4
AT ODDS Technology Education: A Contemporary Perspective While the authors agree with much in the June 2007 article by James Howlett and Brad Hujf, they want to emphasize that "industrial arts'' has been largely replaced by "technology education,'' a much broader curriculum aimed at all students in all grades. BY LEN S. LiïOWiïZ AND SCOTT A. WARNER T HE puzzling title ofthe subject line on the e-mail read, "Is This Progress?" At- tached was an electronic copy of a recent Kappan article titled "Industrial Arts/ Technology: What Are We Doing?" (June 2007). For many years now, those of us within the technology education profes- sion have argued that we need to stop talking to ourselves and start taking our message both to the broader community of educators and to the pub- lic at large. As recently as mid-June of 2007, the lead- ership ofthe International Technology Education As- sociation (ITEA) had discussed the possibility of ap- proaching the Kappan about publishing an article on LEN S. LITOWITZ is a professor in the Department of Industry & Technology at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Millen- ville, and president ofthe International Technology Education As- sociatioti. SCOTT A. WARNER is an assistant professor in the De- partmait of Industry & Technobgy at Millersville University and a member ofthe ÏTEA Board of Directors. ¡mage: PhotoSpIn contemporary technology education. So it was with both surprise and excitement that we found the arti- cle by James Howlett and Brad Huff attached to our e-maii. After reading the article, the subject line ofthe e-mail made sense. Howlett and Huff made two excellent points. The first is the strong relationship between basic skills in math and reading and such technical skills as ma- chining, drafting, and working with electricity or elec- tronics. The second is the notion that the public school curriculum is fast being turned into a two-subject cur- riculum courtesy of No Child Left Behind. Beyond those key points, though, the article portrayed an over- ly vocational vision of technology education that left us —- and the rest ofthe leadership of our profession — feeling that a grand opportunity to explain the valuable role that technology education can play as part of the general public school curriculum had been wasted. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, INDUSTRIAL ARTS, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION To better understand our disappointment with what Howlett and Huff presented under the label of "indus- trial arts/technology," it would be helpful to provide some historical and philosophical perspective on the differ- ences betw^n vocational education, industrial arts, and technology education. To the layperson, the terms vocational education and technology education seem closely related, perhaps even synonymous. However, a closer examination of typical defmitions shows that they are very different. Eor ex- ample, the legislature in Washington State provided the following definition of vocational education: MARCH 2008 519

technology education a contemporary perspective

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Citation preview

Page 1: technology education a contemporary perspective

AT ODDS

Technology Education:A Contemporary PerspectiveWhile the authors agree with much in the June 2007 article by

James Howlett and Brad Hujf, they want to emphasize that "industrialarts'' has been largely replaced by "technology education,'' a much broadercurriculum aimed at all students in all grades.

BY LEN S. LiïOWiïZ AND SCOTT A. WARNER

THE puzzling title ofthe subject line onthe e-mail read, "Is This Progress?" At-tached was an electronic copy of a recentKappan article titled "Industrial Arts/Technology: What Are We Doing?" (June2007). For many years now, those of uswithin the technology education profes-sion have argued that we need to stop

talking to ourselves and start taking our message bothto the broader community of educators and to the pub-lic at large. As recently as mid-June of 2007, the lead-ership ofthe International Technology Education As-sociation (ITEA) had discussed the possibility of ap-proaching the Kappan about publishing an article on

• LEN S. LITOWITZ is a professor in the Department of Industry& Technology at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Millen-ville, and president ofthe International Technology Education As-sociatioti. SCOTT A. WARNER is an assistant professor in the De-partmait of Industry & Technobgy at Millersville University and amember ofthe ÏTEA Board of Directors.

¡mage: PhotoSpIn

contemporary technology education. So it was withboth surprise and excitement that we found the arti-cle by James Howlett and Brad Huff attached to oure-maii.

After reading the article, the subject line ofthe e-mailmade sense. Howlett and Huff made two excellent points.The first is the strong relationship between basic skillsin math and reading and such technical skills as ma-chining, drafting, and working with electricity or elec-tronics. The second is the notion that the public schoolcurriculum is fast being turned into a two-subject cur-riculum courtesy of No Child Left Behind. Beyondthose key points, though, the article portrayed an over-ly vocational vision of technology education that leftus —- and the rest ofthe leadership of our profession —feeling that a grand opportunity to explain the valuablerole that technology education can play as part of thegeneral public school curriculum had been wasted.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, INDUSTRIAL ARTS,AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

To better understand our disappointment with whatHowlett and Huff presented under the label of "indus-trial arts/technology," it would be helpful to provide somehistorical and philosophical perspective on the differ-ences betw^n vocational education, industrial arts, andtechnology education.

