JVER v27n2 - Perceived Knowledge Level, Utilization, and Implementation of School-to-Work by Preservice Teacher Educators in Ohio
Perceived Knowledge Level, Utilization, and Implementation of School-to-Work by Preservice Teacher Educators in Ohio
Jewel Evans Hairston Virginia State University Abstract
This descriptive study determined the perceived knowledge level, utilization, and implementation of national and state school-to-work initiatives by preservice teacher educators in Ohio. Investigation focused on 359 preservice teacher educators from 13 state-supported universities. Ohio's teacher educators were most knowledgeable of and tended to utilize academic, school-based, and contextual teaching and learning components of school-to-work when preparing future teachers. They were least knowledgeable of and tended not to utilize the structural, work-based, and connecting activities components of school-to-work. Results provide direction for school-to-work professional development activity for preservice teacher educators .Participants
Although federal funding ended for the School-To-Work Opportunities Act in October 2001, there is potential for employing its comprehensive framework for high-skill career preparation. With obtainable venture capital, opportunities abound to build strong workforce-oriented programs and to produce plans for statewide school-to-work systems. If successful components of school-to-work (STW) are to have a future, that future will rest largely on state and local government interest, business community involvement, and regional school districts' willingness to develop and institute structural measures such as block scheduling, business partnerships, and professional teacher development ( Hettinger, 1998 ). To cultivate a future for STW it is necessary to assemble the efforts of all educational cohorts so that successful educational pathways can be provided for tomorrow's students.
The state of Ohio established a School-to-Work mission ensuring that "every Ohio child graduates from high school and beyond with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in the ever-changing world of work_and is prepared for lifelong learning" ( The School-to-Work Systems Integration Coalition, 1999 , p. 9). This mission brings forth the necessity of weaving the concepts of school and work into the lives of students and the importance of preparing teachers to educate students in this manner. Thus, the professional development of educators is an important link in advancing the STW mission ( Berns, 1997 ).
To address Ohio's STW mission and prepare future teachers to apply valuable STW concepts, it is necessary to implement a curriculum and educational plan that addresses the needs of children and our society. Future teachers must understand the role of STW in enhancing the curriculum and preparing students to achieve in a new society ( Berns, 1997 ). To assist preservice teacher educators in adequately preparing future teachers to accomplish this goal, preservice teacher educators' knowledge of and ability to apply STW components should be identified and the extent to which they prepare future teachers to use STW concepts should be determined.
Preservice teacher educators may need professional development, but a determination should be made regarding the focus of professional development. Once a focus is identified, organizations such as universities and state agencies can design professional development activities that will address Ohio's STW mission, effectively integrate STW into teacher preparation programs, and prepare future teachers for STW utilization. The purpose of this study was to determine what preservice teacher educators know about STW and how they perceive their preparation of future teachers to utilize STW in tomorrow's classrooms.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) began as a $1.5 billion initiative signed during the Clinton Administration in May 1994. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act consisted of school-based learning components, work-based learning components, and activities that connect the two ( National STW Information Learning Center, 2001 ). Although many misinterpreted the STWOA as a federally-funded program ( Dembicki, 1998 ), it was actually a federal initiative that provided seed money for school districts to enact career exploration programs that utilize high academic standards and work force connections. School-to-work was not a program, but an approach to planning and delivering education ( O'Conner, 1998 ).
The STW approach is rooted in the contextual teaching and learning philosophy that was first introduced by John Dewey in the early part of the 20th century ( O'Conner, 1998 ). Much of it is based on cognitive research highlighting strong links between learning and doing. School-to-work incorporates aspects of community-based partnerships, work-based learning, and authentic instruction ( Berns, 1997 ). Its components connect learning experiences at all levels with the surrounding environment ( Parnell, 1995 ), address the needs of different types of intelligence as opposed to addressing intelligence as a fixed capacity ( Gardner, 1983 ), and build learning capacity through real-life application ( Dewey, 1941 ).
School-to-work principles are connected to constructivist learning theory and the idea of being actively involved in learning processes. According to Jerome Bruner (1966) , learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. Dewey (1941) reiterates the notion that the learner needs to do something and become engaged with the world.
School-to-work principles address the importance of helping all students acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities, and information to facilitate a smooth entry into the workforce. Through a career focus, STW connects classroom knowledge with the world of work to bring relevance to learning and to provide a context for instructional content. School-to-work concepts also provide a means of achieving high academic standards by concentrating on contextual, applied, and focused learning. The underlying goal of STW is to provide graduating students with an educational background that creates options for college, training, or a well-paying job out of high school ( National STW Information Learning Center, 2001 ).
