ERIC EJ906152: Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Industrial Design Education

2009·0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Industrial Design
Education 47
Kenneth R. Phillips, Michael A. De Miranda, and Jinseup “Ted” Shin T
h
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
Abstract lines, Cochran, King, and DeRuiter (1991) lo
f
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has differentiated between a teacher and a content Te
c
been embraced by many of the recent education- specialist in the following manner: hn
o
al reform documents as a way of describing the Teachers differ from biologists, historians, log
knowledge possessed by expert teachers. These y
writers, or educational researchers, not S
t
reform documents have also served as guides for u
necessarily in the quality or quantity of their d
educators to develop models of teacher develop- subject matter knowledge, but in how that ies
ment. However, in the United States, few if any
knowledge is organized and used. For
of the current models accurately address the role
example, experienced science teachers’
of PCK in the development of industrial design
knowledge of science is structured from a
educators. This article introduces the concept of
teaching perspective and is used as a basis
PCK and how a taxonomy of essential industrial
for helping students to understand specific
design subject matter can be organized to serve
concepts. A scientist’s knowledge, on the
asacontent guide. The PCK model presented
other hand, is structured from a research
could serve as a catalyst for the field of industri-
perspectiveand is used as a basis for the
al design education to produce a conceptual
construction of newknowledge in the field
framework and taxonomy for the teaching of
(p. 5).
industrial design upon which future PCK studies
in industrial design education can be based. Geddis (1993) described PCK as a set of
These conceptual frameworks (or taxonomies) attributes that helped someone transfer the
help within a field to articulate the core knowl- knowledge of content to others. According to
edge, skills, and dispositions that define prac- Shulman, it includes "most useful forms of
tice. The interaction of teacher content knowl- representation of these ideas, the most powerful
edge in industrial design, pedagogical knowl- analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations,
edge, and context of industrial design is framed and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of
within a PCK taxonomy. representing and formulating the subject that
makeit comprehensible to others" (Shulman,
Introduction and Background
1987, p. 9).
Theoretical Framework
The notion of pedagogical content knowl-
In addition, Shulman (1987) suggested that
edge (PCK) was first introduced to the field of
PCK is made up of the attributes a teacher pos-
education by Lee Shulman in 1986 and a group
sess that help her/him guide students towards an
of research colleagues collaborating on the
understanding of specific content, such as indus-
Knowledge Growth in Teaching (KGT) project.
trial design, in a manner that is meaningful.
The focus of the project was to study a broader
Shulman argued that PCK included "an under-
perspective model for understanding teaching
standing of how particular topics, problems, or
and learning (Shulman & Grossman, 1988).
issues are organized, presented, and adapted to
Members of the KGT project studied both how
the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
novice teachers gained new understandings of
presented for instruction" (1987, p. 8). In light
their content and how these new understandings
of what industrial design educators should know
interacted with their teaching. The researchers of
and be able to do, Shulman (1987) might assert
the KGT project described PCK as the intersec-
that PCK is the best knowledge base of teaching
tion of three knowledge bases coming together
and suggested:
to inform teacher practice: subject matter knowl-
The key to distinguishing the knowledge
edge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of
base of teaching lies at the intersection of
context. PCK is described as knowledge that is
content and pedagogy, in the capacity of a
unique to teachers and separates, for example,
teacher to transform the content knowledge
an industrial design (ID) teacher/professor from
he or she possesses into forms that are
apracticing industrial designer.Along the same
pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive to standing of teaching and learning processes
the variations in ability and background independent of subject matter, pedagogical
48
presented by the students (p. 15). content knowledgerefers to knowledge about
es the teaching and learning of particular subject
udi Therefore, the intersection of industrial matter, taking into account its contextual learn-
t
S design content knowledge and the pedagogical ing demands. The rationale for doing this is
y
g
o knowledge of industrial design instructors, appropriately suggested by Geddis (1993):
ol
n depends on the ability of design educators to
h The outstanding teacher is not simply a
c
e transform this knowledge into a design rich
T ‘teacher,’but rather a ‘history teacher,’a
of adaptive instruction that unifies these elements
‘chemistry teacher,’or an ‘English teacher.’
