ERIC EJ670891: A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education: A Historical Perspective.

3 Pages·2002·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

98 both felt that the front end material of the provide a framework for the study of
Jackson’s Mill document was timeless but technology in the 1990s.
s that the content organizers and processes AConceptual Framework for Technology
e
di were beginning to become dated. Also, we Education endorsed the human adaptive
u
St felt that the field was beginning to ask, systems and domains of knowledge of the
y
g “What comes after Jackson’s Mill?” Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum
o
ol Certainly the work that Tom Wright Theory(Snyder & Hales, 1981) while also
n
ch spearheaded with the Chicago 10 focusing on the human as a problem solver
e
T Curriculum Implementation Project who, through the application of the
al of operationalized Jackson’s Mill, but it could technological method model, could identify
n go no further than the work that it was and address problems and opportunities and
r
u
o attempting to “hang” a curriculum upon. solve problems using resources and
J
e Atthe Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher technological processes while considering
h
T Education conference that following the outcomes and consequences of such
November, we approached Gene Martin for activity. The significant contributions of this
his perspective regarding the possibility of document are the listing of the universal
having the Technical Foundation of America attributes of technology; the comparison of
(TFA) fund such an effort. Due to his the features of the body of knowledge of
encouragement to us to submit a proposal, technology to the features of science and the
the TFA funded our effort and allowed us humanities/arts (see Figure 1); the
to begin the process at the ITEA conference development of the technological method
the following spring of selecting 25 leaders model (see Figure 2) and its “spin-off”—a
in the field to participate. Tom Erekson, model for technology education (see Figure
Tom Wright, and Kendall Starkweather 3); the inclusion of a broader base of content
served as trustees for the project and assisted for the study of technology: the recognition
greatly in the selection process. Walter of educational philosophies and bodies of
Waetjen served as facilitator for each session, knowledge related to technology, science,
and Len Sterry and I served as codirectors. and the arts/humanities (see Figure 4);
Among the participants, there were identification of the methodological and
representatives from 15 states, 18 colleges content characteristics of a quality
or universities, 2 state departments of technology education program; and a
education, 1 high school, and 1 national process model for a course of study. As with
organization. The commitment of the any document of this kind, it was recognized
participants was to meet for three 3-day that this work represented a new departure
periods to create a product that would or “paradigm shift” for our profession.
Dr. Ernest N. Savage, dean and
professor of the College of
Technology, Bowling Green State
University, is the trustee of Alpha
Gamma Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.
A Conceptual Frame-
work for Technology
Figure 3. A model for technology
Education: A education.
Figure 1. Features of bodies of
Historical Perspective
knowledge.
The idea for A Conceptual Framework
for Technology Education (Savage & Sterry,
1990) came about as a result of a walk
between conference venues at the Tulsa
International Technology Education
Association (ITEA) conference in 1988.
Len Sterry and I were discussing the changes
that were occurring in the professions of
Figure 4. Examples of
technology and the inability of the Figure 2. The technological educational philosophy and
professions to react to those changes. We method model. bodies of knowledge.
Context and Significance supported Wilbur’s (1948) definition of The Technological Method (Sterry) 99
A Conceptual Framework for Technology industrial arts, which was paraphrased in The technological method (Sterry) is
Education represents pieces and parts of Maley’s (1973) definition leading to the a model by which we “do” technology. By T
h
many curricular ideas, educational Maryland Plan. The Industrial Arts definition, technology is “know-how that J e
philosophies, and ideologies that preceded Curriculum Project (IACP; Towers, Lux, extends human capability.” It is more than uo
r
it. Figure 5 is an attempt to contextualize & Ray, 1966) also has some Warner just knowing; it is knowing and being able an
those parts. Any effort of this kind, and influence as does the American Industry to do! It is based on a human desire to o l
with the experts who were involved, will Project (Face & Flug, 1967). Both those produce an outcome. So how does it work? eT f
c
spring from a diverse and multigirded projects influenced the Jackson’s Mill As individuals, organizations, h
n
philosophical base. Of prominence is the effort which in turn influenced the countries, and a world community, we are olo
philosophy of social reconstructionism Conceptual Framework effort. Some constantly faced with challenges, problems, yg
S
which recognizes that the human, armed might say that this interpretation of our and opportunities. To address these t
u
with the knowledge of resources and curricular efforts has provided evidence challenges, we draw upon our individual eid
processes, can interact with necessary of the incestuous nature of our field. I and collective knowledge bases along with s
constituents to solve problems. The work find it difficult to deny that perspective. other resources to produce a desired result.
of Bonser almost 90 years ago (Andrews & With the exception of IACP and the When we are short of ability, we try to learn
Erickson, 1976) provided the framework for Standards for Technological Literacy more through research and study. As we
industrial arts focusing on technologies of Project (ITEA, 2000), there have never meet a challenge we usually create new
the home. This was in contrast to Selvidge’s been substantive funds to “go outside” of problems and opportunities. In the process
(1909) work that resulted in the Standards our field for different views of industry we also generate new knowledge that is
of Attainment for the Industrial Arts as part or technology. We are still in our infancy added to our collective knowledge pool.
of vocational education. Bonser’s as a discipline and, as such, are still trying And thus, the cycle continues,
perspective was modernized by Snedden and to determine what we want to be when exponentially.