School-to-work relies on students actively applying challenging classroom content within contexts such as internships and work-based training via community-based partnerships, thus connecting theory and praxis. In Ohio's STW frameworks specifically, students connect theory and practice by achieving high academic expectations while gaining career exposure via business and industry tours and career mentoring ( National STW Information Learning Center, 2001 ).
Since the termination of STW federal funding, the state of Ohio and its local partners hope to achieve several STW objectives. These objectives consist of (a) promoting in-school curricular approaches that bring work and career issues in the classroom, (b) building connections through curriculum integration, contextual teaching and learning, work-based learning and internships, and (c) providing work-based strategies for increasing academic and occupational skills ( School-to-Work Systems Integration Coalition, 1999 ).
To assist preservice teacher educators in preparing competent teachers, efforts to continue the STW mission must address Ohio's educational mission and guidelines for teacher education. Following the priorities of Ohio's Schools of the Future, teacher preparation must align with initiatives such as Standards for Ohio's Schools, Goals 2000, and STW_all of which maintain the goals of improving children's learning and seeking innovation in the teaching and learning process. School-to-work can provide a plan for organizing the academic and skill-based foci within formal educational environments and can provide the framework for preparing teachers who perform successfully within these environments. Further, STW focuses on principles of applied learning, which directly addresses Ohio's teaching priority that links knowing and doing. Additionally, STW addresses Ohio's priority to increase collaboration with other teachers and the business community, as well as the use of a variety of teaching methods to foster student success ( chool-to-Work Systems Integration Coalition, 1999 ).
Empirical research findings highlight the success of STW in regions throughout the country. Numerous studies indicated that students who participated in STW programs displayed higher academic achievement, lower dropout rates, and higher attendance and graduation rates than those who did not participate. Additionally, data in some areas of the country showed higher academic achievement in math and English, improved attendance rates, and higher college enrollment rates, particularly for students of color ( Dembicki, 1998 ).
A notable STW success existed in the creation of numerous successful business partnerships between local school systems and the business community. The success of these partnerships was evident in the high levels of support shown by members of the business community who tended to stay with STW programs even when the economy was struggling. The creation of successful business relationships, along with many other successes, appeared congruent in studies conducted throughout the country ( Dembicki, 1998 ).
This study was spearheaded by a two-year STW project conducted by the Ohio State University of Education Deans, the Ohio Board of Regents, and the Ohio Department of Education, to encourage the integration of STW into preservice teacher education programs throughout the state. The first phase of the project, implemented in 1997, created a framework for integrating STW into the preservice curriculum for all new teachers in Ohio. The second phase of the project provided evidence of successful STW integration practices in preservice teacher education programs in Ohio. The objectives and results of the previous project provided groundwork for continuing STW research efforts in Ohio and paved the way for the current research endeavor_a continuation of the efforts of the earlier project.
To date, evidence of STW success has been primarily anecdotal with little hard data available to measure lasting change ( Dembicki, 1998 ). For this reason, research that focuses on successfully preparing future teachers to utilize and apply STW within their classrooms may expand the current body of STW research. Further, because future teachers will be responsible for continuing STW practices now that the initiative no longer exists in its current form, it is important that they understand, utilize, and apply STW concepts within tomorrow's classrooms.
Ultimately, the successful preparation of future teachers lies in the hands of preservice teacher educators. To adequately prepare Ohio's future teachers for STW implementation, preservice teacher educators must possess knowledge of STW and display an ability to utilize and implement its components within teacher preparation courses. A determination of their current knowledge levels must first be ascertained and is necessary to create professional development activities that can be used to prepare preservice teacher educators for STW implementation. The purpose of the study was to determine the perceived knowledge level and utilization of school-to-work strategies among full-time, preservice teacher educators in colleges of education and to determine their perceived application of comprehensive school-to-work frameworks within teacher preparation programs. Three questions guided this study: 1. What do preservice teacher educators perceive as their knowledge level of school-to-work? 2. At what level do preservice teacher educators perceive they use school-to-work within teacher preparation courses? 3. To what extent do preservice teacher educators perceive they prepare preservice teachers to use school-to-work? Answers to these questions may serve as the basis for determining professional development needs among college of education preservice teacher educators. From there, professional development opportunities can be provided to meet those needs.
