64

The cooperation between the ArabRepublic of Egypt and the Federal Re-public of Germany dates back manydecades. Since the 1950s, both part-ners have cooperated in the field oftechnical education and vocationaltraining. Such cooperation took placemainly in the form of German assis-tance and support as represented by theGerman Foundation for Technical Co-operation (GTZ). The overall goal wasto improve the performance and en-hance productivity in those sectors.

Since 1991, Egypt has initiated astrict program of economic reform. Thereform aims at transforming theeconomy from a state-controlledeconomy to an open market economy.This reform is characterized by eco-nomic mobility, privatization, and mod-ernization. As expected, one aspect ofthe reform is the upgrading of humanresources in terms of improvement ofeducation in technical fields.

Under these economic parameters,in 1991 a new dimension was added tothe already-existing Egyptian-Germancooperation. During the discussionsheld between President Mubarak ofEgypt and Chancellor Kohl of Germany,further cooperation in technical educa-tion and vocational training wasstressed. In light of this, the Germanside offered assistance to Egypt in itseconomic endeavors by introducing theGerman experience of the dual systemof technical vocational training. Later,a letter of intent was signed followed bya wide-scale feasibility study that tookplace from 1992 to 1995 in preparationfor actual implementation.

Both the German and Egyptian par-ties agreed to implement the dual sys-tem in its first phase in the form of pilotprojects in new, growing communitiesin Egypt. The selected cities were Tenthof Ramadan, Sixth of October, and SadatCity; all of which have strong industrialclustering and lie within 30 to 100 km(20 to 60 miles) from the center of theEgyptian capitol Cairo.

The existing education system inEgypt is comprised of five years of pri-mary school and three years of prepara-

IDEAS1. Implementing a Dual System of Technical Education in Egyptby Mohamed N. Abou-Zeid, Rudolf K. E. Bode, and Ali Sayed

tory school. Then, the trainee can eitherattend a general/technical secondaryschool, a vocational secondary school,or join the workforce. If one of theschool options is completed success-fully, the student can go to a universityor a technical high institute or join theworkforce. Out of a population of 66million (1996 estimate), approximately13 million pupils receive an educationunder the above-described educationalsystem. Of this number, 1.5 million areenrolled under technical education(Country Monograph, 1995). CountryMonograph (1995) and Stockman andLeicht (1997) provide more informa-tion regarding the general system ofeducation in Egypt.

Dual System of Technical EducationThe dual system of education refers

to an educational system that empha-sizes both theoretical and practical edu-cation. Although this approach is quitewell known and implemented in manyforms, few countries have well-struc-tured and managed systems. Centuriesago, Germany adopted a dual system ofeducation that has since undergoneseveral modifications to cope withchanges in society and meet the de-mand of the market. As of today, thesystem represents an essential corner-stone in German technical educationwith millions of students enrolled un-der its umbrella.

Similar to the German system, thedual system implemented in Egypt hadto establish a strong, vital partnershipbetween the technical school and thefactory, that is, between the theoreticalteaching delivered in school and prac-tical experience delivered in the fac-tory. This is reflected in an educationscheme in which a student spends twodays per week in the technical school,mainly acquiring theoretical knowl-edge, together with four days per weekin the factory, acquiring practical expe-rience pertinent to his or her profession.Industry is, on the other hand, inter-ested in an education that is a goodsource for future well-trained technicalworkers. Therefore, the factory bears a

small portion of the student's educa-tional expenses as well as providingstudents with a monthly stipend as anincentive.

The newly implemented dual edu-cation system in Egypt is characterizedby the following:• Emphasizing professions of signifi-

cant importance to the Egyptianeconomy that meet the demand ofindustry.

• Being trade-oriented in the sense thatboth theoretical and practical edu-cation are aiming side by side toenhance students' knowledge inthe selected profession.

• Participating in the upgrading of edu-cation through enhancement oflaboratory facilities, refining instruc-tors' knowledge and qualificationsand introducing advancedpedagogic methods.

Implementation PhaseThe implementation process was

characterized by two phases: the pre-paratory phase and the on-groundimplementation phase. The prepara-tory phase (1992-1994) started after thepreliminary agreement between the twoheads of State and the signing of theletter of intent between the two govern-ments in 1992. Several fact-finding andfeasibility missions from Germany andEgypt worked together to acquire dataand formulate the specific goals of theproject. As a result, it was agreed toinitiate the project through three pilotprojects in three new communitiesdominated by the private sector.

The on-ground implementationphase involved the formation of a steer-ing committee for the project, followedby the formation of the project policyimplementation unit in 1993 and aGerman advisory team in March 1994.The first pilot project was implementedin the Tenth of Ramadan city, admittinga first batch of 300 trainees in 1995. Ayear later, the project was also imple-mented in Sixth of October city andSadat City. As shown later, the projecthas continued to expand in other areascovering more vocations.

65

When comparing the newly imple-mented technical education system withthe conventional system, we can ob-serve the following:• Students enrolled in the dual system

have approximately double practi-cal training hours than students ofthe conventional system. Often, thestudents deal with modern equip-ment in the factories that may notbe present within school premises.

• Students enrolled in the dual systemhave only 30% less theoretical les-son hours than students of the con-ventional system. This was pos-sible through modernization ofcurricula and the presentation ofsome of the theoretical backgroundneeded during the practical les-sons/training.

• The students of the dual system havegood exposure and experience withindustry, securing jobs after gradu-ation. This is not the case for thegraduates of the conventional system.

Strategic Factors Influencing theEgyptian Dual System

The development of a strategy in-volving significant changes in the cur-rent Egyptian educational system man-dates a consideration of the factors thathave a major impact on the process.Major factors discussed herein are theoverall goal, the positive elements sup-porting the process (referred to as sup-porters or pros), and the negative ele-ments resisting the process (referred toas obstacles or cons).

Overall Goal: The overall goal, asagreed upon by partners in the Mubarak-Kohl project, is "The introduction andpromotion of a dual technical educa-tion and training system according tothe needs of the Egyptian society whichserves the Egyptian economy with ad-equate number of skilled workers."

Supporters (Pros): The major ele-ments that support the newly intro-duced system are:• Existing liberalization and privati-

zation of economy adopted by thegovernment and supported by thepeople.

• Overall interest of a large economicsector, mainly the private sector, inthe dual system of education andtheir willingness to bear a portionof its financial burden.

• Establishment of new cities/commu-

nities with relatively large indus-trial clusters, having an investorsassociation in each that looks afterthe welfare of its member companies.

• Lack of satisfaction of the currentlyprovided technical education ser-vice in the country and the generalinterest in upgrading and/or change.

• Acceptance of Mubarak-Kohl projectby the public in Egypt as part of thegeneral acceptance of cooperationwith Germany.

Obstacles (Cons): The major ob-stacles of the newly introduced systemthat need to be overcome are:• Partial lack of cooperation between

ministries and governmental insti-tutions involved in the project.

• Complicated distribution of responsi-bilities between private and gov-ernmental sectors contributing tothe project in terms of responsibili-ties of the school and the factory.

• Presence of resisting currents fromconventional educational systemsthat oppose upcoming changes.

• Occasional difficulty in allocatingnecessary funds to secure properbudget for a high-quality education.

Project InitiationTo initiate the project, a supreme

committee, headed by the EgyptianMinister of Education, was formed.Members of this committee include keyfigures of the industry, education ex-perts, and high-ranking representativesof ministries concerned with the project.

A Project Policy Implementation Unit(PPIU) was set up next to a ministeriallevel that reports to the supreme com-mittee and is directly under the controlof the Minister of Education. The PPIUfocuses on system planning and con-cept development and supports the su-preme committee during the introduc-tion of a new cooperative system. ThePPIU pursues development tasks in thefollowing fields:• Securing the necessary funds for the

success of the project.• Establishing in-company vocational

training in selected regions andsectors.

• Founding Regional Units of DualSystem (RUDS) in designated pilotproject areas.

• Launching in-school dual vocationaleducation and training in selectedregions or sectors.

Some thought has been given to es-tablishing the PPIU at the national levelto prepare the ground for decisions ofthe Egyptian institutions responsible fortechnical education and vocationaltraining. Also, the PPIU will promotecooperation between different partiesand will not be limited to the Ministry ofEducation. The central task of the PPIUin its new form will be to provide adviceregarding legal, financial, and organi-zational frameworks needed for the in-troduction of the system as well as toprovide proposals for the further pro-motion and diffusion of the project.

In 1995, a pilot project was initiatedin the Tenth of Ramadan city, an indus-trial community that lies approximately60 km (40 miles) from the capital, Cairo.As a start, the trades of industrial me-chanics, electronics, and ready-madegarments were selected based on thedemand reflected by industry in thosecommunities. In other pilot projectsthat followed, it was often the case thatan extensive survey was carried out toexplore the demand of industry to voca-tional training and the potential extentof cooperation with the project in thesecommunities. A good example for thosestudies is provided by the work of Stock-man and Leicht (1997) prior to theintroduction of the dual system in theSixth of October city. A major outcomeof such studies is to predict future de-mand of the industry in the community,thus facilitating the selection of futuretrades of interest and feasibility.