Warner (1927) and then refocused to reflect we grow up.
the technologies of dominant industries by Technological Processes
Warner et al. (1952). Warner et al. also The body of technological knowledge,
Content That Reflects according to our frameworks and standards,
Technology includes our ability to manipulate matter
The coauthor of A Conceptual and information. According to Negroponte
Framework for Technology Education, Len (1995) in his book Being Digitaland other
Sterry, has reflected on the place that our curricular models, the world can be
document has in its linkage with classified as consisting of atoms and bits.
contemporary initiatives. With his Atoms account for the physical world of
permission, I am presenting his perspective living and nonliving matter while bits make
in the next several paragraphs. Note that Len up the world of information. Information
calls his model “the technological method,” and materials technology represent,
a potential for confusion on the part of the therefore, the know-how we apply to
reader, but Len was clear about his manipulating our world. These processing
commitment to the new model as his view concepts apply to all situations as we provide
of the evolving representation of technology. goods and services ranging from health care
Therefore, the term will be used with to automobiles, from entertainment to
(Sterry) tagged to the model for clarification structures, from travel to education, and
purposes. from family life to our global community.
The ITEA (2002) and its Technology They are fundamental processes that apply
for All Americans Project developed and universally. Therefore, they are concepts
Figure 5. Foundation for the published Standards for Technological that, if taught and understood by students,
conceptual framework. Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, will be transferable to many situations.
with funding from the National Science Conceptual understandings will also
Foundation and the National Aeronautics provide students with an ability to deal with
and Space Administration. Technology technological change in the future, both
content standards are designed to help personally and professionally. While
ensure that all students receive an effective information and materials technology could
education about technology by setting forth appear in the school program as
a consistent content for the study of technological systems of the designed world,
technology. More specifically, the standards these technologies are significant to the
include the nature of technology, technology extent that they will also be a major part of
and society, design, abilities for a designed the total curriculum design.
world, and the designed world. All five Technological processes are a result of
Figure 6. Technological method standard categories and all 20 standards are the knowledge domain in the technological
(Sterry) model. of equal importance. method. The processes usually include
100 processing information and processing • Tooling for production—Procuring References
matter/materials, both living and nonliving. or constructing the necessary Andrews, R., & Erickson, E. (1976). Teaching
s Depending on a person’s perspective, apparatus and equipment. industrial education: Principles and
e practices. Peoria, IL: Bennett.
di instrumentation is sometimes included as a • Actuating the process—Making it
u Face,W., & Flug, E. (1967). The establishment
St part of processing information and energy happen. of American industry as a traditional
gy is often separated from the bigger concept • Controlling production—Monitoring subject between general and vocational
o
ol of processing matter. In a practical sense, and adjusting the process. education. Menominee, WI: Stout State
hn either way will get the job done. Design is • Packaging—Containerizing the University, American Industry Project.
c
e International Technology Education
T sometimes considered as a universal product or service for protection,
al of technical concept and included as a appeal, and transport. Atescshoncoilaotgioicna.l (li2t0er0a0cy).: SCtoanntdeanrtd fso rfo trhe
n technological process. Again, this is not • Distributing—Marketing and study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
r
ou correct in a pure sense but does work well moving the product or service to Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital.
J
e as a practical application. storage or the consumer. New York: Knopf.
h Maley, D. (1973). The Maryland plan.
T • Maintaining—Servicing products
New York: Bruce.
Technological Systems and relationships. Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (1990). A conceptual
As stated earlier, Standards for Using these concepts as a framework, framework for technology education.
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study different technologies or systems can be Reston, VA: International Technology
Education Association.
of Technology (ITEA, 2000) identified seven outlined. Some examples include
Selvidge, R. W. (1909). Our unscientific
systems for the designed world. The U.S. communication; transportation; manu-
attitude. Presentation to the Manual
Department of Education identifies 16 facturing; construction; information; Arts Conference, Peoria, IL.
clusters associated with occupational materials; food and fiber; air, land, water, Snedden, D., & Warner, W. (1927).
education. Others have their own set of and environmental; energy; medical; and Reconstruction of industrial arts courses.
New York: Columbia University,
favorites. entertainment and media.
Teachers College.
The technological method (Sterry)
Summary Snyder, J., & Hales, J. (1981). Jackson’s Mill
model identifies a category of human Each of our efforts, if they continue to industrial arts curriculum theory.
adaptive technological systems that could Charleston: West Virginia Department
build on the works of our best thinkers and
include any number of systems, depending of Education.
doers, will contribute to the puzzle that will
Sterry, L., & Hendricks, R. (1999). Exploring
on how one might choose to organize this
become our recognized field of study. The technology. Menomonie, WI: T&E
part of the model. However, according
recommendations from the conceptual Publications.
to Sterry and Hendricks’ (1999) Exploring framework document sheds some light on Towers, E., Lux, D., & Ray, W. (1966). A
Technology, there are generic concepts that rationale and structure for industrial arts
our future. Among other things, they speak
apply to human adaptive technological subject matter. Columbus: The Ohio
to the need to be multidisciplinary in our
State University.
systems:
approach to technological literacy and our Warner, W., Gary, J., Gerbracth, C., Gilbert,
• Designing/determining products and
charge to provide essential knowledge at all H., Lisack, J., Kleinties, P., & Phillips,
services—Making decisions about levels of society, including the workforce. K. (1952). The curriculum to reflect
what product or service will be produced. Technology will never go away. We should technology. Columbus, OH: Epsilon
• Planning production—Determining assume that our field will ultimately become Pi Tau.
Wilber, G. (1948). Industrial arts in general
how the product or service will be recognized as an essential component of education. Scranton, PA: International
delivered. education for all learners. Textbook.
• Obtaining resources—Securing
materials, energy, personnel,
financing, and information.