AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
DAVID WARREN PARKER
Ed. D.
for the
(Degree)
(Name of student)
Education
(Major)
in
presented on
(--97/A)Phi/())/9),<2/
Title: A COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT INDUSTRIAL ARTS
PHILOSOPHY EXPRESSIONS DERIVED FROM PROFESSIONAL
PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY INDUSTRIAL
ARTS TEACHER EDUCATORS
_
Abstract approved:
Redacted for Privacy
f3r. Earl E. Smith
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the cur-
rent written philosophical expressions of industrial arts with the
acceptance of these by select groups of industrial arts teacher edu-
cators.
Procedure
The data for this study were obtained through the use of a
questionnaire derived from a frequency analysis of selected literature. The questionnaire was administered in teacher training insti-
tutions to industrial arts department heads or coordinators and a
random member of that department who teaches at least one
professional course.
The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient, T (tau); the Kendall
Coefficient of Concordance, W; and the Chi-square test were used in
statistically analyzing the data.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the data obtained
in this study:
1.
There is a significant relationship of philosophical expressions
of industrial arts, as expressed in periodicals, and the acceptance of these expressions by department heads or coordinators
and selected members of industrial arts departments in teacher
education institutions that offer the baccalaureate, masters,
and doctoral level degree.
2.
There is no significant difference of philosophical expressions
between department heads or coordinators and selected members
of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions
that offer the baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level
degrees.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the findings of this study be taken into
consideration by national leaders in industrial arts education in
recognition of a need for change to a more contemporary philosophy
of industrial arts.
It is recommended that national leaders in industrial arts education recognize the need to up-date the philosophy of industrial arts
to reflect the philosophical expressions derived from professional
publications.
It is further recommended that individuals or institutions take
into consideration the findings of this study and recognize the need
for change in program purpose before developing further programs
in industrial arts.
It is also recommended that further research be conducted to
determine the objective criterion used by the respondents to arrive
at the results of this study.
Copyright by
David Warren Parker
1972
A Comparison Between Current Industrial Arts Philosophy
Expressions Derived From Professional Publications and
Their Acceptance by Industrial Arts Teacher Educators
by
David Warren Parker
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Education
June 1972
APPRO VED:
Redacted for Privacy
Professor of Education
in charge of major
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of School of Education
Redacted for Privacy
Dean of Graduate SchOof
Date thesis is presented
March 10, 1972
Typed by Opal Grossnicklaus for David Warren Parker
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Oregon State
University and to the faculty and staff of the school of education for
the opportunities and support that made this study possible.
The writer is especially indebted to his major professor, Dr.
Earl E. Smith for his leadership, guidance and support throughout the
entire graduate program. Appreciation is also extended to the following members of the writers committee for their guidance and support:
Dr. Pat Atteberry, Dr. Carvel Wood, Dr. Noble Deckard and Dr.
E. Dale Trout.
The writer wishes to recognize the debt he owes to his wife,
Joan, for her patience, loyalty and support. Her many hours of
typing and assistance throughout the program have made it all possible. The understanding and support given by the writer's children,
Debra, Jeffrey, Jill and Douglas is greatly appreciated.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Hypothesis of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Selection of the Jury
Importance of the Study
Definition of Terms
Methodology and Procedures
II.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
Related Statements From Texts
Related Statements From Research
Summary
III.
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Participants in This Study
Construction of Questionnaire
Collection o f Data
Analysis of Data
IV.
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
Preliminary Analysis of the Data
Summary
Analysis of Data
Findings Related to the First Hypothesis
Findings Related to the Second Hypothesis
Summary
Demographic Data
Summary
V.
1
2
3
8
9
9
11
12
14
14
14
20
21
23
23
23
24
39
39
40
40
40
55
55
56
64
74
75
81
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 83
Purpose of the Study
Procedures
83
84
page
Chapter
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY
84
91
96
97
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix 0
115
119
121
124
126
129
131
133
135
142
146
150
152
154
156
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Summary of all department heads and instructors.
42
2.
Summary of all department heads.
44
3.
Summary of all instructors.
45
4.
Summary of department heads, type A- - doctoral
level.
47
Summary of department heads, type B--masters
level.
48
Summary of department heads, type C -- baccalaureate
level.
50
7.
Summary of instructors, type A--doctoral level.
51
8.
Summary of instructors, type B--masters level.
53
9.
Summary of instructors, type C--baccalaureate
5.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
level.
54
Relationship of written philosophical expressions to
department heads and instructors (total sample).
58
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
department heads.
59
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
ins tructors.
59
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
department heads, type A--doctoral level.
60
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
department heads, type B--masters level.
61
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
department heads, type C--baccalaureate level.
62
Page
Table
16.