Method
InstrumentationThis descriptive study examined a population of full-time preservice teacher education faculty, teaching at least one professional education course required within a teacher education major at a publicly funded state university in Ohio. To identify members of the target population, a list of 13 state universities was obtained from the State University Education Deans (SUED), a voluntary association that has supported college of education STW initiatives for several years. Comprehensive lists of preservice teacher education faculty from the teaching specialties of early childhood education, career and technical education, multi-age education, intervention specialist education, and adolescent to young adult education, teaching no less than one course required within the teacher education major, were obtained from the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Deans or department chairs from Colleges of Education, or faculty members within the identified colleges. The final list consisted of 359 preservice teacher educators. All members were included in the target population.
Data Collection and AnalysisA review of the latest STW literature was conducted to assist with the development of a cross-sectional survey. Survey items originated from the national STW template. The template identifies the key components essential to a STW system ( National STW Learning & Information Center, 1999 ). The national STW template consists of approximately 50 school-based, work-based, and connecting activities components that can be used to build a state STW system. The survey included 21 STW components that were pulled directly or condensed from components found on the national STW template. These 21 components were selected based on their direct application to postsecondary teacher preparation.
Each of the 21 STW survey components addressed school-based activities, work-based activities, or connecting activities. The instrument also included two open-ended questions to determine exposure to STW through previous professional development activities. Six demographic questions were also included so that further analysis could be used to identify potential relationships between the 21 STW components and teaching institutions, teaching specialties, years of experience, and genders of preservice teacher educators.
For each STW survey component, preservice teacher educators were asked to address the three following questions: (a) What is your perceived knowledge level of this STW concept? (Knowledge of STW), (b) How often do you use the concept in your own teaching? (Utilization of STW), and (c) To what extent do you prepare students to utilize STW concepts? (Preparation for use of STW). These survey questions align with the major research questions in this study.
Respondents rated each component using a Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 to 5. A score of 5 indicated being very knowledgeable, frequently using, and extensively preparing students to use the various STW components. A score of 3 indicated being somewhat knowledgeable, occasionally using, or somewhat preparing students to use STW components. A score of 1 indicated having little knowledge, never using, or not preparing students to use the STW components. A numerical score of 2 and 4 did not include a specific scale description and were left to the interpretation of respondents.
A review team consisting of faculty who worked closely with STW in the state of Ohio and members of the granting agency who provided funding for the research reviewed the survey. The team reviewed the survey's content and provided suggestions regarding items to add, delete, or rearrange. The review process established the instrument's content-validity. The survey was pilot-tested by 26 preservice teacher educators who were also asked to react to the content and structure of the survey. Results from the pilot-test led to final revisions. Using the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient, the internal reliability of the final instrument was calculated at .94.
The cover letter and survey were mailed to all 359 preservice teacher educators identified at the participating universities. The survey contained a five-digit identification code that was used to assure confidentiality and to identify nonrespondents for follow-up activities.
The first mailing elicited response from 119 preservice teacher educators for a return rate of 33.0%. Four weeks later, a follow-up mailing was sent to all nonrespondents. The second survey mailing elicited a response from 26 additional preservice teacher educators. After removing nine incomplete surveys, 136 surveys were analyzed, resulting in a final response rate of 39.0%.
Because the desired percentage rate was not achieved from the first and second mailings, a survey of nonrespondents was conducted to determine if teacher educators who initially responded to the survey scored significantly different from nonrespondents. Wunsch (1986) cites a 10.0% response rate as "all that can be expected" (p. 33) when surveying nonrespondents. Accordingly, 10% of the nonrespondent population-22 preservice teacher educators-was surveyed by phone. To determine whether significant differences existed between initial respondents and nonrespondents t -tests were conducted. Results showed no significant differences between the mean scores of respondents and nonrespondents. Nonrespondent surveys were not used in the study.
Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation scores, were calculated for the 21 STW components identified on the survey. I calculated statistics to determine the perceived knowledge level, and utilization of STW components by preservice teacher educators, as well as the extent to which they prepared future teachers to use those components. Additional analysis was conducted to determine if preservice teacher educator demographics had any effect.
Findings
On the survey, data for each of the three research questions elicited mean scores on the 21 survey components. To clearly present the data, mean scores for each of the three research questions were averaged to obtain one averaged mean score for each of the 21 survey components. Table 1 presents the 21 components in ranked order from the highest to lowest average mean score.
