSTRUMENT Jordan (1989) began a discussion of evaluation and change by reminding practi- tioners that: One of the axioms of measurement is that assessment is not an end in it- self. We evaluate because we wish to know the current state of affairs, but we wish to do that in order to make im- provements. Exactly how we wish to im- prove depends on what we discover. In theory, the process is circular and un- ending. That is, we should assess and make improvements and then assess the improvements. (p. 147) With this interaction between evaluation and change in mind, there are several possible ways of using the instrument developed through this research. Perhaps the simplest use would be for an internal or external evaluator to use the instrument as a check- list of what has been accomplished and what is in progress (or still to be initiated). Two more complex uses may include determining if the innovation is in place and using force field analysis to determine sources of re- sistance. DETERMINING IF THE INNOVATION IS IN-PLACE Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, and Hall (1987) proposed that before assessing program outcomes it is first necessary to de- termine that the innovation is in fact in place. They indicated two ways of making that determination: (a) first, the level of fidelity of the actual implementation of the innovation can be compared with the intended innovation, and (b) second, the actual levels of use can be determined. Hord et al. pro- posed that each innovation has essential and related components. The essential components cannot be changed without undermining the na- ture of the innovation itself. The related concepts allow for local flexibility and, while varied, are still faithful to the inno- vation design. Hord et al. suggested that assessment of fidelity can be made by devel- oping a checklist that outlines ideal, ac- ceptable, and unacceptable variations of the innovation. In technology teacher education programs, many of the criteria identified through this research may serve as the "es- sential" components. The second measure proposed by Hord et al. (1987) to determine whether or not the innovation is actually in place is an assess- ment of the six levels of use. These levels range from Level of Use 0 (nonuse) to Level of Use VI (renewal) where the "user reevalu- ates the quality of use of the innovation, seeks major modifications of or alternatives to, present innovation to achieve increased impact on clients, examines new developments in the field, and explores new goals for self and the organization" (p. 55). By using the TTEC to identify the essential components of the change to technology teacher education, an assessment of levels of use from the per- spective of the faculty may be an important step in measuring the effectiveness of the change and planning further intervention strategies. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Lewin (1951), the originator of field psychology, proposed that change is the re- sult of competition between driving and re- sisting forces. Lewin's conceptualization has been adapted to describe the dynamics of a number of management situations in organiza- tional change. Daft (1988) stated that: To implement a change, management should analyze the change forces. By selectively removing forces that re- strain change the driving forces will be strong enough to enable implementa- tion. . . . As restraining forces are reduced or removed, behavior will shift to incorporate the desired changes. (p. 313) Miller (1987) suggested that force field analysis could be used to nurture a climate receptive to innovation and creativity. Miller stated: The primary function of the force field in idea generation is to present three different stimuli for thinking of new options or solutions. Because the field represents a kind of tug-of-war, there are three ways to move the center line in the direction of the more de- sirable future: 1. Strengthen an already present posi- tive force. 2. Weaken an already present negative force. 3. Add a new positive force. (p. 73) If these two ideas are taken together, a picture emerges of how force field analysis and the instrument designed through this re- search could be applied to the transition from industrial arts teacher education to technology teacher education. First, each criterion could be assessed to determine its relative strength as a driving force for change. Additionally, forces unique to the particular implementation may be identified and dealt with. Second, the information gen- erated through the assessment could be used to strengthen the implementation procedures. In this way, the instrument may serve as a game plan for implementation and continued assessment of the change. IMPLICATIONS The Technology Teacher Education Check- list, which was the primary outcome of this research, should be useful to the faculty of a technology teacher education program or to an external evaluator in conducting formative or summative assessments of the change to technology education. While its use requires minimal duplication of the NCATE approval procedures, the items in TTEC focus upon key indicators of effective change to technology teacher education. The TTEC might be espe- cially useful in a review of a technology teacher education program, a year or two in advance of the preparation of a curriculum folio to be submitted for consideration for NCATE approval. ---------------- Daniel L. Householder is Professor and Richard A. Boser is a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Industrial, Vocational and Technical Education, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. REFERENCES Ayers, J. B., Gephart, W. J., & Clark, P. A. (1989). The accreditation plus model. In J. B. Ayers & M. F. Berney (Eds.), A PRAC- TICAL GUIDE TO TEACHER EDUCATION EVALU- ATION (pp. 13-22). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Bjorkquist, D. C., & Householder, D. L. (1990). Reaction to reform: Research im- plications for industrial teacher educa- tion. JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION, 27(2), 61-74. Brinkerhoff, R. O., Brethower, D. M., Hluchyj, T., & Nowakowski, J. R. (1983). PROGRAM EVALUATION: A PRACTITIONER'S GUIDE FOR TRAINERS AND EDUCATORS. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Cronbach, L. J. (1982). DESIGNING EVALUATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Daft, R. L. (1988). MANAGEMENT. New York: Dryden Press. Gee, E. A., & Tyler, C. (1976). MANAGING INNOVATION. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Giacquinta, J. B. (1980). Organizational change in schools of education: A review of several models and an agenda of re- search. In D. E. Griffiths & D. J. McCarthy (Eds.), THE DILEMMA OF THE DEANSHIP. Danville, IL: Interstate. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (1987). CHANGE IN SCHOOLS: FACILITATING THE PROCESS. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hopkins, D. (1984). Change and the organisational character of teacher educa- tion. STUDIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 9(1), 37-45. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling- Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). TAKING CHARGE OF CHANGE. Alexandria, VA: Asso- ciation for Supervision and Curriculum De- velopment. International Technology Education Association/Council on Technology Teacher Education. (1987). NCATE-APPROVED CURRIC- ULUM GUIDELINES: BASIC PROGRAM IN TECHNOL- OGY EDUCATION. Reston, VA: Author. Jordan, T. E. (1989). MEASUREMENT AND EVAL- UATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: ISSUES AND IL- LUSTRATIONS. Philadelphia: Falmer Press. Lewin, K. (1951). FIELD THEORY IN SOCIAL SCI- ENCE. New York: Harper. Miller, W. C. (1987). THE CREATIVE EDGE: FOSTERING INNOVATION WHERE YOU WORK. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1987). STANDARDS, PROCE- DURES, AND POLICIES FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNITS. Washington, DC: Author. Pelz, D. C. (1981). 'STAGING' EFFECTS IN ADOPTION OF URBAN INNOVATIONS. Paper pre- sented at the Evaluation Research Society, Austin, TX. Popham, W. J. (1975). EDUCATIONAL EVALU- ATION. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Provus, M. (1971). DISCREPANCY EVALUATION FOR EDUCATION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND AS- SESSMENT. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Rogers, E. M. (1983). DIFFUSION OF INNO- VATION. New York: Free Press. Roth, R. A. (1978). HANDBOOK FOR EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS: TEACHER EDUCATION AS A MODEL. Washington, DC: University Press of America. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1983). The CIPP Model for program evaluation. In G. F. Madaus, M. S. Scriven & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), EVALUATION MODELS: VIEWPOINTS ON EDUCA- TIONAL AND HUMAN SERVICE EVALUATION (pp.117-142). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff. Stufflebeam, D. L., & Webster, W. J. (1980). An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSIS, 2(3), 5-19. Stufflebeam, D. L, Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M. (1971). EDUCA- TIONAL EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Permission is given to copy any article or graphic provided credit is given and the copies are not intended for sale. Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 2 Spring 1991