Project GrowthSince its start, the project has under-

gone significant growth as shown bythe data in Table 1 and presented inFigures 1 to 3. This is evidenced by theincrease in pilot projects taking placethroughout the country and the increasein number of personnel involved in thevarious aspects of the project (Bode &Sayed, 1997; Mubarak-Kohl ProjectProgress, 1997). For example, in 1995,there were only two schools participat-ing in the project compared to 12 in1997. Such an increase must be lookedat not only in terms of absolute magni-tude but also in terms of ratio. Theincrease in number of dual systemschools came in part as a result of theincrease in the number of communities(cities) where the project was imple-mented (1 in 1995 compared to 10 in

66

Table 1

Characteristic Data of Project from 1995 to 1997

Criteria 1995 1996 1997

Cities involved 1 7 10Schools involved 2 8 10Vocations 3 5 7Students 320 1350 2300Instructors 36 180 260Factories 65 210 390Instructors trained in Germany 14 58 82Instructors trained in Egypt 34 194 280Experts involved (long & short term) 12 38 63

Figure 1. Progress in numbers of cities, schools, and vocations adopted by theproject.

Figure 2. Progress in numbers of personnel involved in the project.

Figure 3. Progress in upgrading of teachers and trainers and the expertsinvolved in project

1997) as well as the increase in thenumber of vocations considered (3 vo-cations in 1995 compared to 7 voca-tions in 1997).

As a result of the previously men-tioned increase, the number of dual-system students, in-school teachers, andin-factory trainers have all increased.For example, the number of studentshas increased from 320 students in 1995to 2,300 students in 1997. Also, thenumber of teachers has increased from36 in 1995 to 260 in 1997. Again, suchan increase may not be sizeable whencompared with the overall number ofstudents and teachers in Egypt, but therate of increase is very significant.

Clearly, the increase in numbers ofteachers and students is not the soleindicator that reflects project develop-ment since it is basically a quantitativeone. Table 1 shows that the increase innumbers has been accompanied by anincrease of upgrading courses that tookplace either locally or abroad as well asthe increase in the number of short-term and long-term experts participat-ing in the project. It can also be noticedthat the increase in the number of up-grading courses is not a simple increaseresulting from the increase in the num-ber of students or so. Rather, the ratiowith respect to the number of teachersand trainers has in itself increased, lead-ing to a more significant increase.

Future DevelopmentThe future plan of the project con-

centrates on strengthening the dual sys-tem in Egypt through:• Expanding the project through the

existing pilot projects, which meansstronger participation of the indus-try in those communities.

• Executing a well-planned “diffusionprocess” to other communitieswhere implementation is feasible.

• Including other trades under the um-brella of the project, such as thosetrades related to construction andtourism. This may involve coop-eration with other agencies/bodiessuchas the Ministry of Housing andConstruction, the building and con-struction federation, and the Minis-try of Tourism.

• Expanding the PPIU role to cover thenew disciplines of vocation train-ing, which mandates involvementof staff from bodies other than the

67

Ministry of Education.• Working with authorities in Egypt to

issue a separate law that regulates

Dr. Mohamed N. Abou-Zeid is an Engineering Assistant Professor at the American University of Cairo and member of the Mubarak-Kohl Project forTechnical Education in Egypt. Dr. Rudolf K.E. Bode is the German Chief Advisor of the Mubarak-Kohl Project for Technical Education in Egypt. Eng. AliA. Sayed is the Head of the Project Policy Implementation Unit of the Mubarak-Kohl Project for Technical Education and the Advisor of the Egyptian Ministerof Education for International Affairs.

vocational training that is separatefrom the current labor law. This isneeded due to the special nature of

ReferencesBode, R., & Sayed, A. (1997, October). Solving the workforce needs in the Arab Republic of Egypt: An Egyptian-German partnership.

Paper presented at the 30th annual conference of the National Association for Industrial Technology, Atlanta, GA.Country monograph. (1995). Cairo, Egypt: German Foundation for Technical Cooperation.Mubarak-Kohl Project progress. (1997, July). Mubarak-Kohl Project Newsletter, 2, 1–12.Project Policy Implementation Unit. (1997, November). Strategic action plan: Mubarak-Kohl initiative. Cairo, Egypt: Author.Stockman, R., & Leicht, R. (1997). Implementing a dual vocational system in Egypt. Eschborn, Germany: German Foundation

for Technical Cooperation.

the vocational training process(PPIU, 1997).

A review of the research literature intechnology education conducted byZuga (1994) included dissertations andresearch literature published between1987 and 1993 that focused on tech-nology education and technologyteacher education. She summarized theresearch as follows:

• 50 percent of the research is devoted tocurriculum status, development, andchange.• 63 percent focuses on secondaryeducation• 53 percent studies teachers/teachereducators. (p. ix)

Under what Zuga (1994) describedas “Unfulfilled Promises,” a key state-ment was made:

A concern and goal of the field has beento establish a discipline of technologyeducation and with that to fulfill the goalof creating technological literacy. Whatis interesting is that no research has beendone to this end. No discipline wascreated and none may ever be able to becreated given the nature of people’sinvolvement and use of technology.Disciplines are formed whencommunities of scholars working togethercan agree that such a discipline exists.Technology educators are but a smallpart of the community of scholars whoare technologists. (p. 66)

Publishing is one activity indicativeof a community of scholars. Thus, thereshould be a direct relationship betweenwhat research is conducted and whatarticles are appearing in our journalsand as ERIC documents. It may come asno surprise that this relationship is avery weak one. Given the size of ourprofession, little research is being con-ducted and even less research is beingpublished. Those who do publish arewriting about those subjects that tend tobe the current “hot topic” (the Internet,robotics, design briefs, etc.) and lessabout the “heavy issues” in technologyeducation (technology education as adiscipline, technological literacy, peda-gogy for and learning of technology,attitudes, external groups to the profes-sion such as parents and school admin-istrators, etc.).

Status of literature in technologyeducation. Literature on technologyeducation has been narrowly confinedto a few journals and ERIC documents.A search of the library databases foundthat in ERIC many documents (mostlycurriculum materials) are cataloguedunder technology education descrip-tors. However, in searching databasesfor periodical literature and subjectsearches for books, the descriptor tech-

nology education (or combinations,technology with education, technol-ogy and education, etc.) yielded a largenumber of articles and books with littleto no relationship with what our profes-sion would view as technology educa-tion. Because the databases are usingdescriptors that are not narrowly de-fined or specific to our profession, ourliterature is lost to the outside worldseeking to find information using ac-cepted library search tools. This doesnot mean that our literature is not “outthere” to be found. What it means isthat it is mostly confined to ERIC andonly those library databases that searcha very broad range of journals (includ-ing those within our field).

What journals are related to ourprofession? Many journals and maga-zines serve the broad spectrum of topicareas related to technology education.Brauchle, Liedtke, and Loepp contrib-uted a list of more than 100 technology-related journals that are well suited tothe field. It is included in PreparingManuscripts for Professional Publica-tion in Technology Education (Brauchle& Liedtke, 1997). Domestic and inter-national professional associations aswell as trade and technical organiza-tions provide a wealth of resources for

2. Does the Recent Literature in Technology Education Reveal theProfession’s Direction?by Jane A. Liedtke

68

technology teachers. For the purpose ofthis article, five publications were re-viewed that are most specific to tech-nology education and where most ofthe literature consistent with the phi-losophy of technology education isfound.

What are the key journals in tech-nology education? The TechnologyTeacher (ITEA), the Journal of Technol-ogy Education (ITEA), the Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education (NAITTE),the Journal of Technological Studies(EPT), and TIES magazine are consid-ered to be the main sources of literaturein the field. Classroom teachers of tech-nology education and technologyteacher educators review these sourcesfor information on curriculum and re-search. In addition, the annual Year-books of the Council on TechnologyTeacher Education are considered to beleading sources of information on theirrespective subjects. Magazines such asTech Directions are popular amongteachers due to the nature of their distri-bution.

What are we reading in the jour-nals? A review of the five publicationsidentified was conducted for the pur-

pose of this article. The most recent 12issues (as of Winter 1996) for eachpublication were examined with theexception of the Journal of TechnologyEducation, where nine issues were re-viewed. Three hundred and thirty-twoarticles were categorized by the classi-fications given below:• Philosophy of Technology Education

(such as technology education as adiscipline, standards for technol-ogy education, technological lit-eracy, history).

• Curriculum and Instruction Informa-tion (such as program design, con-tent and structure, mathematics-science-technology interface, de-livery, interdisciplinary approaches,outstanding or model programs).

• Facilities (instructional laboratoriesand equipment).

• Technological Systems (such as com-munication, manufacturing, con-struction, transportation, biorelatedtechnology systems).

• Student Activities (student-centeredactivities and “how to do xyz” inthe classroom with students, stu-dent organizations).

• Research (articles about conducting

research versus those based on re-search).

• Professional Issues (leadership,mentoring, recruitment, minorities).

• General Interest (the Internet, grantwriting, partnerships, resources).

• Others (articles that are not technol-ogy education).

Table 1 provides a sense of what hasbeen published in these publicationsand thus what represents the majority ofour current literature. Technology edu-cation articles represented 67% of thatwhich was published therein. Of the222 technology education articles,22.5% were related to technologicalsystems and the curriculum organizersof communication, manufacturing, con-struction, transportation, and biorelatedtechnology systems. Many articleswithin this classification were aboutnew technological developments andapplications in technology education.Some of these articles related excitingtechnology content that could easily beadapted to classroom instruction bycompetent technology teachers. How-ever, the classification of student activi-ties only represented 3.6% of the ar-ticles. The perception that The Tech-nology Teacher and TIES magazinehave a lot of “how to” articles for class-room teachers is not the case. Thesetwo publications contain the largestnumber of articles that are focused ontechnology systems.

Curriculum and instruction informa-tion (21% of the articles) was a majorarea within the publications. This isconsistent with Zuga’s (1994) review ofthe research literature which showedthat 50% of the research conductedwas related to curriculum development,status, and change. More of the curricu-lum research conducted should be pub-lished. The curriculum articles that arepublished are dispersed evenly acrossthe five publications.