TABLE 1
The perceived knowledge level, preparation, and utilization of school-to-work concepts by preservice teacher educators ( N =136)
School-to-work concept Average M for 3 questions *
1. Teaching to diversity 4.31 2. Collaborative/cooperative learning 4.18 3. Developmentally appropriate practices 4.15 4. Authentic assessment 4.02 5. Education standards 4.01 6. Contextual teaching and learning 3.86 7. Interdisciplinary teaching and learning 3.85 8. Project-based learning 3.80 9. Multiple intelligences 3.79 10. Problem-based learning 3.76 11. Self-regulated learning 3.59 12. SCANS skills 3.59 13. Team teaching with other faculty 3.49 14. Service learning 2.91 15. Partnerships with business and other community 2.80 organizations 16. Connecting school-based and work-based activities 2.79 17. Work-based learning 2.71 18. Collaborating with employers 2.56 19. STW in general 2.49 20. STW resources 2.20 21. Ohio's STW initiative 1.99
Notes . Survey questions_What is your perceived knowledge level of this STW component? [5=Very knowledgeable, 3=Somewhat knowledgeable, 1=Not knowledgeable]. How often do you use the STW component in your own teaching? [5= Frequently, 3=Occasionally, 1=Never]. To what extent do you prepare students to utilize this STW component? [5=I extensively prepare students, 3=I somewhat prepare students, 1=I do not prepare students]. Likert-scale scores of 4 and 2 had no scale description and were left to the interpretation of the respondent.
The highest mean scores on the survey ranged between 4.00 and 5.00. According to faculty responses, the following STW components are within this category: (a) teaching to diversity, (b) collaborative/cooperative learning, (c) developmentally appropriate practices, (d) authentic assessment, and (e) education standards. Based on the perceptions of these preservice teacher educators, these are the STW components are those in which they were most knowledgeable, utilized the most, and prepared students to utilize the most.
The STW components for which preservice teacher educators perceived they were somewhat knowledgeable, occasionally utilized, and somewhat prepared students to utilize, produced mean scores from 3.00 to 3.99. These STW components were (a) contextual teaching and learning, (b) interdisciplinary teaching and learning, (c) project-based learning, (d) multiple intelligences, (e) problem-based learning, (f) self-regulated learning, (g) SCANS skills, and (h) team teaching with other faculty.
Several survey components elicited mean scores ranging between 2.00 and 2.99. These numerical scores fell within the categories of somewhat knowledgeable to unknowledgeable, occasionally utilizing to not utilizing, and somewhat preparing students to not preparing students to utilize STW components. The following STW components are included in this category: (a) service learning, (b) partnerships with business and other community organizations, (c) connecting school-based and work-based activities, (d) work-based learning, (e) collaborating with employers, (f) STW in general, and (g) STW resources. Teacher educators recognized, but were not familiar with these STW components.
The lowest mean scores for preservice teacher educators ranged between 1.00 and 1.99. The STW component in this range is entitled "Ohio's School-to-Work Initiative." Based on means, Ohio's preservice teacher educators felt they knew little, never utilized, and did not prepare students to utilize this STW component.
Data were further analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). An ANOVA test was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between several independent and dependent variables. Independent variables were gender, years of experience, teaching institution, and teaching specialty. Dependent variables were responses to the three STW survey questions that sought information about preservice teacher educators' knowledge of STW, utilization of STW, and preparation to use STW. Table 2 shows ANOVA results.
TABLE 2
Analysis of variance results
Independent Knowledge of Utilization of Preparation to variables STW STW use STW
df F p F p F p
Gender 6 0.02 .90 0.01 .94 0.33 .57 Years experience 6 0.87 .49 0.95 .44 1.06 .38 Teaching institution 6 0.63 .78 0.89 .55 1.13 .35 Teaching specialty 6 2.38 .04* 2.02 .08 1.93 .10
* p < .05
Analysis of variance produced no significant differences within the gender, years of experience, and teaching institution variables for each of the three survey questions. The test also did not detect significant differences within the teaching specialty variable as it related to the two survey questions that focused on utilization of STW and preparation of students to utilize STW. However, the test detected a pattern of significant difference within the teaching specialty variable for the survey question addressing the knowledge of STW.