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
instructors, type A--doctoral level.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
46.
27.
63
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
instructors, type B--masters level.
63
Summary of written philosophical expressions to all
instructors, type C--baccalaureate level.
64
Summary of philosophical expressions of all department heads--all instructors.
68
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type A--doctoral level -- department heads,
type B--masters level.
68
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type A--doctoral leveldepartment heads,
type C--baccalaureate level.
69
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type B--masters level- -department heads,
type C--baccalaureate level.
70
Summary of philosophical expressions instructors,
type A--doctoral level- instructors, type B, masters level.
70
Summary of philosophical expressions instructors,
type A--doctoral level--instructors, type C,
baccalaureate level.
71
Summary of philosophical expressions instructors,
type B- -masters level--instructors, type C -baccalaureate level.
71
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type A--doctoral level--instructors, type
A--doctoral level.
72
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type B--masters level--instructors, type
B--masters level
73
Page
Table
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Summary of philosophical expressions department
heads, type C--baccalaureate level--instructors,
type C--baccalaureate level.
73
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
total respondents by age group.
76
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all department heads by age group.
76
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all instructors by age group.
77
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
total respondents by number of years teaching in
higher education.
78
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all department heads by number of years teaching
in higher education.
78
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all instructors by number of years teaching in higher
education.
79
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
total respondents by degree attainment.
80
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all department heads by degree attainment.
80
Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of
all instructors by degree attainment.
81
A COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT INDUSTRIAL ARTS
PHILOSOPHY EXPRESSIONS DERIVED FROM
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS AND THEIR
ACCEPTANCE BY INDUSTRIAL ARTS
TEACHER EDUCATORS
I. INTRODUCTION
During the past twenty-five years there has been a rapid change
in our technology. For example, during World War II, man could
move at the rate of 300 miles an hour. Today he can travel at speeds
exceeding 18, 000 miles an hour. This acceleration has likewise
speeded up all aspects of life in our time. The rate of growth of
scientific and technological knowledge has increased at the same
mathematical proportion (55, p. 29). This increase in knowledge has
caused the applied technologies to grow at a corresponding rate.
Many writers, both in the field of industrial arts and in other
fields, have given much attention to these changes. Mays (128) said
that the significant feature of underlying theories and principles of
industrial arts education is that they are not static but evolving.
He
continues to say that they are influenced by current educational
thoughts or trends, by social and economic events and most certainly by technological advancements. All such factors serve to
necessitate a change in educational emphasis or at least a conscientious evaluation of existing policies and aims.
In an attempt to keep pace with the ever changing and expanding
technologies, industrial arts teacher educators have tried to interpret
these changes and writings into programs that they feel will best
2
reflect the needs of the students. Cochran (28, p. 14) found that,
"the sixties had produced more modifications with wider implications
than did any of the preceding decades." As a result of these changes
and modifications during the past twenty-five years, several conver-
gent philosophical expressions in the area of industrial arts seem
to have emerged. These expressions have had a tendency to develop
along similar lines but there seems to be a lack of agreement as to
the meaning of words within the expressions. Many industrial arts
teacher educators have used these different expressions as a basis
for their teaching activities. As a result, different programs, that
seemingly try to interpret these changes, have evolved.
A study of these philosophical expressions and their acceptance
by industrial arts teacher educators may offer an insight into the
present conception of the field of industrial arts education.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the cur-
rent written philosophical expressions of industrial arts with the
acceptance of these expressions by select groups of industrial arts
teacher educators. An additional purpose of this study was to make
comparisons of the acceptance of these expressions between select
groups of industrial arts teacher educators.
In order to accomplish this study, two questions were
3
considered:
1.
Is there a significant relationship of philosophical expressions
of industrial arts, as expressed in periodicals, and the acceptance of these expressions by department heads or coordinators
and selected members of industrial arts departments in teacher
education institutions that offer the baccalaureate, masters,
and doctoral level degree?
2.
Is there a difference of philosophical expressions between
department heads or coordinators and selected members of
industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions
that offer the baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level
degrees ?
Hypotheses of the Study
The questions given in the statement of the problem were tested
in the following series of null hypotheses:
1.
There is no significant relationship between the written philo-
sophical expressions of industrial arts and the expressions of:
a.
Department heads or coordinators and random selected
members of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions where industrial arts is offered.
b.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments in teacher education institutions where
4
industrial arts is offered.
c.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course in industrial
arts.
d.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to an including the doctoral level degree with a major
emphasis in industrial arts.
e.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the masters level degree with a major
emphasis in industrial arts.
f.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
the baccalaureate level degree with a major emphasis in
industrial arts.
g.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to an including the
doctoral level degree.
h.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to and including the
5
masters level degree.
i.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level
degree.