The third-ranked classification wasthat of general interest, with 41 articles(18%). These included articles relatedto tech-prep, school-to-work topics,technology education in other coun-tries, and the like. Professional issuesranked fourth with 38 articles (17%).This classification included articles onminority issues and recruitment, lead-ership, teacher preparation, in-serviceactivities, and similar topics. A largeportion of this literature appeared in

Table 1

Number of Articles Published in Five Publications Based on ClassificationsGiven

Publication*Classification TTT JTE JTS JITE TIES Totals

Philos. of T. E. 12 5 9 3 0 29Curric. & instruc. 10 11 12 5 9 47Facilities 2 0 0 0 6 8Technological sys. 17 0 6 0 27 50Student act. 7 0 0 0 1 8Research articles 1 0 0 0 0 1Prof. issues 6 9 19 4 0 38General interest 12 11 6 4 8 41 Subtotal 220Other (not T. E.) 0 5 67 38 0 110

Totals 67 41 119 54 51 332

Journal and magazine issues examined:The Technology Teacher

October 1994–February 1996 n = 12Journal of Technology Education

Fall 1990–Fall 1995 n = 9Journal of Technology Studies

Summer/Fall 1988–Winter/Spring, 1995 n = 12Journal of Industrial Teacher Education

Vol. 29 #4 (1992)–Vol. 32 #3 (1995) n = 12Ties magazine

March 1991–February 1995 n = 12

69

two journals: The Journal of Technol-ogy Studies (which had the largest num-ber of professional issues presented—19) and The Journal of Technology Edu-cation (which had the second highestnumber of professional issues pre-sented—9). This is consistent with theleadership and professional develop-ment mission of Epsilon Pi Tau as aninternational honorary.

Philosophical issues in technologyeducation, standards (Technology forAll Americans), industrial arts versustechnology education, and technologi-cal literacy ranked fifth with 29 articles(13%). The publishing of these topicswas primarily in The TechnologyTeacher and The Journal of Technol-ogy Studies.

Articles that met the criteria of “other”were primarily within the areas of voca-tional education, trade and industrialeducation, and industrial technology.The Journal of Industrial Teacher Edu-cation had the largest number of voca-tional and trade and industrial educa-tion articles. The Journal of TechnologyStudies had the largest number of in-dustrial technology articles most reflec-tive of industrial management degreeprogram efforts among the five publica-tions reviewed. The Journal of Indus-trial Technology, which was not re-viewed, would have exceeded the Jour-nal of Technology Studies with the per-centage of industrial technology articlesif it had been included.

The CTTE Yearbooks, considered tobe valuable literature by our profes-sion, have over the same period of timebeen devoted to communication in tech-nology education (1990), technologi-cal literacy (1991), transportation intechnology education (1992), manu-facturing in technology education(1993), construction in technology edu-cation (1994), and foundations of tech-nology education (1995). Of these sixyearbooks, 75% of the content is de-voted to curriculum and technologicalsystems with 25% focused on philo-sophical issues, historical perspectives,and technological literacy.

How much of the focus is on class-room teachers (K-12) versus teacherpreparation? The Technology Teacherand TIES magazine are classroomteacher oriented. Of the 67 articles pub-lished in The Technology Teacher, 34clearly target classroom teachers with

many of the philosophical, general in-terest, and professional issues articlesapplicable to a wide range of profes-sionals. TIES is targeted to a largerextent toward the classroom teacher.Forty-three of the 51 articles were class-room teacher (K-12) focused. This ac-counts for 84% of the articles pub-lished.

Very little was written on technologyteacher preparation. Two prime articleswere on teacher preparation curricu-lum and college student burnout. Onearticle was concerned with the NCATEaccreditation process. One could sug-gest that the technological systems andcurriculum topics would relate toteacher education in terms of contentthat would be taught once studentsentered the profession as classroomteachers. In recent years there is littleliterature focusing on the needs of col-lege students, college student organiza-tions, and the curriculum for technol-ogy teacher preparation. The CTTE Year-books, while focusing on the publicschools, provide outstanding referencematerials for teacher preparationcourses. One chapter was devoted toteacher education in each of the year-books for the four curriculum organiz-ers (communication, construction,manufacturing, and transportation) andthe yearbook on the foundations oftechnology education. Despite this,there remains a great need for researchand articles devoted to issues of teacherpreparation and certification.

How much of the focus is on guid-ance counselors, principals, school dis-trict personnel, parents, business/in-dustry, government, and othergatekeepers? Is this a missing elementin our publications? Two articles wereon school-to-work transitions (whichrelate to business/industry as a recipi-ent of high school graduates). Otherthan those two articles, there was notone article that focused on this group ofimportant people in the educationalsetting. Here is a need waiting to bemet! The profession needs assistance inlinking with these key individuals. Class-room teachers and teacher educatorsneed models in the literature that pro-vide strategies for working with thesegroups to ensure a positive future fortechnology education. Articles target-ing publications within counseling andschool administration professional as-

sociations are also essential to creatinga broad range of literature on technol-ogy education.

What about the science and math-ematics education journals? Are wepublishing our efforts at integratingmathematics, science, and technologythrough curriculum projects in thesepublications? Only three integrationarticles appeared in the five technologyeducation publications reviewed. Withseveral major national efforts ongoingin our profession to integrate math-ematics, science, and technology, class-room teachers and teacher educatorsseem eager (as evidenced by the popu-larity of such sessions at the ITEA con-ferences) to learn more about the suc-cesses of these curriculum develop-ment efforts.

Is quality the issue or a problem?Having reviewed as a member of theeditorial review boards for all but oneof the five key publications, I canhonestly say that what is submittedby members of our profession is alarm-ing. What is published, while muchbetter than what is submitted, tendsto lack depth or has not been pre-pared based on extensive researchsupport. That is not to say that thereare not wonderful, useful articles inour journals. It is to point out thatmuch of what we do could be better.

It is more likely a reflection on ourprofession and our background, inter-ests, and personal attributes. Individu-als have selected our field over otherprofessions because they prefer to workwith technology. They are often notinterested in writing and publishing.This creates a strategic dilemma. Indi-viduals need to conduct research andpublish—few do as Zuga (1994) pointedout in her research review. Publishing isan expectation of faculty at higher edu-cation institutions. People who are notsuccessful with their first attempt atpublishing often do not resubmit theirpublication and may not be motivatedto publish in the future. Alas, a smallgroup of individuals become successfulat publishing. Something must be done.We can intuitively wonder: What goodideas and information are we missingout on that people have rolling aroundin their heads?

Modeling may also be an issue.People tend to model and emulate whatexists in the literature regarding writing

70

style, format, and, in some instances,topics (acceptable to the journal).

What are our focal points for futureaction?

Some observations:• Few people publish.• Most research conducted has not been

published.• Technology education as a discipline

must be clearly defined, dissemi-nated, and operationalized.

• Lack of research base in most literature or lack of depth on the topic(s)is evident.

• Little to no theoretical basis for ourresearch and thus the literature thatstems from the research lacks therigor of other disciplines.

• Lack of experimental research (con-trolled research investigations andappropriate data analyses).

• Lack of literature on technology teachereducation, mathematics/ science/technology interface and interdis-ciplinary approaches, in-serviceprograms, and certification issues.

• Little attention to diversity, minorityrecruiting, and retention.

• Counselors, parents, school adminis-trators, and business/industry andtheir relationship to technology edu-cation have received no attentionin our journals.

Some possible directions:• Rewards and incentives for publishing.• Increased opportunities to publish

refereed articles.• Mentorships for publishing (linking

young professionals with seasonedwriters).

• Promote interdisciplinary coopera-tion and study of technology tofacilitate the acceptance of a disci-pline for the study of technology.

• Require doctoral research for the PhDdegree to have a theoretical baseand include experimental method-ologies.

• Require publication from dissertationsas a part of doctoral degrees.

• Expect publication as a result of grantactivity.

• Provide increased funding for researchactivity (expanding our reach toother types of funding agencies).

• Link with colleagues outside our fieldto prepare and publish articles.

• Involve counselors, parents, and schooladministrators in our professionalassociations.

• Provide journal subscriptions to otherprofessionals at our institutions.

• Encourage minorities and women topublish and provide support sys-tems to enable this to occur.

• Seek funding for journals to support

their publication costs, thus en-abling refereed publications to be areasonable length.

How can practitioners help? Astechnology educators, we have theopportunity to share our successfulclassroom experiences, results ofmaster’s and doctoral research, andperspectives on issues facing the pro-fession. Engaging in such activity cre-ates the environment conducive to acommunity of scholars. Moreover, itassists others in recognizing technol-ogy education as a discipline. It isimperative that we assist those whoprepare technology education andtechnology-related journals in deliv-ering publications that meet the needsof in-service and preservice teachers,teacher educators, school adminis-trators, parents, and, ultimately, stu-dents. Beyond that, we must connectto those who are on our periphery. Toachieve this end, we must all try topublish the fruits of our labor and bediligent about sharing beyond thesemainstream publications.

Journal editors are eager to link lessexperienced writers with those whocan serve as mentors. This process as-sists the novice in publishing and thusincreases the pool of individuals con-tributing to the base of literature thatserves the profession.