Post hoc tests were conducted to locate where significant differences existed within the teaching specialty variable. Using Tukey's studentized range test and a t -test comparison of means, knowledge of STW scores were significantly different for faculty in career and technical education and multi-age teaching specialties. Career and technical education teachers' scores were significantly different from teachers within the specialties of early childhood education, adolescent to young adult education, and intervention specialist education. Additionally, faculty within multi-aged education scored significantly different from faculty within the intervention specialist education teaching specialty (see Table 3).
TABLE 3
General linear models procedure: t-test comparison of means for survey area entitled "Knowledge of STW"
Teaching specialty Lower Difference Upper area comparison confidence between confidence limit means limit
Vocational_Early childhood 0.086 1.30 2.509* Vocational_Adolescent to young adult 0.307 1.49 2.663* Vocational_Intervention specialist 0.382 1.60 2.817* Multi-age_Intervention specialist .011 0.55 1.087*
Notes . Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level. This comparison controls for Type I comparison-wise error rate not experiment-wise error rate. Confidence=0.95, df =6.
Data were also analyzed to determine preservice teacher educators' previous training with STW concepts. Preservice teacher educators were asked, "Have you received previous training for implementing STW concepts?" Thirty-six educators responded yes to the survey item, 101 responded no. Scores were then compared using analysis of variance.
The scores of preservice teacher educators who responded yes to the items scored significantly different (at the p<.01 level )on all three questions-knowledge of STW, F(3, 133=18.74; utilization of STW, F(3,133)=11.60; and preparation of students to utilize STW, F(3,133)=10.73-than preservice teacher educators who responded no to survey items.
What is significant is that the survey findings showed that more preservice teacher educators from the career and technical education teaching specialty had received previous STW training than did preservice teacher educators from other teaching specialties. This may be an indication of why results showed they were more versed on STW concepts than educators from other teaching specialties.
Conclusions
The Ohio preservice teacher educators in this study were most knowledgeable in areas that closely associated with academics, instructional pedagogy and theory, and state and national educational agendas. High mean scores on STW survey components such as teaching to diversity, interdisciplinary teaching/learning, education standards, and developmentally appropriate practices, suggest that educators are aware of the educational trends inherent within university environments today. Additionally, because these topics have been highly publicized in educational publications and in the media, they served as the focus of professional development activities at the university level.
Relatively high means scores for the contextual teaching and learning and authentic assessment survey components and average scores for project-based, problem-based, and self-regulated learning components suggest that preservice teacher educators are very familiar with contextual teaching and learning and somewhat familiar with associated concepts. This finding may be attributable to the state and national focus, and the positive national reception of contextual teaching and learning and associated concepts. Findings also suggest that preservice teacher educators have been provided with some professional development activity and resources that familiarize them with these concepts, but may not have necessarily been prepared to implement them within their teacher education programs.
Ohio's preservice teacher educators were less knowledgeable of, less likely to utilize, and less likely to prepare students to utilize the work-based and connecting components of STW. This is evident from their indicated lack of knowledge of STW components such as work-based learning, connecting school-based and work- based activities, and school-to-work resources. Additionally, they indicated that they did not apply these concepts within their own classrooms. Typically, teachers outside of the teaching concentration of career and technical education do not work closely with work-based education. Because of an inconsistent association with these concepts, they are simply not a focus of the professional development activities that are provided for preservice teacher educators within these areas.
It is important to stress the low mean scores that were obtained for the survey components focusing on employer collaboration and business and community partnerships. These survey components serve as major connecting activities of STW. Ironically, previous research indicated that partnerships between school districts and business industries were one of the strongest aspects of STW and provided one of its most positive outcomes ( Dembicki, 1998 ). It is likely that Ohio's preservice teacher educators who are not involved in career and technical education do not understand the powerful learning opportunities that business collaborations can provide for students. It is also likely that educators have not received training that would assist them in establishing successful collaborations and effectively integrating them into courses that prepare future teachers.
Career and technical educators' mean scores indicated a higher knowledge level of the work-based, connecting, and structural components of STW than did the scores of preservice teacher educators in other teaching specialties throughout Ohio. Additionally, career and technical educators indicated more than other educators that they had received some STW training. This denotes the work force preparation emphasis that is prevalent in the career and technical teaching concentration and highlights the importance career and technical educators place on adequately preparing students to successfully enter the world of work.