2. There is no significant relationship of philosophical expressions between:
a.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments in teacher education institutions and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions.
b.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree and depart-
ment heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments
at teacher education institutions that offer up to and includ-
ing the masters level degree.
c.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree and depart-
ment heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments
at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
6
level degree.
d.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the masters level degree and depart-
ment heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments
at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
level degree.
e.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to and including the
doctoral level degree and random selected members of
industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the masters level degree.
f.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to and including the
doctoral level degree and random selected members of
industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
the baccalaureate level degree.
g.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
7
education institutions that offer up to and including the
masters level degree and random selected members of
industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
the baccalaureate level degree.
h.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral level
degree.
i.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the masters level degree and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the masters
level degree.
j.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
the baccalaureate level degree and random selected
members of industrial arts departments who teach at
8
least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
Limitations of the Study
This study was subject to the following limitations:
1.
The period of time from which the philosophical expressions
were drawn was from writings between 1945 and 1970.
2.
The professional publications from which the philosophical
expressions were drawn were restricted to:
a.
American Vocational Journal
b.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education
c.
Journal of Industrial Arts Education
d.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education
e.
National Association of Secondary-School Principals
Bulletin
f.
3.
School Shop
This study was limited to those colleges or universities that
offer industrial arts education.
4.
The sample was limited to the department head or coordinator
who was responsible for industrial arts education and one member of the industrial arts education department who taught at
least one professional course.
9
5.
The instrument used to determine the philosophical expressions
of the teacher educators was developed by this researcher
using a frequency analysis of the writings in the professional
journals and evaluated by a critique jury of experts in the field
of industrial arts education.
Selection of the Jury
The jury was selected on the basis of prominence and contribu-
tions to the field of industrial arts. All were actively involved in
industrial arts teacher education but none were members of the
groups previously outlined. A complete list of the jury appears in
Appendix A.
Importance of the Study
During the past few years we have seen the emergence of a
number of innovative programs in industrial arts. Cochran, in his
study of a number of programs, suggests that the programs could
be categorized into four basic approaches (28, p. 14). In reading
the current periodicals, one can identify many more new and innova-
tive programs. For years, teachers and teacher educators have
built curriculum based upon their own speculations, preferences and
experiences rather than drawing upon a common body of knowledge
or content within the field of industrial arts (4). To this end, we
10
find that many of the programs have become so personalized that
they are completely identified with the individual or institution
responsible rather than a specific field of concentration.
In speaking of the establishment of a philosophy in students at
the undergraduate level, Brown (19, p. 10) said that "philosophy is
not something to be gained from one instructor in one or two courses
any more than methods of teaching can be learned under similar
circumstances." Yet, it seems to me, no one can deny the permanent effect on the student by an instructor or the institution in the
establishment of his philosophy. If individuals and institutions are
going to continue to stress different philosophies, curriculum organization and methodologies, it is going to be difficult to establish a
specific field of concentration. Karnes (98, p. 7) concurs when he
states, "some degree of standardization can occur only if the meaning
and purpose of industrial arts can be validated and if the criteria for
determining content, methods, and facility can be evolved and rigorously applied."
In his editorial on research and the direction of industrial arts,
Feirer (55, p. 29) states that, "few teachers, and even fewer teacher
educators have been able to bridge the gap between philosophy and
theory of the new industrial arts and its practice." If industrial arts
teacher educators are ever going to bridge the gap between philosophy
and practice, it will be necessary to better understand the
11
philosophies and know the central most thinking in the field of indus-
trial arts education. A significant outcome of this study may provide
information that will lead to a better understanding of the philosophies
and the role that major funded research has had in the development of
industrial arts as a body of knowledge.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are defined:
Philosophy
An integrated personal view that serves to guide the individual's
conduct and thinking.
Philosophical Expression
The act or process of representing or making manifest, as in
writing, the personal views that serve to guide the individual's conduct and thinking.
Professional Course
A course or sequence of courses intended to prepare a person
for the practice of a profession and dealing with some phase or aspect
of practice.
12
Teacher Educator
A member of a college faculty who is primarily concerned with
the professional preparation of teachers.
Teacher Education Institutions
A degree-granting institution supported by a state, county or
municipality or by private funds, specializing in the preparation of
teachers. A college within a university that is responsible for the
professional preparation of teachers.
Methodology and Procedures
A frequency analysis and questionnaire were used to gather data
for this study. The data were gathered to compare the current philo-
sophical expression of industrial arts with their acceptance by indus-
trial arts-teacher educators.
To determine the philosophical expressions presently used in
industrial arts, a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted.
