Proceedings of the Second AAAS Technology Education Research Conference
Improving
Technology Education Research on Cognition
Karen
F. Zuga
The
Ohio State
University
Cognitive
research about technology education has suffered from a lack of a coherent focus.
Certainly, there are studies that have addressed cognition, yet analysts of
technology education research have been unable to coordinate their findings
in any meaningful way (Streichler, 1966; Dyrenfurth & Householder, 1979;
McCrory, 1987; Zuga, 1994). There are several persistent problems facing technology
educators that contribute to the inability to develop clear interpretations
or generalizations of the relationship of cognition and technology education.
If some of those problems are identified, then, perhaps, we can address them
in order to devise directions and strategies for studying cognition in technology
education.
What
We Have From the Past
Reviews
of research in technology education conducted during the last half of the 20th
Century have cited numerous studies involving cognition (Streichler, 1966; Householder
and Dyrenfurth, 1979; McCrory, 1987; Zuga, 1994). However, the reviewers have
often concluded that the research they read represents no coherent direction
and conclusions with regard to cognition and learning in technology education.
Even
efforts such as the 1966 Industrial Arts Curriculum Project, which promoted
institutional research and generated over 20 studies through project work and
dissertations, with at least 16 of those studies addressing aspects of cognition,
did not project a depth of work in any given aspect of cognition (Buffer, 1971).
As Dyrenfurth and Householder (1979) concluded regarding research in technology
education:
Many
of the variables in the context of learning processes were researched. Yet,
in the absence of some overall research scheme, one cannot identify which
relationships are yet to be researched. The mere quantity of the individual
variables reviewed to date, and the possibilities broached by their permutations,
points out rather clearly that research efforts have just begun. (p. 69)
In
truth, the options with regard to variables related to cognition and learning
that are open to researchers are vast, leading to the present state of research
about cognition in technology education as being broad, but not deep. Single
studies with selected variables related to cognition and learning abound in
the literature to this day, making it difficult to draw together enough studies
to do a coordinated analysis. No unifying research problem(s) seem to direct
the research effort, making it difficult to create a research focus.
Problems
and Issues
The
lack of a clear focus and coordinated grouping of cognition and learning studies
in technology education may be due to several problems and issues facing the
profession historically and today. Certainly, the size of the profession has
been and remains a problem, but there are other problems and issues. The complacency
that we have about doing or not doing research, an atheoretical stance on the
part of the majority of the profession, and the resulting process orientation
in technology education makes it difficult to create a research base.
Size.
In 1993, Volk documented a
diminishing trend with regard to teacher education and teacher educators in
a look at enrollment trends in technology education. This reduction in force
was no surprise to most of us who saw the number of our colleagues dwindling
through program reduction and retirement. A follow-up in 1997 by Volk documented
the continuing trend in reduction of enrollments and programs. There is no evidence
that this situation has reversed. In fact, additional loss of technology education
faculty and researchers has taken place through retirements with no replacements.
In
addition, the number of technology education studies identified using similar
data bases in the last review of research is significantly lower, about half
of the studies reviewed in the previous review (McCrory, 1987; Zuga, 1994).The
number of studies in the two reviews fell from 435 to 220 studies with each
review covering research conducted during a seven year period. Conspiring to
create such a dramatic reduction in research has to be the decline in the number
of graduate students and faculty doing research. Those of us in graduate education
have no reason to doubt these data as we see fewer and fewer graduate students
interested in technology education. A reduction in the number of faculty and
graduate students is creating a situation where the already small number of
professionals available to do research is getting smaller.
Complacency.
Given that the pool of potential
researchers has grown smaller, there is another persistent problem that has
faced technology educators. It is difficult to find the time, funding, and support
to do research. Many technology educators who leave their graduate programs
in search of faculty positions are confronted with the reality that there are
only a handful of universities where research in technology education is encouraged
and supported because there are so few positions that deal with technology education.
Reading the job postings for technology education reveals that most universities
advertise for faculty with technical expertise who can maintain and manage a
technical teaching laboratory. Often, new faculty members are given positions
that put them in contact with industrial technology students and not technology
education majors. Volk (1993, 1997) documented the growth of industrial technology
education and illustrated the way in which those programs have overtaken the
teacher education programs that they have replaced. Faculty members often take
on primarily teaching roles in industrial technology and become complacent in
those roles, avoiding research on education due to the lack of time, support,
and funding.
Even
though technology educators have a small research base as noted by several analysts
(Cajas, 2000; Lewis, 1999; Zuga, 1994), there is another aspect to their complacency.