ReferencesBrauchle, P., & Liedtke, J. (Eds.). (1997). Preparing manuscripts for professional publication in technology education (CTTE

Monograph 15). Reston, VA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.Zuga, K. (1994). Implementing technology education: A review and synthesis of the research literature (Information Series

No. 356). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Dr. Liedtke is a Professor in the Department of Industrial Technology at Illinois State University, Normal. She is currently on leave directing the ISU-CIPGCenter for Corporate Training and Consulting, Beijing, China. She is a member of the Gamma Theta Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau and has received theHonorary’s Laureate Citation.

Using technology has always beenan integral part of society. Throughouthistory, the available technologies ofthe time dictated the direction of hu-man existence. But, technological de-velopments have had a limited impacton education and have done little tochange limited access, low quality, and

3. Extending the University’s Reach with Technologyby Kurt H. Becker

low productivity and to improve theprimitive technological tools used byteachers.

Our stance toward technology ineducation—our impressions of what itis, what it is good for, and how weshould think about it—has long been aproblem. Many of the failures of the

past stem from this problem: The filmswe expected to revolutionize teachingin the 1920s, the radio broadcasts thatwould bring the world into every schoolroom in the 1930s, the “new media” ofthe 1950s and 1960s (television, Super-8 film, language laboratories), the pas-sion for programmed instruction of the

71

1960s, the novelties of distance educa-tion and dial-access audio and video inthe 1970s and 1980s, and now virtualschools in the 1990s—in all these cases,we started with enormous expectationsabout what a particular set of techno-logical devices, used in a particularway, might be able to accomplish. Whilethere were a few successes (the over-head projector that rapidly spread intomost of the classrooms in America, thewide-ranging dissemination of VCRs,the power of distance education and“open university” approaches to ex-tend higher education to new audi-ences), there were certainly failures andcriticisms such as the machines thatwere used once and consigned to thecloset and the devices that teachersused only once a year because theywere too complex. Such teacher toolshad little or no effect upon the existingparadigm, and teachers could take themor leave them.

The debate over the impact that tech-nology is having on education and whatimpact it will have in the future contin-ues today. Some believe that technol-ogy is so powerful that it can effectivelyeliminate schools altogether. Othersthink that this is a basically flawed andalien ideathat is contrary to our mostcentral notions of what a good society is.

Perhaps the primary thing to bear inmind about the interaction of technol-ogy and schooling is that the processhas never resulted in anything close towhat educators hoped and assumed itwould do. Rather, using technologybecame associated with economics (em-ployment prospects for graduates, basedon the “skills needed for the informa-tion age”) and with community pride(“Our school has six networked PClabs!”). In these cases, the decisionmakers failed to examine a central un-derlying assumption: We only think ofeducation and schools as means forapplication of computers, software,networks, and associated technologies.

The ChangesA paradigm shift is underway. And

new technological tools for learners aresignificantly and simultaneously mov-ing toward the accomplishment of threemajor goals of education reform: betteraccess, better quality, and better pro-ductivity (Davis, 1996).

Achieving AccessFor a variety of reasons, large seg-

ments of our society have limited ac-cess to the means for learning. For manytime is a factor. For others it is a matter ofbeing out of reach of a campus.

Lack of access can also mean that aneighboring college doesn’t teach whatsome need to learn or that the availablecurriculum is otherwise undesirable.Scores of students physically attendingcollege are routinely forced to add anadditional semester or school year totheir college tenure simply because theycouldn’t enroll in the classes theyneeded or wanted due to scheduling,full classes, lack of course offerings,and more.

To facilitate better access there mustbe a change in the existing system.Converting from a bricks and mortar,labor-intensive system to one that giveslearners information technology toolswill require massive capital to buildinfrastructure, retrain personnel, andcreate new learning materials. Schoolsmust yield their role as the primaryproviders of content and shift to a role ofproviding means and services for stu-dents to develop learning skills. Thehigh speed network infrastructure thatis under construction throughout theworld and high speed fiber optic datalines in our homes and offices will helpfacilitate this access. This will facilitatean “anything, anytime, anywhere” para-digm (Wittmann, 1994), which maylead to electronic educational commu-nities with minimum barriers of dis-tance, time, race, age, gender, and ap-pearance. It is likely to promote col-laboration and increase the quality ofeducation.

Increased access means learners cansign on to a course and begin taking itthe minute they realize they need it. Itmeans they can pursue aspects of asubject that are relevant to their imme-diate need and demonstrate mastery byapplying what was learned in a mean-ingful context. It means learners progressthrough the components of a course atan individual pace rather than in lock-step fashion. This will result in a chang-ing relationship between school andindustry since industry demands theuse and knowledge of current tech-nologies. As technology becomes morecommonplace, it will be used in allsectors of life, and this will directly alter

students’ learning needs and abilities.A curriculum addressing this need

may cost millions to produce, but oncecompleted, the costs to manufacture,distribute, and update it are moderate.Such a curriculum could stand alone orbe used in conjunction with commen-tary and individualized lesson plansfrom an online mentor. The curriculumcould be partially or entirely completedat home or at work, and at a pace thatsuits each individual learner.

Access to education primarily meansgiving up the notion that a classroom isa place of assembly at a single placeand time. It also means and requires therevolutionary step of putting learners incharge of their learning process. Theconventional classroom lecture takesplace in a cloistered set of buildingswith rows of students facing the teacher,who has prepared the lesson he or shethinks is important. It creates an envi-ronment that tends to ignore higherorder learning skills such as creativity,independent thought, inquiry, research,leadership, and innovation. Many ex-perts will agree that the classroom isone of the few places of human activitythat someone who had slept for 200years could wake up and return and stillfeel comfortable.

Conversely, the learner who is his orher own teacher has far greater access tolearning through the convergence of com-puters, telecommunications, and tradi-tional classroom media. This, in turn, canincrease quality and productivity.

Achieving QualityLooking at today’s education, change

is inevitable. Technological changeswill have an effect on the entire teach-ing system. Technology is providingnew tools of thought and action thatgraduates must be able to use in order tocompete on a global basis.

A better, more affordable, morewidely used information technologysystem must continue to be developed.The library is one place to proceed withthese changes. Change will bring theadvent of the digital library, which inturn will create regional and nationallibraries. This information will be avail-able to learners on-line, minimizingsearch times. These libraries will alsodeliver multimedia and electronic (digi-tal) textbooks, which will give learnerstext, pictures, video, and sound. All of

72

this can take place in less space be-cause of digital technology. Librarieswill be easily accessable and open them-selves to interaction with the learner.

Currently, multimedia technologiesare emerging that provide new ways foreducation to do business. They enableeducation decision makers to make dra-matic changes in delivery, evaluation,and so forth.

What are the emerging componentsof multimedia?1. Library services available over cam-

pus networks.2. Conceptual designs for electronic

libraries.3. Development of permanent and por-

table multimedia delivery systems.4. Effective use of all of the components

of a digitized communications net-work (voice, video, and data).

Multischool classrooms on theInternet will soon begin to proliferate.Increasingly, sophisticated “search en-gines” make it easy for even an eight-year-old to become a sophisticated re-searcher and explorer, locating newinformation databases and exploringnew curiosities on a daily basis. Provid-ing a more learner-centered system willnot change everything.

Some students will continue to wantphysical proximity to other studentsand teachers. Other learners will wantonly occasional support and guidance,and some will seek independent studyand courses of quality. Many studentswill want customized learning programscomprised of individual courses, coursecomponents (modules), and short-termcertificates. Today’s learner is a lifelonglearner. As colleges learn to exploit thisopportunity, they will custom build andimport the “courseware” to meet theindividual needs of learners who enroll.

The use of telecommunication toolsintroduces new platforms for knowl-edge. Students can collect, manipulate,organize, analyze, evaluate, and reflectalone or in groups with divergent sourcesof knowledge and information world-wide. If a student wants to know what a“Communist” is, he or she can corre-spond with a teacher, student, or gov-ernment minister in Cuba or China—areal flesh-and-blood Communist (Kerr,1990a).

Telecommunication creates wholenew audiences for the student. He orshe must learn to analyze each audi-

ence and learn to communicate in acontext-specific, coherent way. Therewill have to be changes in the wayinformation is distributed and shared,and new strategies for storage are needed(Tennant, 1995). The use of technologyto help learners access, search, andretrieve information is increasing atunprecedented rates. A major part ofestablishing learner access is the recog-nition that a teacher comes in manyforms and through many pathways,some not yet invented.

Achieving ProductivityInformation technology has gener-

ated dramatic cost-benefit gains in vir-tually every other sector of our economy:financial services, manufacturing, re-tail distribution, health care, entertain-ment, and government. Why, then, isour most vital segment, education, lag-ging so far behind?

There has been no incentive tochange the local elementary school,and the community college has no realcompetition. Tenured faculty have littlemotivation to change their teachingmethods as long as their classes are fulland there is a demand for services.Many teachers are themselves resistantto technology and, consciously or un-consciously, terrified that it will dis-place them.

Administrators of traditional schoolsare beginning to realize that they willnot have a captive market much longer.Technology-based companies, lever-aged by inexpensive manufacturing andcheap distribution (e.g., the Internet)will increasingly turn out attractive andrelatively inexpensive new ways tolearn. New communities of learningare being created daily on the Web.

While encouraging innovationwithin the faculty, universities are highlyresistant to change institutionally(Hawkins, 1992). What makes the tran-sition inevitable is that educational pro-ductivity will continue to decline underthe present system; costs continue torise and access is increasingly denied.As educators, our choice will be toconsciously move with change or bedragged along by it. Unless educatorslearn to work with the private sectorto use technology, they may begin todisappear.

