Journal of Technology Education

Journal of Technology Education

Current Editor: Chris Merrill,
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.

JTE Access Data | About JTE

Volume 2, Number 2
Spring 1991

                            Technology Teacher Education Curriculum
                                         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
                              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-
                              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
                         3.  What curriculum course goals do teacher
                             educators prefer?
                              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.
                              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-
                         TABLE 2
                         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
                              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
                         TABLE 3A
               Textbook                                                                    n
               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
                    IMPLEMENTATION.  Boston:  Allyn & Bacon.
               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.
                    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
               McMahon, G. G. (1972).  CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN TRADE AND INDUSTRIAL      1
                    AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.  Columbus, OH:  Merrill.
               Unspecified ACIATE/CTTE Yearbooks                                           5
               Technical Foundation of America.  (undated).  INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY       3
               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
               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
               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
                              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
               Assignment                                  n*     %*
               Develop a course                            34     58
               Develop lesson plans and instructional      25     42
               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
               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
               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
                              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-
                              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.
                              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
                              This study of technology teacher educa-
                         tion curriculum courses reveals the following
                         1.  Curriculum instruction in technology
                             teacher education has a limited (and of-
                             ten no) number of goals for the study of
                         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.
                         Cherryholmes, C. H.  (1988).  POWER AND CRIT-
                            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-
                         Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P.  (1988).
                            CURRICULUM: FOUNDATIONS, PRINCIPLES, AND
                            ISSUES.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-
                         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