The key paragraph that indicated the authors! concept or
conjecture of the philosophy of industrial arts was extracted from
each article. These paragraphs were then carefully analyzed for
content or meaning and divided into separate categories. Once
categorized, the paragraphs were again analyzed for the frequency
13
of appearance of certain key words. From this frequency analysis,
a philosophical expression was compiled to represent each of the
categories.
The data gathering instrument was formulated from the philo-
sophical expressions found by an analysis of the literature. To be
certain of completeness, a preliminary questionnaire was examined
by a jury of individuals who are contributors and considered to be
experts in the field of industrial arts.
The questionnaire was administered in teacher training institu-
tions, to industrial arts department heads or coordinators and a
random member of that department who teaches at least one professional course.
The presentation of the findings of the questionnaire is discussed
in detail in Chapter IV. The data were statistically analyzed to deter-
mine the degree of acceptance of current philosophical expressions
of industrial arts by selected groups in industrial arts-teacher educators. Also, the data were statistically analyzed to determine the
degree of acceptance of these expressions between the select groups
of industrial arts-teacher educators. The data were tabulated by the
Oregon State University computer center. The Chi-square and rank
order correlation techniques were used in testing the null hypothesis.
14
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The review of related literature revealed an almost nonexistent
attempt to adequately research the determination of an industrial arts
philosophy. Only two doctoral dissertations, Kachel (96) and
Lindbeck (109), were found to have been concerned with the philos-
ophy of industrial arts. This chapter, therefore, will be devoted
primarily to the review of related literature in regard to statements
expressed by authors in books used in industrial arts professional
courses and statements expressed by professional organizations.
Related Statement From Texts
One of the earliest and most widely used definitions of indus-
trial arts is given by Bonser and Mossman (17, p. 70) in the following
words:
The industrial arts are those occupations by which changes
are made in the forms of materials to increase their values
for human usage. As a subject for educative purposes,
industrial arts is a study of the changes made by man in
the forms of materials to increase their values, and of the
problems of life related to these changes.
This same definition serves as a basis for the text written by Struck
(195) and also appears later in the Selected Readings for Industrial
Arts by Miller and Smalley (134).
15
Ericson (49, p. 248) described the characteristics of industrial
arts as "a definite phase of general education based on values derived
principally from manipulative activity and study of materials." To
further qualify the term general education, he goes on to say that
"emphasis is placed upon exploration and participation rather than
upon skills and efficiency." Also, it is "open and valuable for all
students whether talented or not and pupils of all ages are eligible."
For the purposes of his book, Wilber (211, p. 2) states that "industrial
arts will be defined as those phases of general education which deal
with industryits organization, materials, occupations, processes,
and products--and with the problems resulting from the industrial and
technological nature of society."
Mays in his discussion of the change from manual training to
industrial arts wrote:
More attention was given to imparting information
about modern industry, its processes, problems, and
importance in their national life. As a result of these activities it soon became evident that manual training had
become more genuinely educative and a much more valuable phase of general education. This enrichment of
content, together with the broadening of the program to
include the junior high school and the grades, suggest the
more appropriate name of 'industrial arts!, that is, the
study of the arts of industry as an important phase of the
general education of everyone, regardless of his future
vocation (129, p. 158).
He continues to point out how industrial arts as the general education
phase of industrial education and vocational industrial education as
16
the vocational phase, are working together to meet the industrial
education needs of today's youth.
In referring to the general education aspects of industrial arts,
Giachino and Gallington (68) agreed that industrial arts is not designed
for specific occupational preparation, but for the exploration of industrial knowledge, industrial methods, and the development of attitudes
that will enable youth and adults to adjust to the duties and responsibilities of a democratic society dominated by the works and products
of industry. More specifically, they say that "industrial arts in education is a body of selected basic learning experiences involving
significant industrial activities and understandings inherent in indus-
trial occupations, arts, and the crafts of the past and present civilizations" (68, p. 66).
Silvius and Bohn use as a basis for their text a committee report
on the philosophy and aims for industrial arts. It states that:
Industrial arts is a unique part of general education designed to transmit a democratic way of life to pupils
living in our present industrialized society. As an area
of instruction which contributes its full share to a well
founded education for every individual, it concerns itself
with the materials, processes, and manufactured products,
as they effect the industrial life of all citizens. It supports and supplements the over-all program of the school
and community (179, p. 113).
Olson cites the results of a terminological investigation which
defined industrial arts as:
17
...one of the Practical Arts, a form of general or nonvocational education, which provides learners with
experiences, understandings, and appreciations of ma-
terials, tools, processes, products, and of the vocational
conditions and requirements incident generally to the
manufacturing and mechanical industries (147, p. 12).