As we shift control and initiativefrom teacher to learner, the role of

faculty member shifts to the facilitationof increasingly autonomous studentpractices. Curriculum design becomesthe art of posing problems, introducinglarge questions and then facilitatingwork on them. The teacher shifts fromlecturing to fomenting questions,doubts, and uncertainties; suggestingstrategies of inquiry; and questioningthe quality of reports and conclusions.This kind of work will require greatsensitivity and dedication to individuallearners (Kerr, 1990b).

There will also be teachers who lackheartbeats. There will be a variety ofcomputer-generated video-sound-and-text-based experiences. Exciting newtechnologies such as virtual reality andmultiuser simulated environments willchallenge users to use abstract reason-ing to navigate knowledge-intense en-vironments and simulate physical tasks.Using this kind of technology, studentscan encounter real geography, history,science, language, or business prob-lems by themselves or with other stu-dents scattered in space and time.

Serving as a successful mentor willrequire new teaching techniques indesign, facilitation, and counseling. Stu-dents may be involved in facilitatinglearning experiences, such as the cre-ation of an on-line conferencing pro-cess where students simulate a jointresearch term in a fictitious company.Students might publish their researchfindings in an on-line journal, offer cri-tiques and questions about each other’sfindings, and be challenged by the fac-ulty facilitator who plays the role of thebusiness interest that commissioned theresearch.

The real value of any good technol-ogy is not that it will do things for usfaster, better, and cheaper, but that itwill make us better at what we do.Learning is innately and uniquely hu-man. Digital tools will provide newlevels of access, analysis, simulation,and synthesis that will generate in-creased learner participation in intel-lectual work. With these new capabili-ties, learners will not need teachers toteach them but rather to facilitate theirlearning skills, the development of theircharacter, and their vision of the future.This will assist in achieving the educa-tional goal of better access, better qual-ity, and better productivity. However,there will be numerous issues with

73

which those in education will be facedwith since change does not occur with-out difficulties or challenges.

Some Issues Related to Change1. As information technologies be-

come digitally based, distinctions be-tween voice, video, and data will blur,causing attention shifts to an informa-tion infrastructure. This will amplify thespeed and accuracy with which infor-mation will be available to educationand industry. The information technol-ogy industry will continue to adjust tothe changes in education. These changeswill be determined by economic fac-tors, which include the dropping cost oftechnology hardware and developingmultimedia for the home consumermarket. These changes will increasemarket size, which in turn will decreasethe ability for education to have part-nerships with industry because the re-duced prices of hardware will make itdifficult to develop a win-win situation.

2. Higher education will become

less important to vendors as the marketexpands into the home. Vendors willsupport the creation of high-end soft-ware that, in turn, will drive and stimu-late sales of hardware and operatingsystems to support the software. Ven-dors will have a vested interest in devel-oping multimedia applications that re-quire more powerful, faster technol-ogy. This could result in educationchanging dramatically in the method ofdelivery to maintain its competitivemarket share of the existing studentpopulations.

3. Digital technology will alter thelecture paradigm when we harness theenergy of the networked virtual univer-sity and engage in collaborative in-struction. Collaboration will involvemore than one individual involved incourse design and delivery, and stu-dents who actively participate in in-struction. This will engage students andthe school systems in active, meaning-ful competition for the digital age.

Dr. Becker is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial Technology and Education at Utah State University, Logan.

4. When designing an educationalsystem, we can certainly predict howchanging the process will send a moredesirable message to learners. What wecan’t predict are the elements of designand delivery that rely on human char-acter and individual motivation, andthis human element remains crucial.Again, we should consider whether awell-rounded education is a function ofteaching or of a learner making selec-tions from a balanced curriculum.

Because of the capacity afforded byinformation technology to make learn-ing more outcome oriented, opportuni-ties for accelerated learning will multi-ply. As a new generation of learnersbecomes accustomed to deciding whento learn, what to learn, how to learn,and even how progress is to be certi-fied, the need for human intervention inthe process of learning will diminish toinfrequent high-quality counseling andmentoring sessions. The inherent“learning machine” can be liberated.

ReferencesDavis, E. (1996). The future of education. Available: http://www.wco.com/ ~mktentry/edfutur.htmlHawkins, B. (1992). Symposium panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of Instructional Technology in San

Diego, CA.Kerr, S. T. (1990a). Alternative technologies as textbooks and the social imperatives of educational change. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Kerr, S. T. (1990b). Technology: Education: Justice: Care. Educational Technology, 30(11), 7–12.Tennant, R. (1995). Multimedia. Syllabus, 9(5), 30–36.Wittmann, A. (1994). Infrastructure. Network Computing, 5(13), 28–30.

Education is teaching people how tothink. Training is teaching people howto behave within narrow specializa-tions. We do both in our schools. This isas true of technology studies as it is inany other part of the school curriculum.

Our school system is charged withthe responsibility for the developmentof cognitive skills in students. Basically,this means that students must be taughtto use their most extraordinary feature,the brain, to ensure our survival and toimprove our lives. We humans have

been blessed with at least four cognitivegifts that have enabled us to conquernature and recast our world. Only threeof these gifts are evident in the corecurriculum: (a) the ability to makesounds and symbols that convey mean-ing (or communications), (b) the pen-chant for quantification (or mathemat-ics), and (c) the ability to observe objec-tively and make rational decisions aboutthese observations (or science). Thefourth gift, tool use, is the ability tomake, modify, and wield tools in a

productive fashion for the improvementof society. This fourth gift is not part ofthe core curriculum, but it should be.Without development of the fourth gift,skills in math, science, and languageare just empty tricks, mere glib-tongued,sharp-brained sophistry. Ancient Greeceand China, the pre-Columbian Incan,Mayan, and Aztec societies of SouthAmerica, and the dark-age and medi-eval Europe are examples of some ofthe societies that failed to make full useof all four gifts to their ultimate detri-

4. Creative Problem Solving: A Unique Aspect of Technologyby Andrew E. Schultz

74

ment. That tool use is not a recognizedintegral partner in the core curriculumin America is as short sighted as thetrivium was in the Middle Ages.

In secondary education today, teach-ing tool and equipment use is the prov-ince of technology education and, assuch, it is where the melding of the corecurriculum takes place. It is the idealsite for contextual learning to happen,and increasingly, our best teachers arerealizing this. They are making the as-sociation that applied learning enrichesthe core curriculum by enabling stu-dents to stretch cognitive skills and ac-tually synthesize new knowledge. It isalso where real problem solving is taughtand occurs.

But what makes technology educa-tion really unique is that both kinds ofproblem solving are taught. Both kinds?Yes, few people realize that there areactually two sorts of problem solving.Applying algorithms (or the applicationof known solutions to classes of exist-ing, already solved problems) is com-monly taught in our schools. Outside ofan art class or a traditional shop pro-gram, however, creative problem solv-ing (or how to solve unique or unsolv-able problems) is rarely addressed.While capabilities in this second type ofproblem solving are never given cur-ricular space to develop, these are thevery abilities that may prove critical toour survival as a society and even as aspecies.

Applying algorithms has proven arich source of techniques for the exploi-tation of the world’s resources—ourdominance of the world owes much tothis way of thinking. At the same time,however, despite the impressive tech-nological advances of the late 20thcentury, our collective capacities todeal with the global moral, economic,social, and environmental conse-quences of these advances are alreadybankrupt. These challenges are just thebills coming due today. The difficultiesof the next century seem to expandexponentially with every scientific, tech-nologic, and economic innovation, evenas we fail to solve those problems fac-ing us today. Ironically, these problemsresult from the very mastery of thisvastly fruitful first kind of problem solv-ing, applied algorithms. It is unlikelythat the solutions to these kinds of en-demic problems can come from the

same technique of thinking that pro-duced the problems in the first place.Rather, the solutions we desperatelyneed are the kind of paradigm shifts thatspring from the second kind of problemsolving, creative problem solving.

Unfortunately, there is a large bodyof evidence which supports the beliefsthat expertise in applying algorithms isdeveloped at the expense of creativityand that as one masters a body of knowl-edge and its traditional organization, itis exceedingly difficult to slip outside ofthat organization and see it again in anew, reordered, and more meaningfulmanner. Rare are people such asCopernicus and Galileo, who were ex-perts and yet able to recast their knowl-edge in a new, more meaningful fash-ion. More often, when one is schooledin a specialty and in how to organizeand process information about that spe-cialty, there’s an almost inescapabletendency for one to see the rest of theworld through that same prism of nar-row expertise as well. In educationalpsychology terms, this is called func-tional fixity (Moates & Schumaker,1980).

To illustrate functional fixity, con-sider the following story that the greatGestalt psychologist, Wolfgang Kohler,once wrote of his favorite chimpanzee,Atlas, and the puzzle he had posed tohim. Kohler was studying primate prob-lem solving at the time and had donethis experiment several times prior toworking with Atlas. He would suspenda basket of fruit from the top of a fairlyspacious cage that also held an ape,several sturdy boxes, and a long stick.Most apes would try the stick first, butfinding it too short, would puzzle for awhile and then in a flash of what Kohlersaw as “insight” use a box to stand on toget the fruit. Atlas, however, could notsolve the problem. Kohler sat outsidethe cage taking notes while Atlas stud-ied the fruit and the boxes. One hourpassed. Two. Kohler grew increasinglyworried about Atlas. He was the oldestape, and he grew increasingly despon-dent, looking frequently at Kohler withpleading eyes. Finally, Kohler couldstand it no more, and he entered thecage to reassure Atlas. Immediately onentering the cage, Atlas took Kohler bythe hand, led him so that he was directlyunder the bunch of fruit, and thenclimbed Kohler until he could reach it.

Kohler took this as an example of bothhis own and Atlas’s inability to recastold familiar forms into new innovationsor functional fixity (Moates &Schumaker, 1980).