To the layperson, the terms vocational education andtechnology education seem closely related, perhaps evensynonymous. However, a closer examination of typicaldefmitions shows that they are very different. Eor ex-ample, the legislature in Washington State provided thefollowing definition of vocational education:

MARCH 2008 519

Page 2: technology education a contemporary perspective

The term "vocational education" means a planned seriesof learning experiences, the specific objective of which isto prepare individuals for gainful employment as semi-skilled or skilled workers or technicians or sub-profession-als in recognized occupations and in new and emergingoccupations.'

In contrast, the Standards for Technological Literacydefined technoiogy education as "a study of technology,which provides an opportunity for students to learnabout the processes and knowledge related to technol-ogy that are needed to solve problems and extend hu-man capabilities."' This same document also advocatedthat all students in K-12 can become technologicallyliterate and should be given the opportunity to do so.It provided an intellectual framework, spanning the K-l 2system, for the study of the human-made world (i.e.,technology) that included medical, agricultural, and re-lated biotechnologies, as well as energy and power, in-formation and communication, transportation, manu-facturing, and construction technologies.

From these vantage points, it becomes clear that vo-cational education focuses on trade preparation, where-as technology education is broader in terms of content{the study of major technological sectors in the human-made world) and its intended audience (all students atall grade levels).

Arguably, the relationship between industrial artsand technology eduaition is more complex. Industrialarts was the predecessor to technology education. Theterm industrial arts first appeared in the literature in1904, when Charles Richards, editor o^Manual Train-ing Magazine, proposed it. His suggestion for the namewas part of an editorial intended to redirect the edu-cational focus- of manual training. Richards believedthat the new field should draw its content from thestudy of industry.' It should not be surprising that thischange of name would happen when it did. At the be-ginning of the 20th century, the U.S. was fully into itssecond Industrial Revolution.' The eventual adoptionby most American public school districts of industrialarts as a component of the general curriculum was aclear indication of the importance of the economic, so-cial, and culttiral influences of industry throughout mostof the last century.

Yet even during the years of rapid expansion of in-dustrial arts as a recognized and accepted subject area,there were leaders in the field who were beginning topromote the idea that the study of industry was stilltoo narrow. As early as the late 1920s, leaders in thefield were proposing that the broader study of technol-ogy would be a more appropriate educational undertak-ing. Nonetheless, the success of industrial axts would

continue relatively unabated for quite some time.It was not until the 1970s that the idea of studying

technology would finally establish a position in the fieldand start to take root. A benchmark work fi-om the early1980s thar established the conceptual foundation forthe transition from traditional industrial arts to tech-nology education was u\ç Jackson's A/z//document.^ Itrepresented the collective effort of dozens of leaders inthe field of industrial arts to rethink the content andeducational goals of the curriculum.

What grew from the seed of industrial arts and ef-forts such as úit Jackson's Mill document and the laterConceptual Framework for Technology Educatiori' was thecontemporary technology education movement. Thismovement espouses the broad study of technology. Inthe opening years of the 21st century, the impact oftechnology — for good and for ill — as the main ex-pression of human activity on the planet Earth is un-questionable. With this perspective in mind, our pro-fession wants to include technology education as a vi-tal component of the curriculum that every student inevery grade of public education receives. Our ultimategoal is to aid in developing technologically literate citi-zens who can make informed choices about the tech-nologies we use at both the personal and societal levels.

In moving toward this new mission, the curriculumof technology education does not give up on techni-cal content; rather, it changes the focus from a narrowband of skiils and knowledge for the industrial tradesto a much broader perspective. To be sure, technologyeducation courses still serve to expose students to suchtechnical industries as manufacturing and constmction,but only in a way akin to the way that English exposesstudents to careers in journalism or creative writing.

The difference is both subtle and dramatic. The subdechanges are often in the names of the courses that havebeen broadened to reflect contemporary industries andtechnologies. The more dramatic changes are in the na-ture of the courses themselves. For instance, a contem-porary computer-aided drafting course might targetnot just those who would like to explore drafting andtechnical drawing as a career, but also those who aspireto be engineers, architects, designers, or members ofany of a number of professions that recognize draftingand technical drawing as a fundamental language of thetechnical world.