Feirer and Lindbeck define industrial arts as "the broad study
of the tools, materials, equipment, processes, products, and occupations of industry, pursued for general educational purposes in the
shops and laboratories of schools" (56, p. 15). They state that the
key words in this statement are "pursued for general educational
purposes," for this is the element which distinguishes industrial arts
from other facets of industrial education. Though it has certain pre-
vocational values, its prime objective is not to provide vocational
specialization for students.
Again in a later text, Giachino and Gallington emphasized the
pre-occupational and exploratory values of industrial arts as general
education and specifically state that "industrial arts in education is
a body of selected basic learning experiences involving significant
industrial activities and understandings inherent in industrial occupa-
tions, arts, and crafts of the past and present civilizations" (69, p.87).
Silvius and Curry again emphasize the general education aspect
of industrial arts. They further stress the "reorientation of industrial education through the study of the common functions of industry"
and define industry "as the institution which produces and services
18
the material goods required by society" (180, p. 54).
There are several authors that do not specifically state that
industrial arts should be part of general education but indicate the
direction and source from which they think industrial arts should be
derived. Selvidge and Fryklund feel that industrial arts should "seek
to give the youth the information and experiences which will interest
him in industrial life and enable him to do effectively the things that
most boys and men are called upon to do without respect to their
vocation" (176, p. 35). They would give him experiences capable of
wide application and develop a habit of orderly procedure and systematic work which will be of value in any line of endeavor.
Friese states that "learning and developmental experiences in
industrial arts, through types of experiences not otherwise available,
are essential in the complete social education of every boy in a dom-
inantly industrial democracy" (59, p. 58).
In deriving content for industrial arts for justification of indus-
trial arts facilities, Shoemaker asserts that "the present emphasis
in industrial arts is toward basic industries of wood, metal, elec-
tricity, plastics, textiles, ceramics, graphic arts, transportation,
and communication" (3, p. 141). Brown feels that industrial arts
course content can be derived and presented in a number of ways.
However, at present, "the most promising courses are those that
stress individual and, sometimes, group creativity with tools,
19
materials, and processes" (21, p. 7) and would include current manufacturing techniques, the elements of trades, action research methods,
and conversion processes.
In his report of the activities of professional organizations and
their attempts to define the goals of industrial arts Barlow (10) indicates that the first committee formed to study the objectives of
industrial arts was appointed by the American Vocational Association.
This committee was formed early in 1928 and was known as a
committee on "Standards of Attainment in Industrial Arts Teaching."
Its preliminary work was limited to "a study of those things which
the boy should know and be able to do" at the end of the junior high
period. The first report was made in 1929 and a final report with
revisions was made in 1934. The results of the committee's work
was a summary of twelve objectives. The committee was reformed
in 1939 and the report was retitled "Improving Instruction in Indus-
trial Arts." In 1946 the report was submitted with a revised list of
nine objectives. In the report of 1953 industrial arts was defined as:
...a part of general education, not because of an indefinite
'general' nature and not because it pursues objectives
which are similar to those of long-accepted 'general education subjects'. Rather, industrial arts is a part of
general education because it derives its content from
industry - -a basic element of our culture--and because it
has as its social purpose the greater understanding and
better control of the phenomena of industry" (5, p. 10).
The 1956 report states that:
20
The privilege of being a part of general education carries
with it certain great and even grave responsibilities.
Furthermore, the general education criterion suggests a
unique approach to the determination of objectives. Among
the many responsibilities which are implied is the necessity
of deriving instructional content from the many ramifications of the industry. The subject of study should be not
only industry in terms of materials, tools and processes,
but also industry as science and invention; industry as the
means of producing goods and services; and industry as
a unique pattern of human relationship (6, p. 11).
In his text published the same year, Ericson comments that
these "statements emphasize again the fact that if industrial arts is to
justify its position in general education there must be an expansion in
realization of objectives far beyond that which can take place when
putting the sole emphasis upon the manipulative aspects of the teaching
content" (50, p. 257). A brochure published in 1958 by the Industrial
Arts Policy and Planning Committee of the American Vocational
Association defined industrial arts as "the study of industrial tools,
materials, processes, products, and occupations pursued for general
education purposes in shops, laboratories, and drafting rooms" (7,
p. 2).
Related Statements From Research
In his attempt to construct a framework for research in industrial arts, Lindbeck considered the definition of the term theory.
Because of the trend in scientific procedures of adjudging a hypothesis
a theory only after it had undergone a validation process, he concluded
21,
that "there are at present no theories of industrial arts per se in
existence" (109, p. 137). He feels that the claims made for this
field are, at best, a set of calculated guesses or working hypotheses
and these remain to be varified.
The findings of Lindbeck are further substantiated by Kachel
(96).