Overall, Ohio's preservice teacher educators appeared to be the least knowledgeable of the structural components of STW. Furthermore, they seemed to know little about the national School-to-Work initiative and STW resources. Ultimately, they knew least about Ohio's School-to-Work initiative. It is evident that preservice teacher educators in Ohio are unfamiliar with the structural components of school-to-work and unaware of the focus of Ohio's School-to-Work initiative and mission. Although they have heard of the concepts and mission, they are unfamiliar with their meaning, as well as what the concepts entail.
Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
Ohio's preservice teacher educators involved in this research endeavor indicated that they are very knowledgeable of the academic, school-based, and contextual teaching and learning components of STW. A focus on these STW aspects has proven successful in educating youngsters throughout the country and should continue to be a focus of professional development activity. Because Ohio's preservice teacher educators are less familiar with the structural components, the work-based components, and the connecting activities of STW, these areas warrant professional development focus.
Without first addressing Ohio's STW mission and clearly identifying how that mission fits into teacher preparation, professional development activities that focus on STW may be futile. Career and technical educators hold a key to continuing Ohio's STW mission and can not only spread the knowledge of that mission, but can also communicate the valuable concepts that help improve teacher education programs. Based on the emphasis that is placed on achieving Ohio's mission through professional development, it is imperative that those career and technical educators who are involved in professional development activity assist preservice teacher educators in developing a working knowledge of the STW initiatives that have proven successful, as well as those that can be used to prepare future teachers.
Professional development activity must then focus on specific methods for integrating STW concepts into the teacher education curriculum. This means specific instruction for integrating the successful aspects of STW into the teaching specialties at each university. There should be an additional connection showing educators how STW components can assist students with academic achievement and with passing Ohio's proficiency tests.
With society's need to adequately prepare students to successfully enter and thrive in the 21st century work force, methods for articulating links between school and work should be emphasized in professional development. Ohio's preservice teacher educators should be instructed on new models for preparing future teachers to educate their students using a workforce integration emphasis. Additionally, professional development activities should focus on developing and utilizing collaboration and community partnerships. Although collaboration means different things to different educators, educators should at least be aware of the valuable educational tools that outside resources can provide and should know how to effectively use community partnerships and collaboration as a context for enhancing the learning environment of all students.
Although funding has ended, STW will continue in other forms. Future national and state STW structures should be clearly delineated and presented to all teacher educators responsible for preparing teachers. Professional development should be used to educate preservice teacher educators within colleges of education regarding STW structure, work-based components, and connecting activities.
References
Bruner, J. (1966) . Toward a theory of instruction . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Center for the Teaching Profession. (2001, February 1). Mission statement from the Office of Educators Preparation . Ohio Department of Education.
Berns, R. (1997) . A framework for integrating School-to-Work into pre-service teacher education programs. Bowling Green State University, State University Education Deans.
Dembicki, M. (1998) . Mid-term review. Techniques , 73(8), 18-21.
Dembicki, M. (1998). Interview with Stephanie Powers. Techniques , 78(8), 28-30.
Dewey, J. (1941) . The world's great thinkers: The social philosophers . New York: Random House.
Gardner, H. (1983) . Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligence . New York: Basic Books.
Hettinger, J. (1998) . The buck stops soon. Techniques , 73(8), 22-24.
Educator's Resource Center. Characteristics of a high-quality teacher preparation program. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
National School-to-Work Learning & Information Center. (1999) . School-to-work [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from http://stw.ed.gov/general/whatis.htm
National School-to-Work Learning and Information Center. (2001) . OHIO School-to-Work Opportunities-1999 profile . Retrieved from http://stw.ed.gov/general/ ohiostw.htm
National School-to-Work Learning & Information Center. (2001) . School-to-Work template . Retrieved from http://www.stw.ed.gov/factsht/templtoc.htm
O'Conner, P. (1998) . Integrating school-to-work principles in teacher education programs at Kent State University . Kent State University, State University Education Deans.
Parnell, D. (1995) . Why do I have to learn this? Waco, TX: Cord.
School-to-Work Systems Integration Coalition, Preservice teacher education framework project. (1999) . A framework for integrating school-to-work into preservice teacher education programs . Columbus, OH: Author.
Wunsch, K. R. (1986, February) . Action research in business education. Forum Feature , pp. 31-34.
JEWEL EVANS HAIRSTON is a 4-H Youth Development Specialist, Virginia State University, Box 9081, Petersburg, VA 23806. e-mail: jhairsto@vsu.edu