That is the tendency to make pronouncements and act on ideas without much research
support (Petrina, 1993). Yet to be determined and supported by research evidence
are the following: technological literacy, problem solving as the technological
method, technology as a discipline, and other "truths"
that seem to be held by the technology education community. Still, technology
educators carry on with recommendations that would make one think that technological
literacy, problem solving as the technological method, and technology as a discipline
are universally accepted concepts outside of the field of technology education
with research backing.
Some
carrying on is good; the kind of carrying on that is done in order to field
test and research ideas is necessary. However, carrying on in the absence of
testing and research is wasteful of precious educational time and resources.
Working with no data, other than collected opinions regarding prescriptive content
for technology education, technology educators risk failure in the very goals
that they wish to achieve-universal technology
education. For example, on a topic related to how people can best learn about
technology, how many modular technology education labs have been installed in
schools based upon solid research which supports their effectiveness? Not many.
In fact, this rapid conversion to modular education seems to be related more
to preference than to effectiveness. It is reminiscent of the repetition and
drill audio lingual laboratories installed in schools during the late nineteen
sixties and ripped out of schools later as ideas of effective language instruction
changed.
Atheoretical
Nature. Without proper support
to conduct research and with a dwindling base of research, it is all too easy
to become atheoretical. The pragmatism inherent in technology, in itself, inhibits
theory and the history of research in technology education has exhibited an
atheoretical bent (Petrina, 1998). Many of us are just not interested in theoretical
perspectives and rarely question the theory that supports the decisions we make,
including research decisions. Ignoring the theory that frames our discussions
about technology education leads to bias and the kind of error that analysts
have noted in technology education research: flawed research design and methods
(Streichler, 1966; Dyrenfurth and Householder, 1979; McCrory, 1987; Zuga, 1994;
and Petrina, 1998).
With
a lack of interest and an atheoretical nature inherent in technology conspiring
to denigrate theory, it can disappear as the support for research. For example,
problem solving becomes the catch phrase used in the field, rather than constructivism,
cognition, or some other related learning theory. What kind of research is generated
when "problem solving" is used as a key construct? The resulting studies
tend to seek answers to such questions as these:
- Is
using problem solving better than traditional teaching?
- What
do students learn from problem solving?
- Do
students exposed to technology education problem solving activities do better
on mathematics and science achievement tests?
Often,
studies such as these are conducted in absence of a theoretical perspective
with little discussion of the learning theories that underpin the act of using
problem solving as a method of teaching.
Basing
research about problem solving in a learning theory such as constructivism could
result in a detailed look at how students construct their own reality and what
concepts they are learning via technology education activities as they make
sense of the world. And, there are technology educators from outside of the
United States
(e.g., McCormick, Murphy, and Hennessy, 1994) and cognitive scientists in the
United States
(Kolodner, 2000) who are doing studies and basing their research on the constructivist
literature of our science and mathematics education colleagues and the theories
of cognitive science.
Process
Orientation. The new standards
for technology education have signaled a move away from the detailed content
identification of the era of curriculum reform in the 1960s and 1970s to more
of a process orientation. Clearly, the new standards can be seen as an attempt
to make contemporary visions of technology education teachable and to provide
direction for classroom change, a possible compensation for the over reliance
on content structures generated in the past. This is not, in itself, a bad idea,
but now there are fewer concepts identified, 20 standards and 288 benchmarks
related to those 20 standards; these are to be studied and learned over four
levels of schooling (International Technology Education Association, 2000).
This is a stark reduction in the content generated by the curriculum projects
of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. This reduction of content can inhibit research
on cognition.
Without
technology education content, how do we begin to study what students learn?
Test to see if they are learning math and science? It is revealing that testing
to determine success in science and mathematics is what some of the technology
education module sales representatives do to sell their wares. It also implies
that there is no valued content for technology education. Somehow, all of the
work that had been done in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s has been lost on the
current generation of technology educators who now create curriculum activities
based upon a problem solving method and a theme such as biotechnology or construction.
So, children make and test bridges or grow vegetables hydroponically and are
tested not on technological concepts, but mathematical and scientific concepts.
Gone are the short-lived days of basing activities on earthmoving in construction
content such as:
Given
an efficiency chart, equipment costs, and a graph to determine acres moved
per hour:
a.
Determine the amount of earth moved per hour.
b.
Select the proper earthmoving equipment.
c.
Determine equipment costs.
(Lux, Ray, and Hauenstein, 1970, p. 120)
This
example represents detailed content about using technology. Perhaps, it is the
lack of clear content that is inhibiting research about cognition in technology
education.