These different types of problem solv-ing are liked and relied on by differentkinds of students, too. While businessand industry report that they want peoplewho are critical thinkers, team players,and problem solvers (Rogers, 1995),they are not thinking of the creativeproblem solvers. Business and industrywant those with a knack for applyingthe heuristics and algorithms of life toslightly new situations. They wantpeople who modify, not those radicalrandom abstract folks with their pen-chant for unconventional creative be-haviors. These creative problem solversare barely acceptable in polite society.They have a knack for abandoning con-ventional solutions and finding reallyunique (and sometimes unsavory) ones.They are hardly team players and notreadily acceptable by or as critical think-ers. And yet these creative problemsolvers break the code and decipher thesecrets of the universe. Of course, wehave learners with both sorts of thinkingpreferences in our technology classes.Schultz (1985), for example, found thatwhile 54% of 217 students in second-ary industrial education programsscored as abstract sequential or con-crete sequential learners (those peoplewho prefer to learn applied algorithms),20% scored as random abstract learn-ers. In other words, in this sample al-most one fifth of industrial educationstudents preferred to learn to solve prob-lems in a creative rather than lockstepfashion.

All people share creative and criticalthinking attributes, but the individualusually prefers one mode of thinkingover the other. Carl Jung (1976) com-pared this phenomena of the interac-tion between dominant and auxiliarypsychological functions to handedness.Most people demonstrate a preferencefor using the right or left hand fairlyearly in life and that preferred handbecomes quite skillful; the oppositehand however remains relatively un-skilled—just try writing your name withyour dominant and auxiliary hand andit will be apparent which is skilled andwhich has remained undeveloped andchildlike in its capabilities. And even

75

though we right-handers learn to catchfly balls with a mitt on our left hand andmaster shooting layups from the leftside of the basket, these skills are almostalways less well developed than thoseof the right.

Over the last 20 years, we havemoved away from traditional industrialeducation and strongly towards morerigorous forms of technology studies.We have sought to develop methods

and programs that foster a higher orderof thinking skills. Let us not do so at theexpense of our ability to slip outside ofconventional thinking and dream upreally new paradigms. Think of SteveJobs and Steve Wosniak at work in theirgarage, rethinking the ways that peopleand computers interact. Think of Einsteinand his inability to master the algo-rithms of simple mathematics, yet ableto rethink the universe. Remember

Piaget’s words, “The final form of learn-ing is play.” In our efforts to provideworkers for industry and citizens for oursociety, the balance between trainingand education and between applyingheuristics and solving problems withcreativity is always a precarious one. Inour secondary technology programs,we must take care that we do not leanmore toward training than education.

ReferencesJung, C. (1976). Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Moates, D., & Shumaker, G. (1980). An introduction to cognitive psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Rogers, G. E. (1995). Technology education curricular content: A trade and industry education perspective. Journal of

Industrial Technology Education, 32(3), 6–21.Schultz, A. E. (1985). The preference for intuition or sensation in 217 secondary industrial education students in Nebraska.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Dr. Schultz is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Vocational and Adult Education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

What does the term technologymean? What does the term engineeringmean? Are they one in the same? Onecollegiate dictionary defines technol-ogy as “...a scientific method of achiev-ing a practical purpose; or the totality ofthe means employed to provide objectsnecessary for human sustenance andcomfort” (Mish, 1988, p. 1211). Wrightand Lauda (1993) defined technologyas ”...a body of knowledge and action,used by people, to apply resources indesigning, producing, and using prod-ucts, structures and systems to extendthe human potential for controlling andmodifying the natural and human-made(modified) environment” (p. 3). Accord-ing to Savage (1991), technology is abody of knowledge and the applicationof resources using a systematic approachto produce outcomes in response tohuman needs and wants. Technology is“...the application of knowledge, toolsand skills to solve problems and extendhuman capabilities” (Smith, 1994, p.2). The common thread that runs throughall of these definitions is that technol-ogy is about doing to extend humancapability.

Engineering is defined as “the appli-cation of science and mathematics by

which the properties of matter and thesources of energy in nature are madeuseful to people in structures, machines,products, systems, and processes” (Mish,1988, p. 412). The Accreditation Boardfor Engineering Technology (ABET,1997) defines engineering as “...the pro-fession in which knowledge of the math-ematical and natural sciences gainedby study, experience and practice isapplied with judgment to develop waysto utilize, economically, the materialsand forces of nature for the benefit ofmankind” (cover). Both engineeringdefinitions emphasize utilizing a com-bination of mathematics and scientifictheories with materials and nature tosatisfy the needs of humankind.

From these definitions, it is easy tosee that engineering and technologyare not the same. The field of technol-ogy is much broader in scope thanengineering. When comparing technol-ogy and engineering, Dugger (1994)found several areas of similarity as wellas several distinct differences. Both en-gineering and technology are concernedwith “how to” and “the solution ofproblems” (p. 8), and both are driven by“social acceptance and success at themarketplace” (p. 8). Both are based on

the study of the principles of science,mathematics, processes, and systems.However, a fundamental differencedoes exist between technology andengineering. Technology places agreater emphasis on the application ofthese principles to solve problems andproduce products while the focus ofengineering is towards research, de-sign, and developing new products andsystems. The study of technology isdirected from something concrete tothe abstract while engineering is di-rected by theory and ends in specificrecommendations or solutions. How-ever, a certain level of interdependencedoes exist between engineering andtechnology as well. Engineering andtechnology are both dependent, to someextent, on one another. True progress isnot possible without both.

Bensen and Bensen (1993) proposedintegrating technology and engineer-ing experiences into the school curricu-lum. They asserted that engineering andtechnology content organizers are builtaround (a) disciplines, (b) systems, (c)processes, and (d) impacts. Furthermore,they stated that “it is readily apparentthat most contemporary and relevanttechnology education programs already

5. Technology: The Heartbeat of Educationby William D. Paige

76

include most of this content in theirdesign” (p. 5).

It is true that several states haveadopted or are developing programsdesigned to utilize engineering con-cepts. One such program is the Prin-ciples of Engineering from the NewYork State Education Department. Thisprogram takes a generic look at engi-neering through design activities andcase studies. Currently, there are ap-proximately 100 schools in New Yorkusing this program as a direct result ofthe National Science Foundation (NSF)providing funds for in-service experi-ences to train the teachers. Approxi-mately 15 other states have also senttheir teachers to receive this in-serviceinstruction.

The state of Virginia has developedan Introduction to Engineering pro-gram with the assistance of practicingengineers. Several other states have alsodeveloped programs that integrate thestudy of technology with academiccourses. In most cases, these programsare using problem-solving activities andtable-top technology to gain understand-ing of the processes and concepts. Sev-eral of these programs, such as the onesin Colorado and Texas, have been show-cased at national conventions. Anyproposal of integrating engineering andtechnology simply utilizing organizers,course titles, and outcomes may notprovide the desired results. Neverthe-less, this certainly does open anotheravenue for discussion as to what is therole of technology education in thewhole realm of education.

With all that having been said, it iseasy to recognize that a problem stillexists within the field that must be re-solved. This seemingly age-old prob-lem is one of identity, with many stillasking questions such as the following:Are we pre-vocational? Are we a part oftech prep? Are we pre-engineering? Arewe general education? These questionshave been hotly debated for decadesand most certainly since the American

Industrial Arts Association became theInternational Technology Education As-sociation. In an editorial, Sanders (1997)pointed out that the name change wasdesigned to fuel a paradigm shift withinthe profession that would cause theAmerican public to associate the termtechnology with our field of study. His-tory has recorded that this did not hap-pen. Sanders goes on to assert that wemust educate the public about technol-ogy education and the importance of atechnologically literate society. To ac-complish this, we have to put aside theold debates and move our discussionsto a different level, hopefully resultingin an application-based curriculum thatprepares learners for a productive fu-ture in an ever-changing world.

We are all aware that the primaryfocus of the SCANS Report for America2000 (U.S. Depart. of Labor, 1991) isthe identification of skills young peopleneed to possess upon completion oftheir formal education. These work-place competencies and foundationalskills can be immediately put into prac-tice by all students—those who chooseto enter the workforce directly and thosewho plan to continue their education ata college or university. It is interestingto note the similarities between SCANSrecommendations and the new goalscurrently being proposed in the litera-ture for engineering programs. Industryleaders contend that technical abilitiesalone are not enough—communica-tion and interpersonal skills, a willing-ness to adapt to change, and a strongsense of ethics are among the qualifica-tions necessary to meet the basic needsof today’s industry.

One area that is common to technol-ogy education and engineering educa-tion is the use of discovery or problem-solving activities in their coursework.These activities can have a lasting effecton students because nowhere else informal education are students given theopportunity to participate in creativeproblem solving. Problem-solving ac-

tivities, however, are not the end, sim-ply the means by which one can reacha goal. They are a framework uponwhich one can build an understandingof technology. Problem solving is amethod that can be used as a part of theoverall educational experience to helpproduce technologically literate stu-dents. It is imperative that today’s stu-dents not only develop the necessaryfoundation to appropriately select anduse current technologies effectively, butalso to make informed decisions aboutthe technologies of the future.