His review of related literature revealed recommendations
that further study be made in the area of basic philosophic under-
standings. He also states that there had been no early studies directly
concerned with rating selected philosophical beliefs held by industrial
arts personnel as to the possible areas of agreement and disagreement. He concluded that: "In the area of philosophy it was found that
total confusion existed. The range represented by the total responses
to this opinionnaire would seem to reflect different philosophical be-
liefs among industrial arts personnel" (96, p. 234).
Summary
The statements reviewed in this chapter represent the beliefs
of authorities that have written about industrial arts. An examination
of these statements can reveal the extent to which the original statement of Bonser and Mossman (17) has had an effect. Although the
original statement of Bonser and Mossman did not indicate industrial
arts as general education, the implication was there and the majority
of the subsequent authors included it in their statements. Still
22
another examination of these statements will reveal that there is
agreement that industrial arts derives its subject matter from industry.
While research into the philosophy of industrial arts is extremely limited, it is quite evident that those reviewed would indicate
a need for the verification of hypothesis of industrial arts and a basis
for determining agreement or disagreement as to the philosophical
beliefs of industrial arts.
23
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The data for this study were obtained through the use of a
questionnaire. It was reasoned that the questionnaire was the most
effective means of communication with so many people in such a
widely covered area required for this study. The construction of
the questionnaire required a thorough review of the literature and
was a direct result of the analysis of that review. The study sought
to identify and compare the current written philosophical expressions
of industrial arts with the acceptance of these expressions by select
groups of industrial arts teacher educators. An additional purpose
of this study was to compare the acceptance of these expressions
between select groups of industrial arts teacher educators.
Participants in This Study
The selection of participants was based upon the following
criteria and classified as follows:
1.
Group I -- Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments in teacher education institutions where industrial
arts is offered.
2.
Group II--Random selected members of industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course in industrial
24
arts.
3.
Type A -- Teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree with major emphasis in
industrial arts.
4.
Type B-- Teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the masters level degree with a major emphasis in
industrial arts.
5.
Type C--Teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaur-
eate level degree with a major emphasis in industrial arts.
Based on the above criteria, this researcher sent questionnaires to individuals selected from the Industrial Teacher Education
Directory, 1970-71, sponsored by the American Council on Industrial
Arts Teacher Education and the National Association of Industrial
and Technical Teacher Educators as compiled by Dr. G. S. Wall.
Construction of Questionnaire
The content of the questionnaire was developed through an
extensive analysis of selected professional publications. These
were the American Vocational Journal, Industrial Arts and Voca-
tional Education, Journal of Industrial Arts Education, Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, National Association of SecondarySchool Principals Bulletin, and School Shop. The period of time
from which the writings were analyzed was between 1945 and 1970.
25
The period beginning at 1945 was selected because this was
felt by many to be the turning point in the development of technology.
The defense industries as well as the armed services of the United
States had proven they were capable of meeting the challenge. The
application of these new found abilities to peace time use was to be
the beginning of a new era in technology.
Literature Analysis Procedure
The first step in the analysis of the literature was to examine
the selected publications, during the specified time, for articles that
concerned themselves with the philosophy of industrial arts. From
each article the key paragraph that indicated the authors' concept or
conjecture of the philosophy of industrial arts was extracted.
The second step was to analyze each of the paragraphs for mean-
ing and to divide them into separate categories. As each of the paragraphs were read and reread a pattern of general categories began to
emerge. These were industrial arts as: general education, under-
standing industry, technology, industry and technology, occupational
education, understanding our culture, and industrial "arts." A complete listing of the number of articles that appeared in each year for
each category appears in Appendix H.
The third step was to further analyze the sentence, that suggested categorization, for the frequency of appearance of key words
26
or phrases. From this frequency analysis, a philosophical expression was compiled to represent each of the categories.
Philosophical Expression Categories
1.
Industrial arts as general education. (A complete listing of
articles in this category appears in Appendix I. )
A.
"The new concept includes industrial arts as a very
definite part of general education which includes more
than certain related information or procedures which are
involved in the development of a specific skill" (1, p. 242).
B.
The industrial arts is an area in general education, which
meets the needs of pupils for experiences in the use of
materials, tools, equipment, and the knowledge of the
processes of industry and their social significance to the
community" (71, p. 337).
C.
"Industrial arts education seems to occupy an inevitable
position in relation to the total program of general education, so broad expansions of its offerings appear inevit-
able" (58, p. 259).
D.
"Industrial arts is one of the practical arts included in
the field of general education, having for its purpose the
giving of information about and experiences in the use of
tools, materials, and the processes necessary for the
27
home and manufacturing industries" (137, p. 14).
E.
"Industrial arts education is the type of industrial education that is offered essentially for its general educational
value" (220, p. 101).
F.