Once
they have determined that there are concepts of value which lead to a greater
understanding of technology, the role of researchers in technology education
should be to explore and determine the value of the concepts, how and when
students internalize these concepts, and how the concepts fit together to
create a big picture of...how humans use and can benefit from the technology
that they create. (Zuga, 1994, p.63)
Directions
and Strategies
Based
upon the previous discussion of problems and issues which continue to confound
the ability to create a technology education research base, I have several recommendations.
They can be grouped according to these themes: modifying and expanding research
methods and efforts, adopting a theoretical framework, and re-engaging
in content.
Research
methods. If the current means
of conducting research and the number of research efforts are insufficient,
we need to rethink what we are doing and devise better ways to conduct research
on technology education. Two major changes that could redirect the research
effort come to mind, using qualitative research methods more frequently and
encouraging teachers to become action researchers in the classroom.
Since
quantitative research methods tend to focus on specific variables, it just may
be a contributing cause of the scattered approach that has been prevalent and
leads to breadth in the research base, rather than depth. Moreover, selecting
a variable to research with quantitative means can often be like a shot in the
dark with little or no prior research evidence to support that selection. More
important, at this stage in the technology education research effort, would
be to identify, from practice, variables that might be worth further study.
By observing students as they engage in technology education activities researchers
could begin to identify what key ideas and concepts students are using and learning
and how they are learning them. This kind of research is taking place at present,
usually abroad, but on a limited basis in the United States (Zuga, 1994). We
need to do more studies with qualitative methods (Zuga, 1987; Hoepfl, 1997).
To
address the dwindling numbers of technology education researchers, we need to
expand the potential population of researchers. Expanding the population of
researchers is best done by encouraging teachers to engage in action research
or teacher inquiry in their classrooms and laboratories (Benenson, 2001). Working
on problems of cognition that concern themselves and/or working with researchers
from universities in research teams on programmatic problems could increase
the amount of research that is done. Of course, this means that there must be
an end to complacency and a vision that sees research as important to the health
and growth of technology education. These are not new ideas. Certainly, teacher
inquiry has been an important form of educational research for over 25 years
and many innovative teacher education programs now stress action research projects
for their students in order to acquaint and socialize them into their role as
classroom researchers (Rogers and Tyndall, 2001, Fraenkel and Wallen, 2000,
Holmes Group, 1990). All technology educators need to consider themselves as
researchers with important contributions to be made to the literature.
Theoretical
Perspectives. Theory plays
multiple roles in research: it frames the research problem; the selection of
variables; the methods used to conduct the study; and the methods used to analyze
the results. Acting in absence of theory in any aspect of the research endeavor
brings a bias to the research, one that has been noted and documented in technology
education research (Petrina, 1998; Zuga, 1994).
We
must adopt theory to guide us in our research endeavors. We need to understand
and explain the theoretical frameworks which support the selection of the problem,
variables chosen, selection of the study design and method, and the interpretations
made. Contemporary research theories, theories of how to conduct science in
education, support qualitative and teacher inquiry as we observe student behavior,
interview for student knowledge and understanding, and interpret representations
of what students believe about technology and how people create and use technology.
To
do this we could take a page from constructivism (Lewis, Petrina, and Hill,
1998; Herschbach, 1998), using this theory to guide us to identify students'
preconceptions, link those to related concepts, and identify learning activities
that help to bridge student learning from preconceptions to subject matter conceptions
in technology education.
We
could also attempt to create our own learning theory with respect to technology
education. Lewis, Petrina, and Hill suggested the modification of the concept
of problem solving to "problem posing"
by shifting focus from curriculum to instruction, or theoretically from method
to situation (1998, p. 8). This shift allows us to think theoretically about
how problem posing is uniquely a part of technology. This shift also opens new
vistas for discussion and theorizing about technology education. Certainly,
it is related to constructivism, but it extends that work beyond the purview
of mathematics and science education.
Identifying
Concepts. The study of cognition
in technology education, what students are learning from studying technology,
begs for the identification of key concepts and content. Even if the activity
is a technological problem, there still must be underlying technological and/or
technical concepts that are to be learned from participating in the activity.
If we have thrown out the content structures from the era of curriculum reform
in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, then, we must identify the content that we intend
students to learn now. One way to identify these concepts is to use qualitative
methods to observe student learning. This is being done abroad as teachers work
with students who are attempting to solve technological problems in the laboratory
setting (Järvinen and Hiltunen, 2000; McCormick, 1997). Another might be to
identify the key concepts that teachers think they are teaching and then to
determine, through evaluation, if students are learning and using those concepts.