al of PCK into successful instruction (Mishra &
rn While in some sense there are generic
u Koehler, 2006). Figure 1 helps to capture this
Jo teaching skills, many of the pedagogical
e complex relationship between content knowl-
h skills of the outstanding teacher are content-
T edge, knowledge of teaching, professional
specific. Beginning teachers need to learn
design context, and their interaction in an
not just ‘how to teach,’but rather ‘how to
instructional setting.
teach electricity,’how to teach world histo-
ry,’or ‘how to teach fractions.’(p. 675)
Figure 1 helps to conceptualize the complex
relationship between a teacher’s content knowl-
Additionally, one could add, ‘how to teach
edge in industrial design in addition to knowl-
concept visualization skills,’or ‘how to teach
edge required to infuse these concepts into
manufacturing processes,’or ‘how to teach
classroom instruction. This knowledge com-
computer aided design.’Obviously, the demands
bined with an instructor’sgeneral knowledge of
of learning about concept visualization skills are
pedagogy helps to contribute to a specialized
different from the demands of learning about
form of pedagogical knowledge in industrial
manufacturing processes. Good teachers are able
design education. In addition, the specialized
to carefully analyze the various sorts of content-
knowledge of industrial design is often highly
specific demands in each of these areas related
contextualized in the form of authentic applica-
to teaching industrial design.
tion to design problems that are relevant to pro-
fessional practice.
Each industrial design educator has a
unique knowledge of specific domains spanning
While content knowledgerefers to one’s
multiple content areas based on his/her
understanding of the subject matter,and
industrial experience. This professional experi-
pedagogical knowledgerefers to one’s under-
ence is what informs quality instruction when
Figure 1. Model of content knowledge, pedagogy, and context in industrial
design education.
combined with overall content knowledge and But surely advances in theory of a disci-
pedagogy. Quality design educators have come pline have only one purpose: to reflect back on,
49
to know the subject matter in industrial design, and improve, the practice of that discipline.
not only for the content itself, but also in terms Perhaps a productive path to travel is to examine Th
e
of its “teachability” and “learnability.” Shulman more critically the concept of PCK and what it J
o
(1986, p.9 ) conceptualized these as the “trans- means or could mean to the preparation of ur
n
formation of subject-matter knowledge into future industrial design educators. In addition, al
o
forms accessible to the students.” The implica- examining the notion of PCK can inform an f
T
e
tions for this in terms of quality industrial understanding of what is required to teach and c
h
n
design instruction will require this blending of infuse critical design concepts in the industrial o
lo
content knowledge, professional design context, design classroom. This will require those in the g
y
and knowledge of pedagogy. Geddis (1993) field of industrial design to move ahead of many St
u
informed us that “in order to be able to trans- technical fields in articulating a conceptual die
s
form subject matter content knowledge into a framework that supports a taxonomy of industri-
form accessible to students, teachers need to al design content knowledge; a task that may be
know a multitude of particular things about the close at hand.
content that are relevant to its teachability” (p.
676). Developing ways to do this is indeed the Why Taxonomies and Conceptual Frameworks
Matter in a PCK Model
creation of new knowledge of a type that charac-
Many have specific taxonomies to aid the
terizes the good teacher, and it is part of her/his
understanding of PCK within the content area.
professional skill. The design education commu-
For example, two explicit taxonomies are avail-
nity must recognize the requirement for teachers
able in science education literature, and there is
toinvent this new integrated knowledge.