Savage and Bosworth (1992) identi-fied five strategies that will help pro-duce technologically literate students:

1. Utilize technology to solve problemsor meet opportunities to satisfy humanneeds and wants.2. Recognize that problems andopportunities exist that relate to and oftencan be addressed by technology.3. Identify, select, and use resources tocreate technology for human purposes.4. Identify, select, and efficiently useappropriate technological knowledge,resources , and processes to satisfy humanwants and needs.5. Evaluate technological venturesaccording to their positive and negative,planned and unplanned, immediate anddelayed consequences. (p. 1)

In conclusion, it is essential that allpeople have an understanding of tech-nology and use it appropriately intoday’s world. Whether technologyeducation merges with the field of engi-neering as suggested by some, or re-mains as a separate and distinct field ofstudy, it simply must become an inte-gral part of the educational program forevery citizen. Technology is the es-sence of our way of life. The impact thattechnology has on all of our lives willdo nothing but expand in the future.Therefore, to borrow and slightly modifya well known phrase, “Technology isthe heartbeat of America,” it must be-come the heartbeat of education.

ReferencesAccreditation Board for Engineering Technology. (1997). Accreditation yearbook for accreditation cycle ended September

1997. Baltimore, MD: Author.Bensen, M. J., & Bensen, T. (1993). Gaining support for the study of technology. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 3–5.Dugger, W. E., Jr. (1994). The relationship between technology, science, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology

Teacher, 53(7), 5–8.Mish, F. C. (Ed.). (1988). Merriam-Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

77

Savage, E. (1991). Determinants of advanced technological content in technology education curriculum. In M. Hacker, A.Gordon, & M. de Vries (Eds.), Integrating advanced technology into technology education (Series F, Vol. 78). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Savage, E., & Bosworth, F. (1992). Secondary grades technology education: Technology literacy and problem solving inaction. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Smith, W. H. (1994). Application of technology systems. In Technology education graduation outcomes: Questions andanswers. The Donald Maley Monograph Series (Monograph 1). Reston, VA: Industrial Technology Education Association.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Labor, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.

Wright, R. T., & Lauda, D. (1993). Technology education—A position statement. The Technology Teacher, 52(4), 3–5.

Dr. Paige is a Professor in the Department of Technology and Human Resources Development at Clemson University, South Carolina. He is Trustee of theGamma Tau Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau.

The technology curriculum has beendefined and redefined, and it continuesto evolve to keep pace with technologi-cal discoveries. As a consequence, moststates have written and implementedtechnology programs within schools,which have acquired impressive equip-ment. But, the technology teacher needsto address how the technology equip-ment and curriculum can be utilized tobest enhance student learning.

We believe that matching studentsto their learning styles can be the ve-hicle to the successful implementationof curriculum and the appropriate useof technology equipment to meet stu-dent learning outcomes. The studentlearning inventory discussed in this ar-ticle was developed to demonstrate howthe creation of an easy-to-understandinventory and minor adjustments in theteaching-learning process can make asignificant difference in the learningprocess.

Learning styles or modalities are themanner in which students learn orchange as the result of an experience(Roundtree-Wyley, Frusher, & Ficklin,1988). Research shows that attention toteaching methodologies that addressstudent learning styles increases learn-ing and develops the potential ability ofstudents to learn (Carbo, Dunn, & Dunn,1986; Foriska, 1992; Henak, 1992).According to Jenkins (1988), whenteachers begin to adjust instruction todiagnosed learning style differences,academic achievement increases andattitude toward learning is more posi-tive. As a result, many learning style

inventories (James & Galbraith, 1985;Kolb, 1985; Myers & McCaulley, 1985)have been developed for a wide varietyof populations.

For the purpose of this project, infor-mation processing and instructional cat-egories of learning styles were consid-ered. Interestingly, Johnson and Tho-mas (1994) discovered that novice learn-ers without a knowledge base concern-ing a particular problem relied upon thesenses to guide the learning process.Johnson and Thomas also found thatthe ability to select an appropriate strat-egy is an essential element of the prob-lem-solving process. Assisting studentsto use the appropriate learning modal-ity of visual, auditory, or psychomotorsenses has the potential of enhancingproblem solving and student learningoutcomes.

After a review of the literature(Flaherty, 1992; Geisert & Dunn, 1990;James & Blank, 1991; Loper, 1989;Orsak, 1990; Roundtree-Wyley et al.,1988) and in an attempt to develop alearning style inventory that would becompatible in the technology classroomand that would be readily understoodby a variety of students, the authorschose and developed the categories ofvisual, auditory, and psychomotor fortheir instrument, the Learning ChannelsInventory(LCI). Waetjen (1993) statedthat all three modes are used in thetechnological process of learning. Allmodes are equally important, but eachstyle has advantages and disadvantagesfor the student learner.

The uses of the LCI for the technol-

ogy classroom is multifaceted. The pri-mary goals are (a) to enhance the learn-ing of the technology curriculum, (b) toconsider how students might most ef-fectively learn and use the technologyequipment, and (c) to expand the in-structional methods of the technologyteacher. By considering learning styles,students become more involved in thelearning process, cooperative learninggroups can be structured to value thediversity of learning styles, and studentscan be more successful in the learningprocess.

LEARNING CHANNELS INVENTORYWe developed the LCI for technol-

ogy teachers in the middle and second-ary school classroom. We administeredthe inventory twice to students over aperiod of a semester for a test-retestreliability of 80. Although students havethe ability to learn in all three styles, theinventory will indicate a predominantstyle or modality.

A visual learning style is used bythose students who would rather seethe ideas on the printed page, on anoverhead, or be shown how to do anactivity. These students profit best byreading materials (textbooks or othersuch materials rather than lectures), bytaking notes and writing reports, and bydemonstration and observation. Thesestudents will seek information by read-ing rather than by asking another per-son. These students will take notes tobetter remember the concepts but oftenneed to be shown how to do an activity.

The auditory learning style, described

6. A Learning Styles Instrument to Enhance Learning in Technologyby Larry D. Kuskie and Marlene M. Kuskie

78

as learning that occurs through hearing,is often the least developed channel butis the most often used method of in-struction (lecture format) at the second-ary level (O’Brien, 1989). For studentswho prefer the auditory channel, talk-ing and listening become very impor-tant. Reading aloud and discussing theirthoughts are vital to the learning pro-cess. Such students learn most opti-mally in small groups and by havingother students listen to what they haveto say and how ideas sound. Lecturesby teachers can become boring if thestudents are not able to talk and re-spond to the ideas.

The psychomotor or haptic/kines-thetic learning style refers to studentswho learn best through hands-on ac-tivities. Learning must be action ori-ented. The technology laboratory be-comes an ideal environment for thesestudents. Often the technology equip-ment limits the number of students inthe classroom, which also enhancesthe opportunity for psychomotor stu-dents to be actively involved in thelearning process. Psychomotor-orientedstudents can be frustrating to the tech-nology teacher because they are oftenpunching keys or buttons without tak-ing the time to read the manual orasking for assistance.

USE AND IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE LCI

The LCI (see Table 1) should beadministered at the beginning of thelearning term so that results may bereviewed by the students and theteacher. Students are encouraged torespond to each item as it relates to theirparticular preference. There are no rightor wrong answers. If needed, each itemcan be clarified by the teacher usingadditional examples. The final profileor clusters of responses indicate what istrue for the students as they have per-ceived the statements. The profile isinterpreted, with the lowest number ofresponses being their predominantlearning style and the highest numberof responses being their least preferredlearning style. The Interpretation Guidefor the LCI (see Table 2) might then bedistributed to students for future refer-ence.

A profile that has a similar number ofresponses in each category indicates (a)that the student has developed all three

learning modalities and probably adaptsto the learning situation and the modal-ity of the material being taught or (b)that the student has not discovered alearning channel that is most efficientor effective and often does not achievewell since the student does not knowhow to adapt or choose a learning stylethat best fits the situation. The LCI canbecome a teaching/learning device tohelp the student begin to discover anddevelop a more efficient way to learn orproblem solve based on that particularsituation.

A discussion of the InterpretationGuide with either the individual stu-dent or within the classroom becomesthe opportunity for the technologyteacher to talk about the problem-solv-ing process and how learning can occurmost effectively. The learning style willoften determine how the student maybest learn on a particular piece of equip-ment. The students are not only encour-aged to consider predominant learningstyle, but also the development of othermodalities.

The technology teacher needs torecord the profiles of each student sothat learning groups and teaching meth-odologies are adapted for the particularclass. Different teaching methods canbe adapted depending on the nature ofthe learning module. Table 3 is an ex-ample of adapting the learning style toa particular learning module.

Another use of the LCI is to placestudents in cooperative learning groupsconsisting of students with all threepredominant learning styles. The learn-ing objective may be to have the stu-dents develop a learning methodology/aid according to each learning style fora particular piece of technology equip-ment. For example, if the cooperativelearning group was responsible for de-veloping a visual method to teach some-one how to use a particular piece ofequipment, the students with a pre-dominant visual learning style in thegroup would be consultants to the groupin the development of the learning de-vice (i.e., drawing a step-by-step dia-gram or developing a videotape dem-onstration). The problem-solving pro-cess of how the group members func-tioned in the role as consultant andcreator also needs to be evaluated.

In order to better link the informationgained from the LCI, the students might

be assigned to evaluate other classesand determine how different learningstyles may need to be utilized andadapted depending on the situation.

The students might also learn bycreating new items for the inventorythat are more relevant to identifying thecategories of visual, auditory, or psy-chomotor considering the specific ex-periences in the classroom. In particu-lar, the students need to be encouragedto supplement other ways and means tolearn in the various styles using theInterpretation Guide. The Interpreta-tion Guide is meant to stimulate discus-sion and understanding and to guidethe learning process.