Yet another may be to implement standards based programs and identify, through
multiple means of assessment, what students are learning and whether that content
relates to the benchmarks. The idea is to try to identify what students are
learning that is the unique value of technology education and what technology
education contributes to the cognitive growth of people that is not contributed
by teaching other subject matter and by other forms of education.
Once
some direction is obtained through research on cognition, then, it will be possible
to explore relationships between cognition and variables such as creativity,
motivation, and multiple intelligences (Hill & Smith, 1998). Identifying
key concepts from the study of students' learning enables researchers to use
their research outcomes to promote further research, rather than basing research
on a hunch.
Summary
Technology
educators and researchers do have a history of trying to research cognition
as it relates to technology education. However, the efforts have been criticized
from within the profession as having too much breadth and not enough depth.
There are several reasons for this state of affairs that are related to the
size of the profession, as well as to the topic, technology, and the culture
of the professionals. Changing this state of affairs may best be done by:
- including
teachers in research,
- using
qualitative methods,
- adopting
a theoretical framework for research design and problems,
- creating
theory for technology education,
- identifying
the constructs and concepts that students learn through technology education
activities, and
- assessing
the effectiveness of technology education in addressing those key concepts.
References
Benenson,
G. (2001). Teachers researching, children designing. Journal of Technology
Education, 12(2), 56-68.
Buffer,
J. J. (1971). A junior high school industrial technology curriculum project:
A final evaluation of the industrial arts curriculum project. Columbus,
OH:
The Ohio State
University.
Cajas,
F. (2000). Research in technology education: What are we researching? A response
to Theodore Lewis. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 61-69.
Dyrenfurth,
M., & Householder, D. (1979). Industrial arts education: A review and
synthesis of the research 1968-1979. Columbus,
OH:
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Fraenkel,
J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in
education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Herschbach,
D. R. (1998). Reconstructing technical instruction. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education, 36(1), 36-61.
Hill,
A. M., & Smith, H. A. (1998). Practice meets theory in technology education:
A case of authentic learning in the high school setting. Journal of Technology
Education, 9(2), 29-46.
Hoepfl,
M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education
researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.
Holmes
Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles of design of professional
development schools. East Lansing,
MI:
Author.
International
Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology. Reston,
VA:
Author.
Järvinen,
E., & Hiltunen, J. (2000). Automation technology in elementary technology
education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(4), 51-76.
Kolodner,
J. (2000). The design experiment as a research methodology for technology education.
Paper presented at the AAAS Technology Education Research Conference,
Washington,
DC. http://www.project2061.org/meetings/technology/papers/Kolodner.htm
Lewis,
T. (1999). Research in technology education-Some areas of need. Journal
of Technology Education, 10(2), 41-56.
Lewis,
T., Petrina, S. & Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem posing-Adding a creative increment
to technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
36(1), 5-35.
Lux,
D. G., Ray, W. E., & Hauenstein, A. D. (1970). The
world of construction laboratory manual .
Bloomington, IL: McKnight.
McCormick,
R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2, 141-159).
McCormick,
R., Murphy, P., & Hennessy, S. (1994). Problem solving processes in technology
education: A pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 4(1), 5-34.
McCrory,
D. (1987). Technology education: Industrial arts in transition, a review
and synthesis of the research. Columbus,
OH:
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Petrina,
S. (1993). Diversity, not uniformity, united, not standardized: A reaction to
Wright's "Challenge to all technology educators." Journal of Technology
Education, 4(2), 71-78.
Petrina,
S. (1998). The politics of research in technology education: A critical content
and discourse analysis of the journal of technology education. Journal of
Technology Education, 10(1), 27-57.
Rogers,
L. N., & Tyndall, P. D. (2001). Teachers' perspectives: Developing instructional
leadership through classroom inquiry. In C. R. Nesbit, J. D. Wallace, D. K.
Pugalee, A. Courtney-Miller, and W. J. DiBiase (Eds.). Developing teacher
leaders: Professional development in science and mathematics (209-226),
Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental
Education.
Streichler,
J. (1966). Review and synthesis of research in industrial arts. Columbus,
OH: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Volk,
K. S. (1993). Enrollment trends in industrial arts/technology education teacher
education from 1970-1990. Journal of Technology Education, 4(2), 46-59.
Volk,
K. S. (1997). Going, going, gone? Recent trends in technology teacher education
programs. Journal of Technology Teacher Education, 8(2), 67-71.
Zuga,
K. F. (1987). Conducting naturalistic research in industrial education. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education, 24(3), 44-58.
Zuga,
K. F. (1994). Implementing technology education: A review and synthesis
of the research literature. Columbus,
OH:
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