Contemporary technology education assignments of-ten take the form of design briefs and require studentsto make use of tools and machines to solve real-worldproblems through hands-on, minds-on learning. Con-temporary technology education curricula foster crea-tivity, ingenuity, innovation, and inventiveness, all hall-

520 PHI DELTA KAPPAN

Page 3: technology education a contemporary perspective

marks of the American spirit. Contemporary technol-ogy education curricula offer sound support for theengineering community and other design professions,at a time when our nation "does not produce enoughtechnically skilled workers to support certain sectors ofits high-tech economy." Contemporary technologyeducation curricula help the next generations becometechnologically literate hy exploring all sides of keycontemporary issues. For instance, do robots in indus-try really eliminate more jobs than they create? Are hy-brid vehicles really bener for the environment than gas-oline-powered vehicles? Is the use of more nuclear powergeneration desirable or even inevitable?

Furthermore, contemporary technology educationcurricula serve to enhance the development of such coresubjects as mathematics, science, and reading by add-ing variety, relevance, and purpose to a student's aca-demic program of study. We agree with Howlett andHuff that, to address standardized testing mandates,modifications to the curriculum in many districts havemade expendable or curtailed the growth of subjea areasnot directly related to the testing mandate, such as tech-nology education, art, music, and many others. These,subjects add richness and meaning to the process oflearning in the schools both because of their contentand because of the varied instructional approaches thatcan often he used to deliver content in these areas. Wewould call this a prime example of killing the patientto cure the disease.

DRIVING INTO THE FUTURE

We agree with Howlett and Huff when they con-tend that our public school curriculum is being nar-rowed by legislation and the mandates for standardizedtesting. We also support their acknowledgment of astrong link between technical skills and skills in read-ing and math.

Unfortunately, we must part wzys with Howlett andHuff on just about every other aspect of their messageto the readership of the Kappan. The curriculum of in-dustrial arts served its purpose when the United Stateswas focused on an industry-based economy. Those daysare past, and now we must look ahead to a different typeof future, one that is still filled with the technologicalartifacts of human ingenuity and creativity, but onethat has in large part moved beyond the industries ofthe last century.

The profession of industrial arts saw that futureand decided to move forward. When the professionmade the move toward the study of technology as thecurricular focus, the identifying label of "industrial

arts" was relegated to its rightful place in the historybooks of education. Technology education came intobeing as an identified subject of study in the 1980s.Nationwide, technology education curricula have beenreplacing industrial arts curricula for over 20 years. Asfurther evidence of the scope of that change, no na-tional or state organization and almost no undergrad-uate teacher preparation program in the nation still usesthe term industrial arts in its name.

Thomas Wright was a national leader in industrialarts during the years of transition to technology edu-cation. He would frequendy tell his graduate studentsthat it was important that the profession not "drive in-to its future while staring into the rearview mirror."That image summarizes our feeling toward those whoare still advocating an industrial arts currictilum modelthat is dated and obsolete. As members of the currentleadership of the International Technology EducationAssociation, we felt that it was a matter of critical im-portance for Kappan readers to be aware that contem-porary technology education curricula are different fromthe outdated industrial arts model and represent a val-uable asset in any forward-looking general educationcurriculum. Technology education provides all studentswith opportunities and experiences to develop techno-logical literacy. It is for this reason that technology edu-cation should be a part of every student's intellectualdiet as he or she moves through school.

Finally, as educators, parents, citizens, and membersof the human race, it is important for all of us to re-member that our technological world will only becomemore so with the passage of time. Providing all suidentswith the tool of technological literacy is perhaps the bestgift that we can give to prepare the next generationsfor what lies ahead.

1. Access Washington, "'Vocational Education' Defined," hnp://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/defau!t.aspx?(;lte=72.62.020.

2. Suindards for Techiwb^cal Literary: Content for the Study ofTechnology(Reston, Va.: International Technology Education Association, 2000).

3. Donald Smith, "Industrial Arcs Founded," in Richard Barella and R.Thomas Wright, eds.. An Interpretive History of IncUistrial Arts: The bi-terrelatiomhip of Society, Education, and Indjistrial Arts (Bloomington,111.: McKnight. 1981)." pp. 165-204.

4. Joel Mokyr, "The Second Industrial Revoliiriori, 1870-1914," http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/-jmokyr/castronovo.pdt, 1998.

5. james F. Snyderand James A. Ha\es,Jackson'sMillIndustriaiArts Cur-riculum Theory (Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education,1981).

6. Leonard Sterry and Ernest Savage, A Conceptúa! Framework for Tech-nology Education (Reston, Va.: International Technology Education As-sociation, 1991}.

7. Greg Pearson and A, Thomas Young, eds,, Technically Speaking: WhyAll Americans Need to Know More About 7¿'fA«o/o¿)'(Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press, 2002), p. 42. K

MARCH 2008 521

Page 4: technology education a contemporary perspective