A turn to engineering: The continuing struggle of technology education for legitimization as a school subject

Journal of Technology Education

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 21-39

  Lewis, Theodore ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 18544364599     PISSN: 10451064     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21061/jte.v16i1.a.2     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990), Science for All Americans, New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Benenson, G. & Piggott, F. (2002). Introducing technology as a school subject: A collaborative design challenge for educators. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 67-87.
3. Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 730-745.
4. Bennett, C. A. (1914). How may manual training retain its early educational values? Manual Training and Vocational Education, 16(1), 9-15.
5. Bensen, M. J. & Bensen, T. (1993). Gaining support for the study of technology. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 3-5, 21.
6. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2002). Large scale teacher enhancement projects focusing on technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 88-103.
7. Chidgey, J. (1994). A critique of the design process. In F. Burns (Ed)., Teaching technology (pp.89-93). New York: Routledge.
8. st century" - Technology education leadership project. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 104-121.
9. Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the determinants of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 219-244.
10. Department for Education (1995). Design and Technology in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
11. Dewey, J. (1901). The place of manual training in the elementary school course. Manual Training Magazine, 2(4), 193-199.
12. Dugger, W. E. (1994). The relationship between technology, science, engineering, and mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 53(7), 5-8, 20-23.
13. Foster, P. N. (1995). Industrial arts/technology education as a social study: The original intent? Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 4-18.
14. Goodson, I. (1987). School subjects and curriculum change: Studies in curriculum history. New York: Palmer Press.
15. Grubb, W. N. (1996). The new vocationalism: What it is, what it could be. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(8), 533-546.
16. Gustafson, B. J. & Rowell, P. M. (1998). Elementary children's problem solving: Selecting an initial course of action. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(151-163.
17. Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Guilbert, S. M. (2000). Elementary children's awareness of strategies for testing structural strength: A three year study. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 5-22.
18. Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Rose, D. P. (2001). Children's ideas about strengthening structures. Research in Science and Technological Education, 79(1), 111-123.
19. Gomez, A. G. (2001). Engineering, but how? Retrieved from http://imagine101.com
20. Griffith, S. (2002). Personal Communication.
21. th Yearbook of the Council on Technology Teacher Education, Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.
22. Hutchinson, P. (2002). Children designing and engineering: Contextual learning units in primary design and technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 122-145.
23. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1998). Technological Literacy Counts. Proceedings from the Technological Literacy Counts Workshop, Baltimore, Maryland, October 9-10, 1998.
24. International Technology Education Association (1996). Technology for All Americans - A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology, Author: Reston, Virginia.
25. International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy - Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, Virginia: Author.
26. Kemple, J. J. (1997). Career Academies: Communities of Support for Students and Teachers: Emerging Findings for a 10-site evaluation. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
27. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the Learning of Design Practices; Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
28. LaPorte, J. E. & Sanders, M. (1993). Integrating Technology, Science, and Mathematics in the Middle School. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 17-21.
29. Layton, D. (1994). A school subject in the making? The search for fundamental. In D Layton (Ed) Innovations in Science and Technology Education, Vol V, Paris, France: UNESCO. 11-28.
30. Lewis, T. (1994). Limits on change to technology education. Journal of Industrial and Technical Education, 31(2), 8-27.
31. Lewis, T. (1995). From manual training to technology education: the continuing struggle to establish a school subject in the U.S.A. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 27(6), 621-645.
32. Lewis, T. (1996), Accommodating border crossings. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(2), 7-28.
33. Lewis, T., Petrina, S., & Hill, A. M. (1997). Problem posing - Adding a creative increment to technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial teacher Education, 36(1), 5-35.
34. Linneham, F. (1996). Measuring the effectiveness of a Career Academy Program from an employer's perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1), 73-89.
35. Magnet Schools of America (2002). Retrieved from http://www.magnet.edu/ goals.html and http://www.ccsd.net/schools/special/magnet/magnet.html
36. Massachusetts Department of Education (2001). Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass. edu/frameworks/scitech00draft/toc.html
37. McCormick, R., Murphy, P., Hennessy, S., & Davidson, M.( 1994). Problem Solving process in technology education: a pilot study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 5-34.
38. National Academy of Engineering (2002). Technically Speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Greg Pearson and A. Thomas Young (Eds). Washington D.D: National Academy Press.
39. Olson, D. W. (1958). Technology and Industrial Arts: A derivation of subject matter from technology with implications for the Industrial Arts Program. Ph.D Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1957.
40. Parkinson, E. (1999). Talking technology: Language and literacy in the primary school examined through children's encounters with mechanisms. Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), 60-73.
41. Parkinson, E. (2001). Teacher Knowledge and Understanding of Design and Technology for children in the 3-11 age group: A study focusing on aspects of structures. Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 44-58.
42. Pearson, G. & Young, A. T. (2002). Executive Summary: Technically Speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. The Technology Teacher, 62(1), 8-12.
43. Project Lead The Way- National Alliance for Pre-Engineering Programs. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.pltw.org
44. Rogers, G. & Wallace, J. (2000). The Wheels of the bus: Children designing in early years classroom. Research in Science and Technological Education. 18(1), 127-136.
45. Rowell, P.M., Gustafson, B.J., & Gilbert, S.M. (1999). Engineers in Elementary Classrooms: Perceptions of learning to solve technological problems. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 109-118.
46. Sanders, M. & Binderup, K. (2000). Integrating Technology Education Across the Curriculum. A Monograph prepared for the International technology Education Association.
47. Satchwell, R. E. & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and Implementing an Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology Curriculum for the Middle School. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 41-66.
48. Savage, E. & Sterry, L. (1990). A conceptual framework for technology Education: The Technological Method. The Technology Teacher, 50(1), 6-11.
49. Sern, D., Dayton, C., & Raby, M. (1998). Career Academies and High School Reform, Retrieved from http://casn.berkeley.edu/career.html
50. Stewardson, G. A. (1990). Purpose of Magnet Schools in Science and Technology and the Potential Role of Technology Education. Paper presented at the ITEA Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 2-6, 1990.
51. Texas Education Agency (2002). Program Guide for Technology Education. Retrieved from http://www.TEA.state.tex.us.Cate/teched/teprguide.pdf.
52. Warner, W. E. (1965). A curriculum to reflect technology. Paper presented at American Industrial Arts Association, 25 April 1947, Columbus, OH; Epsilon Pi Tau Inc.
53. Wicklein, R. and Hill, R. Personal communication.
54. Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48-60.
55. Woodward, C. M. (1893). New Demands upon Schools by the Worlds Industries. Proceedings of the International Congress on Education, National Education Association, Chicago, July 1893.
56. Woodward, C. M. (1889). The results of the manual St. Louis Manual training school. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses, Session of the year 1889, National Education Association, Nashville, Tennessee.
57. Woolnough, B. E., Guo, Y., Leite, M. S., Ryu, T., Wang, Z., & Young, D. (1997). Factors affecting student choice of career in Science and Engineering: parallel studies in Australia, Canada, China, England, Japan, and Portugal. Research in Science and Technological Education, 15(1), 105-121.