aframework in technology education literature
The continued interest in PCK as an episte- that can help guide the emerging field of engi-
mological perspective in the preparation of neering and technology education in understand-
industrial design educators mayprovide an ing the PCK required to deliver meaningful
opportunity to frame and guide the transition of engineering content (McCormick & Yager,
industrial design professionals to becoming 1989; Neale & Smith, 1989, Lewis & Zuga,
industrial design educators. The PCK model 2005). Shulman (2002) advanced a taxonomyof
could serve as a catalyst for the field of industri- learning one can liken to the original work of
al design education to produce a conceptual Benjamin Bloom (1956) to extend a deeper
framework and taxonomy for the teaching of understanding of learning. In each case, a taxon-
industrial design upon which future PCK studies omy designed to organize content or concepts in
in industrial design education can be based. afield helped to stir discourse and clarify learn-
These conceptual frameworks (or taxonomies) ing and outcomes. Likewise there is a good base
help within a field to articulate the core knowl- of research literature on the categories that
edge, skills, and dispositions that define practice should be taught in industrial design, yet there is
(Travers, 1980). no current taxonomy or framework developed to
facilitate understanding the PCK required to
PCK and the Training of Industrial Design prepare industrial design professionals to suc-
Educators ceed as educators (Croston, 1998; NASAD,
Pedagogical content knowledge research 2008; Yeh, 1999). The development of such a
and its implications for design education have framework to guide what should be taught in
important messages for the teaching and learn- industrial design education could provide a basis
ing of industrial design and the infusion of for informing a quality industrial design educa-
design concepts into the curriculum. tor.The industrial design content literature and
Commenting on criteria used for evaluation of accreditation requirements like standards and
teaching in the 1980s, Shulman (1986, p.5 ) content schemes in other fields may provide a
asked,“Where did the subject matter go? What starting point for the development of such a con-
happened to the content?” Of course weshould ceptual framework and essential knowledge
attempt to advance educational theory, in the hierarchy to benefit the field (Koehler &
same waythat anyother discipline does “pure Mishra, 2008).
research.”
Accreditation and Guidelines for Industrial Design knowledge component of the PCK model. The
Education knowledge competencies include the following:
50
The accrediting body in the United States
s for industrial design programs is the National (a.) A foundational understanding of how
e
udi Association of Schools of Art and Design products work; how products can be
t
S (NASAD). NASAD is the only accrediting made to work better for people; what
y
g
o agency covering the field of art and design rec- makes products useful, usable, and
ol
n ognized by the U.S. Department of Education. desirable; how products are manufac-
h
c
e NASAD provides basic criteria for member tured; and how ideas can be presented
T
of institutions, general standards and guidelines for using state-of-the-art tools.
al all undergraduate degree programs in the visual
n
our arts and design, and standards and guidelines for (b.) Knowledge of computer-aided drafting
J
e specific professional degree programs, such as (CAD), computer-aided industrial
h
T industrial design. Industrial design education designs (CAID), and appropriate
involves a combination of the visual arts disci- two-dimensional and three-dimensional
plines and technology, utilizing problem-solving graphic software.
and communication skills.
(c.) Functional knowledge of basic busi-
Specific NASAD standards and guidelines ness practices, professional practice,
for industrial design programs include the fol- and the history of industrial design.
lowing.
(d.) The ability to investigate and synthe-
Curricular structure.Curricular structure, size the needs of marketing, sales,
content, and time requirements shall enable stu- engineering, manufacturing, servicing,
dents to develop the range of knowledge, skills, and ecological responsibilities and to
and competencies expected of those holding a reconcile these needs with those of the
professional baccalaureate degree in industrial user in terms of satisfaction, value,
design. Curricula to accomplish this purpose aesthetics, and safety. Industrial
normally adhere to the following guidelines: designers thus must be able to define
studies in industrial design comprise 30-35% of problems, variables, and requirements;
the total program; supportive course in design, conceptualize and evaluate alternatives;
related technologies, and the visual arts, 25- and test and refine solutions.