"Industrial arts is a phase of general education concerned
with satisfying man's innate desire to construct things
with tools and materials" (183, p. 24).
G.
"However, greater recognition still needs to be given to
the fact that the teaching of problem-solving with contem-
porary materials, tools, and processes of industry, rather
than with imaginary academic problems, is one of the valid
justifications for the requirements of industrial arts as
general education" (118, p. 147).
H.
"Industrial arts is the study of industrial tools, materials,
processes, products and occupations pursued for general
education purposes in shops, laboratories, and drafting
rooms" (90, p. 18).
I.
"Practical arts education has as its objective giving adolescence experience with a wide variety of tools, materials,
and processes, as a part of a general secondary education
and not oriented towards specific types of jobs" (72, p. 22).
J.
"The real intent of industrial arts is to be education of a
general nature for any student and should provide learning
28
experiences to give insight into an orientation about the
industrial and technological world in which we live" (70,
p. 6).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is a phase of general education which pro-
vides for the study of industry, its organization, tools, mater-
ials, equipment, processes, products, occupations, and the
problems resulting from the industrial and technological nature
of our society.
2.
Industrial arts as understanding industry. (A complete listing
of articles in this category appears in Appendix J.)
A.
"A study of industry, its origin, development, activities,
products and their effects upon human life: It is developed
through construction work with shop tools and materials,
together with discussion, reading, investigations and
experimental work" (104, p. 7).
B.
"Industrial arts is a study of the dominate factor in our
modern civilization--industry; as such, industrial arts is
an integral part of modern general education" (161, p. 214).
C.
"To explore industry and American industrial civilization
in terms of its organization, raw materials, processes and
operations, products and occupations" (130, p.
D.
17).
"If industrial arts will be concerned with the study of
29
American industry and its influence on living, then its
curriculum will be the technology--the body of science,
techniques, and skills--particular to industries" (146,
p. 10).
E.
"Industrial arts is a study of the tools, materials, processes, products, and occupations of our industrial society.
A good industrial arts program affords students an insight
into American industry" (54, p. 48).
F.
"Our definitions of industrial arts portray it as a study of
industry; our subject matter is derived from industry"
(86, p. 18).
G.
"The offerings of industrial arts permit development of
adaptability to a changing industry" (111, p. 27).
H.
"A major objective of industrial arts education is said to
be the development of an understanding of industry" (136,
p. 27).
I.
"The central, over-riding function of industrial arts,
therefore, should be to provide learning experiences which
will help the individual to understand the industrial institution and to function effectively in interaction with industry
and other social agencies" (88, p. 51).
J.
"So the chief purpose of industrial arts education must be
the acquisition of industrial understanding and insight
30
( 197, p. 17).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is a study of industry and American indus-
trial civilization in terms of its origin, development, organization, processes, operations and products, and their effect upon
our culture.
3.
Industrial arts as technology. (A complete listing of articles
in this category appears in Appendix K. )
A.
"Pupils study the technology of a democratic society because
all are consumers and users of the products of industry;...."
(167, p. 48).
B.
"The first is the establishment of a profession-wide, bold,
new concept of industrial arts as the study of the technology.
The second is the development of the curriculum based on
the technology" (145, p. 26).
C.
"In the past few years curriculum theorists have given
more and more attention to the formulation of an industrial
arts program which will reflect a greater alignment with
our technological needs" (46, p. 20).
D.
"The central purpose of industrial arts education is the
preparation of individuals for meeting the requirements of
a technological culture" (193, p. 17).
E.
"Industrial arts can make a unique contribution here,
31
involving knowledge, application, synthesis, etc. --all
related to understanding technology" (201, p. 26).
F.
"It is the body of knowledge provided by engineering and
the resultant technology with which industrial arts must
concern itself" (73, p. 25).
G.
"Our approach is based on the belief that industrial arts
must keep up-to-date with technological advances if it is
to play an important role in the development of young
people" (57, p. 25).
H.
"More specifically, industrial arts contributes to the
development of a citizen who is informed about nature,
goals and functioning of a technological culture" (204,
p. 28).
I.
"Assuming technology to be the core of an educational
system, could not the industrial arts curriculum serve
a vital function as the laboratory for studying the basic
principles of the science-based technology?" (107, p. 21).
J.
"We in industrial arts education should provide the learning
experiences that orient the student toward the technological
resources available to him, ...." (4, p.
176).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is the study of technology: its origins,
development, and advance: its technical, economic, social,
32
occupational, recreational, cultural and cultural nature and
influence; through research, experiment, design, invention,
development, construction, and operation with industrial ma-
terials, processes, products, and energies; for the purpose of
acquainting the students with the technological culture and aid-
ing him in the discovery and development, release and realization of his own native potential therein.
4.