HINTS AND CAUTIONSThe technology teacher should plan

the learning process to involve the learn-ing modalities of seeing, hearing, anddoing. At the same time, if the teacherteaches and evaluates only in one learn-ing modality (which is often the teacher’spredominant learning style), the teacheris accurately assessing only those stu-dents who prefer that mode (Loper,1989). Teaching in only one predomi-nant modality will meet only a portionof the students’ needs and creates un-necessary stress and confusion whichreduces student motivation and restrictsstudent performance (Roundtree-Wyleyet al., 1988). Thus, students and teachersneed to explore a variety of methods ofteaching and learning.

Knowledge of the predominant learn-ing style is important for the technologyteacher in planning activities for boththe student and the group (James &Blank, 1991). Individually, activities andmodules can be matched to a student’spredominant learning style and the stu-dent can be encouraged to developanother learning style depending onthe particular module. But even moreimportant, the technology teacher needsto incorporate the knowledge of pre-dominant learning styles into how co-operative learning groups, other smallgroups, and dyads are formed. For ex-ample, by matching different learningstyles on a module, the students will useeach other’s talents to discover how touse the equipment for further problemsolving. In a problem-solving sequence,the learning perspectives—which in-troduces more information into the pro-cess—will cause solutions to be reached

79

Table 1

Learning Channels Inventory

Directions: Read each item and prioritize the activities according to your first, second, and third preference. Be sure you enter a different number in eachblank to indicate the order in which you ranked them 1 = first choice, 2 = second choice, and 3 = third choice.

1. You are a member of the new Technology Student Association (TECA). As a member you would rather_____ a. serve as secretary and keep written records._____ b. plan future meetings/projects by talking to the other students._____ c. set up paraphernalia for meetings and gather any other materials for meetings and projects.

2. When putting together a robotics model, you would_____ a. follow the directions found in the instruction book._____ b. prefer that another student read the directions while you put the model together._____ c. begin putting the robot together relying on your past knowledge and what seems to fit or work.

3. When studying for a test, do you_____ a. write summaries to help you remember important items?_____ b. read over your notes aloud to assist you in remembering or have someone quiz you?_____ c. draw pictures or find a pneumonic device that would help you remember?

4. When memorizing the numbers to a G code on a CNC machine, you would_____ a. form a picture in your head of the code._____ b. repeat them over and over to yourself._____ c. write the number down on a piece of paper.

5. A new student is introduced to your class. How would you remember his or her name?_____ a. relate their name to some particular characteristic about them._____ b. relate their name to something that rhymes._____ c. write their name down over and over on a piece of paper.

6. Your technology teacher has asked you to respond in class. Which method is more comfortable to you?_____ a. refer to what you remembered in the book._____ b. talking about what you heard the teacher/students say._____ c. use a piece of equipment to demonstrate your answer.

7. The technology teacher is presenting information in class concerning different uses of satellites. Would you rather_____ a. have the instructor give you written directions to follow?_____ b. listen to the instructions that are given by the instructor only?_____ c. explore how the satellite works and experiment to make it operate?

8. Your instructor has just received a complete stereo system for the technology laboratory. The instructor has asked you to put it together. You would_____ a. read the written directions to solve a problem._____ b. make a phone call to the company to get a problem solved._____ c. keep moving wires around until the problem in the stereo system is solved.

9. When listening to a new hit song that has just swept the country, you would_____ a. look at the lyrics on the package._____ b. sing along with the lyrics._____ c. write the lyrics down on a piece of paper and tap your foot to the beat.

10. The technology teacher has just received word that the students in the class have been selected as the most outstanding students in the school. Theteacher is very excited and happy. How could you tell?_____ a. observe the teacher’s body language._____ b. listen for the teacher’s voice inflection._____ c. notice the teacher shaking hands with the students.

11. You have just finished your module work on lasers. Your teacher just told you that the next 30 minutes are free time to work on individual interestsin the lab. You would_____ a. start reading the next assigned module or figuring out something else you’ve wondered about._____ b. use the time to talk to other students about their projects._____ c. use the time to construct or build something new.

12. The technology teacher has just presented some very important information concerning problem solving. You would_____ a. concentrate deeply on the reading material handed out._____ b. concentrate deeply on what the instructor was saying._____ c. concentrate deeply on the task required to complete the assignment.

13. A friend of yours has just won a gold medal in the state track meet. You would_____ a. congratulate the friend by writing a note._____ b. call the friend on the telephone._____ c. give the friend a hand shake the next time you see him or her.

14. Which one of the following games would you rather play?_____ a. Scrabble_____ b. Wheel of Fortune on TV_____ c. Slap Jack

15. You are en route to a friend’s house when you become lost. You would_____ a. get a map out to find your way to the location._____ b. stop and ask for directions from someone on the street._____ c. keep driving and guessing until you find your way.

Scoring Directions:Have the students add all the numbers in Category A. Then have students add the numbers in Categories B and C. The category with the lowest number wouldindicate their learning style. Category A indicates that the student is a visual learner, B indicates an auditory learner, and C indicates psychomotor tendencies.If two categories are tied or very close, this indicates that the student has not developed one area over another or uses the style that is needed by the particularlearning situation.

ProfileTotal Category A Category B Category C

_________ _________ _________

80

Learning Module Robotics

Visual Use of the manual, videotape, demonstration

Auditory Prerecorded message of instructions, collaborative learning group, lecture

Psychomotor Experimentation with basic lab instruction, simultaneous use of robot with videotape

Table 3

Adapting learning style to a particular learning module.

Table 2

Interpretation Guide for the Learning Channels Inventory

Visual Preferences Auditory Preferences Psychomotor Preferences

• Reading a textbook • Prefers lecture to reading • Learns best by moving anda book experience

• Rules and lists• Likes discussion in small • Likes hands-on activities

• Likes charts, graphs, and groupspictures • Likes to do rather than read

• Likes videos• Takes notes • Reads for meaning not detail

• Reads out loud• Likes overheads and slides to • Usually does not read for pleasure

supplement lecture • Often first to answer questions• Often has illegible handwriting

• Wants quiet to learn • Thinks out loud• Tendency to stand close to people

• Needs handouts and • Listens to tapesworksheets • Poor test taker

• Likes to hear explanations• Prefers written tests and reports • Talent for working with hands

for assessment/evaluation • Prefers oral assessment• Often likes vocational classes

• Likes demonstrations• Needs more time to finishprojects

• Visualizes on computer• Likes to use computers instead of reading

sooner. Students will begin to respecteach other’s styles and value their con-tribution to the process. By matchingstudents with similar learning styles,the students can help each other pre-pare for tests and learn from each othersince students with the same predomi-nant learning style will speak the samelanguage. Technology teachers needmore than observation to determine

the dominant learning style of the stu-dent. The LCI provides the tool to assistthe teacher and student.

The LCI is a springboard to encour-age the technology teacher to integratelearning process concepts into the tech-nology classroom. Technology is notonly learning a piece of equipment, butit is a study of the learning process. Themore students can become aware of the

learning process, the better the studentcan transfer learning concepts and con-tinue learning independently as tech-nology equipment changes. As the tech-nology teacher becomes creative in dif-ferent teaching approaches, the morestudents will expand their potential tolearn.

81

Dr. L. Kuskie is the Chairperson of the Department of Industrial Technology at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. Dr. M. Kuskie is an Associate Professorin the Department of Counseling and School Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Kearney.

ReferencesCarbo, M., Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1986). Teaching students to read through their individual learning styles. Reston, VA.Flaherty, G. (1992). The learning curve: Why textbook teaching doesn’t work for all kids. Vocational Education Journal, 67, 32–34.Foriska, T. (1992). Breaking from tradition: Using learning styles to teach students how to learn. Schools in the Middle, 2, 14–16.Geisert, G., & Dunn, R. (1990). Learning styles and computers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 268)Henak, R. M. (1992). Addressing learning styles. The Technology Teacher, 52, 23–28.James, W. B., & Blank, W. (1991). A comparison of perceptual learning styles of adult high school graduates and non

graduates. Adult Basic Education, 1, 98–106.James, W. B., & Galbraith, M. W. (1985). Perceptual learning styles: Implications and techniques for the practitioner. Lifelong

Learning, 8, 20–23.Jenkins, J. M. (1988). A learning style approach to effective instruction. In J. W. Keefe (Ed.), Profiling and utilizing learning

style (pp. 41–44). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary Principals.Johnson, S., & Thomas, R. (1994). Implications of cognitive science for instructional design in technology education. The

Journal of Technology Studies, 20(1), 33–45.Kolb, D. (1985). The learning style inventory and interpretation booklet. Boston: McBer.Loper, S. (1989). Learning styles and student diversity. Educational Leadership, 46, 6.Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

(2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.O’Brien, L. (1989). Learning styles: Make the student aware. NASSP Bulletin, 73, 85–89.Orsak, L. (1990). Learning styles versus the Rip Van Winkle Syndrome. Educational Leadership, 48, 19–21.Roundtree-Wyley, J., Frusher, S., & Ficklin, T. (1988). A comparison of learning styles in traditional and non-traditional

students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 671)Waitjen, W. (1993). Entropy and technological learning: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Technology Studies, 19, 2–29.

Epsilon Pi Tau’s Editorial Board is currently soliciting articles on these themes:• Women and Technology• Imagining Cyberspace• Managing the New Techies: Smart, Feisty, and Entrepreneurial• Techno-Diversity: People of Color and Technology• Saving the Best for First: How community Colleges Make Technology Education Happen• Educating the Universe: A Status Report on International Technology Training

Feel free to contact Ce Ce Iandoli at her e-mail address with your letters of inquiries or abstractsat: cecei@aol.com or submit a full-length manuscript which follow form and style described inthe Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (fourth edition 1994,particularly as pertains to citations, references, tables, figures, and headings.