30%; studies in artand design history,10-15%;
(e.) The ability to communicate concepts
and general studies and electives, 25-30%.
and requirements to other designers
Studies in industrial design; supportive courses
and colleagues; to clients and employ-
in design, related technologies, and the visual
ers; and to prospective clients and
arts; and studies in artand design histories nor-
employers. These communication skills
mallytotal at least 65% of the curriculum.
include verbal and written forms, 2-D
General studies.The NASAD standards and 3-D media, and levels of detailing
provide guidelines for a well-rounded general ranging from sketch or abstract to
education for industrial design education pro- detailed and specific.
grams. Concepts and courses from the physical
(f.) Studies related to end-user psychology,
and natural sciences, the social sciences, and the
human factors, and user interfaces.
arts and humanities are important for industrial
designers. These guidelines provide the freedom
These essential competencies could serve
for institutions to strengthen industrial design
the field as a catalyst for articulating the content
education by integrating courses and creating
knowledge that defines the core body of knowl-
innovative interdisciplinary programs.
edge that interacts with pedagogy and context in
the PCK model of understanding industrial
Essential competencies.The NASAD stan-
design learning and instruction.
dards provide guidance in the essential or core
knowledge competencies for industrial design
Essential opportunities and experiences. A
education. This is perhaps the most informative
unique feature of the NASAD standards guide is
component of the NASAD standards that can
the inclusion of essential opportunities to learn
inform a framework that defines the content
and professional experiences. These areas are taxonomy for PCK research in industrial design.
often neglected in other fields of study and Movement toward a taxonomy of knowledge
51
could serve as a model for other technical fields. within a field has often been elusive in technical
The essential opportunities to learn and experi- fields of study. Examining what the core content Th
e
ence include the following: is through research and polling of experts adds J
o
external validity to the content component of a ur
n
(a.) Opportunities for advanced undergrad- PCK model. Croston’s (1998) categories that al
o
uate study in areas that intensify resulted from his research are listed in the fol- f
T
already-developed skills and concepts lowing paragraph, and they parallel many of the ec
h
and that broaden knowledge of the pro- accreditation areas. The critical content no
fession of industrial design. Studies expressed by practicing professionals in the log
y
might be drawn from engineering, industrial design field include the following: S
t
u
business, the practice and history of Creative problem solving, 2-D concept die
visual art, design, and technology, or sketching, verbal and written communica- s
interdisciplinary programs related to tion, materials and manufacturing process,
industrial design. computer-aided industrial design, multi-dis-
ciplinary interaction, concept model mak-
(b.) Easy access to computer facilities;
ing, internship or co-op experience, design
woodworking, metalworking, and plas-
theory, mathematics and science, graphic
tics laboratories; libraries with relevant
design, engineering technologies, cognitive
industrial design materials; and other
and consumer psychology, research and
appropriate work facilities related to
documentation, marketing and business
the major.
practice, historyof artand design, and arts
and humanities.
(c.) Internships, collaborative programs,
and other field experiences with indus-
Although the information about what prac-
try groups are strongly recommended
ticing professionals viewed as important in these
whenever possible.
categories is interesting and speaks to PCK, the
more relevant information for this discussion is
(d.) Participation in multidisciplinary team
the categories that were selected. Croston’s
projects. (NASAD, 2008).
(1998) own conclusions stress the importance of
teaching students through experimenting, model
These essential competencies could serve
making, prototyping, and testing. These allow
the field as a catalyst for articulating the context
design students to understand the tangible nature
or professional practice that define how the core
of the products theydesign for people to use,
body of knowledge is applied. This has a direct
and theyaddress the concept of ID context and
influence on the pedagogy and content in the
its relevance to PCK (Croston, 1998).
PCK model of understanding industrial design,
learning, and instruction. The essential core
Wen-Deh Yeh from the University of
competencies, the essential opportunities to
Wisconsin – Madison (1999), conducted another
learn, and the experiences position the field of
informative piece of survey research searching
industrial design well ahead of many other tech-
for strengths and weaknesses in industrial design
nical fields in building a PCK model for learn-
curriculums. Yeh identified seven critical com-
ing and instruction.
petence categories made up of 69 specific com-
petencies for industrial design graduates. Yeh
Connecting Researchand Defining Critical Content
to Inform PCK surveyed industrial design educators, graduates,
Robert Croston from Drexel University and employers of industrial designers regarding
conducted a survey in 1997-1998 on the growth the importance of the individual competencies.
of the industrial design profession and what The top five competencies reported for industri-
practicing designers expected in an industrial al designers were: creativity, knowledge of
design curriculum. Employers of industrial three-dimensional form, ability in problem solv-
designers rated subject area categories as “very ing, ability in visualizing design, and critical
important,” “needed,” or “unimportant.” The thinking. Specifically, Yeh’s study concluded
categories that were selected for the research that the central competencies of industrial
may lend themselves to the creation of a designers should include the following:
•Problem-solving abilities Challenges to Developing Industrial Design
Educators
52 •Creative thinking and conceptualization
There are several professional complexities
•Communication skills, visual, oral, and
s that interact to challenge the conceptualization
e
udi written of PCK for design education. Of significant
t
S • Knowledge of human factors challenge is the transitional phase that prevents
y
g
olo • Knowledge and hand-on experience of industrial design practicing professionals from
n becoming industrial design educators. These
h manufacturing technology
c
e professional “border crossings” between
T • Form-developing skills
of professional practice and education are not
al • Model-making skills easily facilitated. Perhaps the foremost issue
n
r
ou • Technical-drafting ability here is the discrepancy between compensation
J
e for successful industrial design practitioners and
h
T In addition, the ability to use the design educator. Based on a salary survey
computer/technology to aid in the design conducted by a popular design website,
processes and the knowledge of business prac- http://www.Coroflot.comin 2007, the average
tices should be integrated into industrial design salary of U.S. industrial design educators was
education. Finally, Yeh recommended that being $51,833 (an average high salary was $74,500).
acontinual learner is critical to an industrial Professional practitioners’average salary was
designer who wants to keep himself/herself up- $79,198 (an average high salary was $175,000).
to-date. In light of PCK and the role content tax- Considering the significant salary gap and the
onomies play in defining teacher content knowl- additional years spent to earnthe required
edge, these findings reflect some of the knowl- Master’s Degree to teach at the college or uni-
edge, skills, and dispositions required of indus- versity level, industrial design educator salaries
trial designers. are even lower in terms of real earnings com-
pared to the practicing industrial design profes-
The organization of domains of appropriate
sional. The 2000 compensation study conducted
industrial design content, principles, and class-
by the Industrial Designers Society of America
room practice within a taxonomy or hierarchy of
reported sharp salary increases at all experience
essential content knowledge can help industrial
levels of practicing industrial designers; howev-
design educators define what students both need
er,the salaries of educators with equal years of
to knowand be able to doto become practicing
experience appeared unchanged and substantial-
professionals in the field. A taxonomy of hierar-
ly lower than the salaries of professionals.
chical domains in the study of industrial design
Although this case can be made for manytech-
as opposed to the practice of design, could serve
nical fields, smaller fields of study (like indus-
as a catalyst in helping design educators negoti-
trial design education) perhaps are affected more
ate the inherent overlap between general design
than larger fields.
content knowledge, professional practice and
design application context, and pedagogical Another key element here is the broad range
knowledge. The development of an explicit of essential competencies knowledge that is
teaching and learning taxonomy for the study of required to teach industrial design effectively.
industrial design would alleviate the diffusion of Asignificant question remains: what level of
acurriculum that claims to teach design while knowledge across each of these interacting sub-
providing clear guidance for curriculum devel- jects does a teacher need master to effectively
opment. Awell-understood taxonomy would achieve a level of PCK in order to teach indus-
also facilitate meaningful communication and trial design in an integrated manner? This issue
cooperation among industrial design educators represents the tension raised byShulman (1986,
(Wiley,2001). Conversation and efforts could 1987) on how teachers and practicing profes-
turn to more significant work on how to teach sional arrange, use, and access (or think about)
rather than expend resources on what to teach. knowledge within a field differently.
Awell-designed taxonomycan guide the design Professionals in industrial design are constantly
education community and would set the stage changing, moving, growing, and learning; they
for pedagogically powerful and yet adaptive must remain current to stay competitive in an
ways that teachers could respond to varying evolving market. To these professionals, nothing
student ability and background ; such a tool is more excruciating than the prospect of
could lead to powerful teaching. becoming stagnant. As a result, theymay change
jobs more frequently. In contrast, it appears that in university practices. And finally educators
the “senior faculty members” or industrial can begin to examine the assumptions of indus-
53
design educators that have remained with a trial design, the industrial design education
T
single university for an entire career make fewer community, and the roles that PCK plays in this h
e
job changes and repeatedly teach fundamental or community. The general PCK interrelationships J
o
u
core content; they have few opportunities to and the potential creation of a taxonomy of PCK r
n
a
innovate through leading-edge contemporary for industrial design attributes can provide a rel- l
o
design problems. Novak (2003) went as far as to atively comprehensive categorization scheme for fT
e
assert that, many of these faculty appear to be future studies of PCK development in design c
h
n
somewhat inept in their design abilities, which education (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). An interest o
lo
may suggest that they have somehow found a in PCK as an epistemological perspective and as g
y
S
place to hide. aknowledge base for design educators has pro- t
u
d
duced a need for a conceptual framework upon ie
Another issue in the quality of teaching in which future PCK studies can be based. The s
industrial design is the lack of training in need for taxonomies and frameworks suggested
instructional techniques and pedagogical meth- in this article provide some insight into where
ods for most design educators. Even if the best- additional thought is necessary in industrial
facilitated border crossing could be made by design education as members of the field grap-
bringing a practicing professional into the ranks ple with the infusion of an ever-changing tech-
of industrial design educator, the pedagogical nological evolution. First, the general taxonomy
component of the PCK model of instruction of PCK will allow researchers and industrial
would be deficient. Practicing professionals can design education programs to more accurately
use their own instincts for teaching coupled with identify and address distinctions among knowl-
the teaching models that theyencountered as edge bases of various industrial design disci-
they received their own design education. An plines, technological subjects, and topics regard-
educator who graduated from a small program ing professional practice. Thus, it can provide a
would have a particularly limited frame of refer- classification scheme for implementing unique
ence for appropriate pedagogy. This issue could instructional methods in the industrial design
perhaps be addressed by the professional organi- education classroom. Second, the taxonomy of
zations, likethe Industrial Designers Society of PCK attributes can help researchers who study
America (IDSA), that offer workshops for knowledge development in industrial design
design educators at annual conferences to teachers to identify and characterize different
increase their pedagogical knowledge. attributes of industrial design teaching; these
Prospective design educators also could consult include content domain knowledge, pedagogy,
the resources available to learn pedagogical and context to form a rich and flexible knowl-
techniques in technical fields (e.g., the classic, edge base for industrial design educators. In
Instructors and their Jobsby Miller and Miller addition, these authors recognize the relative
(2008). The benefit of looking at the challenges importance that researchers and educators have
of industrial design education through the PCK given to the different components of PCK. The
concept is to allowthe creation of an organiza- need for organizational frameworks and tax-
tional framework for design education. This onomies in industrial design education provides
should allow an investigation into what knowl- an opportunity to organize and integrate
edge and skills are consistentlytaught in the research efforts centered on PCK and its appli-
essential categories discussed in the prior taxon- cation in design education.
omy section, and the pedagogical techniques
typically utilized. This research in design educa- The use of taxonomies and frameworks as a
tion should provide a means to improve overall foundation for future research also can provide a
design instruction. model for industrial design educator preparation.
For example, conference and workshop pro-
Implications for Industrial Design Programs and grams could focus on developing topic-specific
Teaching
PCK for prospective design educators. Many
Why do offer PCK as an essential part of
potential industrial design educators knowtheir
thinking about industrial design education? PCK
content well, but they may not have learned how
can help educators to move on to consider the
to transformor translate that knowledge into
problems they face by the bifurcation of content
meaningful instruction that students can access.
and pedagogy implicit in standards and explicit
What is necessary is the effective use of exem- about how to teach integrated domains in a
plary models of design education within topics manner that reflects the knowledge of today’s
54
that can later be transferred to another topic or industrial design content, the benefits of profes-
s
e domain. They can then apply these strategies to sional experience, and knowledge of pedagogi-
di
u other topics and domains based upon their con- cal methods.
t
S
y tent backgrounds (Darling-Hammond, 1991).
g
o Dr. Kenneth R. Phillips is the Department
ol
n Directly or indirectly, industrial design edu- Chair for the Industrial Design Department at
h
c
e cation programs could benefit from further PCK Metropolitan State College of Denver, Colorado.
T
of research. One obvious area is to identify and
nal classify the various types of PCK employed in Dr. Michael A. De Miranda is a professor of
r
ou the industrial design classroom that appropriate- Engineering Education in the Department of
J
e ly infuse content knowledge and professional Electrical and Computer Engineering at
h
T practice context into instruction. The importance Colorado State University, Fort Collins. He is a
of sponsored projects and input from current member of the Alpha Phi chapter of Epsilon Pi
professionals outside of the faculty are also Tau.
concepts that should be explored. It is our hope
Mr. "Ted" Jinseup Shin is an Assistant
that the development of taxonomies will provide
Professor in the Department of Industrial
afoundation for future research and further dis-
Design at Metropolitan State College of Denver,
cussion concerning the preparation of highly
Colorado.
qualified industrial design educators. It is vital
that all educators, develop an understanding
References
Bloom, B. S. (1956). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain.New York: David
McKay
Cochran, K. F., King, R. A., & DeRuiter, J. A. (1991). Pedagogical content knowledge: A tentative
model for teacher preparation.East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher
Learning.
Coroflot Design Salary Survey. (2007). Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www.coroflot.com.
Croston, R. (1998). Industrial design employment and education survey. Whydesign?IDSA National
Education Conference Proceedings.CD-Rom Dulles, V. Industrial Designers Society of America
Darling-Hammond,L. (1991). Are our teachers ready to teach? Quality Teaching,1(1), 6-7.
Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes. Science
Education, 15(6), 673-683.
Industrial Designers Society of America. (2000). Salary compensation surveyresults.Dulles, VA:
IDSA
Koehler,M. J., & Mishra, P.(2008). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation &
Technology (Eds.). Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators
(pp. 3-29). New York: Routledge.
Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. F. (2005). Aconceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education.
Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://teched.vt.edu/ctte/HTML/Research1.html.
McCormack, A. J., & Yager, R. E. (1989). A new taxonomy of science education. Science Teacher,
56(2), 47-48.
Miller,W.R., & Miller, M. F. (2008). Instructorsand their jobs.(4th ed.). Orland Park, IL: American
Technical Publishers
Mishra, P.,Koehler, M. J. (June, 2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108(6),1017-1054.
National Association of Schools of Art and Design (ed.) (2008). National association of schools and
art design handbook.Reston, VA: NASAD.
Neale, D., & Smith, D. (1989). Configurations checklist for evaluating a teaching performance.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-20.
55
Novak, J. (2003). Identifying causes for the shortage of high-quality industrial design education.
T
Retrieved October 6, 2009, from www.idsa.org/ webmodules/Articles/articlefiles/ h
e
John_Novak_Paper_2.pdf Jo
u
r
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational na
l
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. o
f
T
e
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard c
h
n
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. o
lo
g
Shulman, L., & Grossman, P. (1988). The intern teacher casebook.San Francisco: Far West y
S
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. tu
d
Shulman, L. (2002). Making differences: A table of learning Change.Retrieved October 6, 2009, from ies
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/docs/making_differences.htm
Travers, R. M. W. (1980). Taxonomies of educational objectives and theories of classification.
Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 2(2), 5-23.
Wiley, D. A. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition a
metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional use of learning objects.
Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved October
6, 2009, from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
Yeh, W. D. (1999). Critical competencies for baccalaureate industrial designers.Symposium at the
Chicago 99 – Design Education Conference Industrial Design Society of America, Chicago, IL.