Industrial arts as industry and technology. (A complete listing
of articles in this category appears in Appendix L. )
A.
"Industrial arts is a phase of the educational program concerned with orienting individuals through study and experi-
ence through the technical-industrial side of society for the
purpose of enabling them to deal more intelligently with
consumer goods, and be more efficient producers, to react
more intelligently to problems of the social order, espe-
cially those related to industry, to use leisure time more
effectively and enjoyably, and to have a greater apprecia-
tion of our material culture" (207, p. 331).
B.
"Good industrial arts is the broad interpretation of the whole
industrial culture and specifically educates students in the
fundamentals of technology" (36, p. 114).
C.
"Industrial arts, an integral part of the total program of
education, is designed specifically to help prepare individuals to meet the requirements of the industrial-technolog-
ical culture" (217, p. 24).
33
D.
By definition, industrial arts preports to represent a
study of industrial materials and processes. Therefore,
it follows that industrial arts in content and method should
reflect the changes in our industrial-technological society
in a manner to satisfy its own special reason for existence"
(67, p. 20).
E.
"Industrial arts is the only public education program which
has accepted the responsibility for teaching the basic concepts of industry and technology to all students" (203, p.
15).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is a study of industry and technology:
through study, experimentation, and application students learn
to participate in activities in which they use industrial-technical
tools, machines, materials, and processes, as well as language
arts, mathematics, science, and social science in solving meaningful problems designed to develop their understanding and
knowledge of significant technological contributions, contempo-
rary industry and their ability to live and contribute in a dynamic
industrial and technological era.
5.
Industrial arts as occupational education. (A complete listing
of articles in this category appears in Appendix M. )
A.
"Industrial arts programs whose objectives include information, exploration, and vocational guidance, along with
34
a generous amount of working with the hands, play a
most important role in the lives of these students who are
workaday world bound at an early age" (154, p. 11).
B.
"The principle thesis, then, presented in this article is
that occupational guidance leading toward future occupa-
tional choices has been and still is a logical responsibility
of the industrial arts teachers" (51, p. 26).
C.
"In short, industrial arts should provide basic training
and practical guidance for the perspective skilled workers"
(116, p. 30).
D.
"A review of some of the current and forecast changes in
society and in the world of work has suggested that a new
Occupational Development Curriculum replace the indus-
trial arts program in the comprehensive high school" (158,
p. 39).
E.
"The major function of industrial arts would be prevocational through the development of a select series of
manipulative skills and a selected series of informational
items aimed at a select series of occupations" (124, p. 30).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is occupational education: it provides students with an exposure to a broad range of occupations for which
special skills are required and the requisites for careers in such
35
occupations, and guides them to a point where they are ready
to begin specific and concentrated preparation for the occupa-
tion of their choice.
6.
Industrial arts as understanding our culture. (The complete
listing of articles in this category appears in Appendix N.)
A.
"Furthermore, every responsible spokesman for the field
in the intervening years has included in his definition of
industrial arts some reference to social, problems" (66,
p. 113).
B.
"Industrial arts is taught to inform pupils of our industries
and material cultures of the past and present" (160, p. 25).
C.
"I detect a persistent reassertion that industrial arts is
an important root or ingredient to the understanding of
our culture which includes industry, production, processes"
(25, p. 9).
D.
"Industrial arts, as we know it today, has emerged, then,
as a series of teaching techniques and bodies of content
designed to facilitate the development of learnings which
our culture deems important" (20, p. 18).
E.
"It appears that industrial arts leaders are searching for
sociological basis in evolving industrial arts philosophy"
(43, p. 57).
F.
"If we, in industrial arts, are indeed interpreting industry
36
and technology, it seems incumbent upon us not only to
interpret its workings, but also to assume a posture of
social concern and to inform our students of the conse-
quences of this technology--particularly if no one else is
doing so" (194, p. 32).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts is the study and understanding of our mater-
ial culture, past and present, which includes industry, production and processes, essential for succesful living in our contemporary industrial society.
7.
Industrial arts as "art." (The complete listing of articles in
this category appears in Appendix 0. )
A.
"Art is the key word--industrial a minor adjective which
indicates an area of application.... It is a method far more
than content- -the method of meeting and solving practical
problems as they arise in the exigencies of an outgoing
personal program" (152, p. 8).
B.
"Since we believe this to be true, it behooves each teacher
to keep the fact clearly in mind, and to strive with all his
might to maintain and improve the standard of art in his
work to the end that, more and more, the contribution of
industrial arts to the development of art appreciation and
design fundamentals may be more generally recognized
37
and achieved" (40, p. 2).
C.
"The first purpose of the program would be to provide
opportunities for the development of the individual's cre-
ative potentialities and to foster genuine creative expres-
sion in the arts. The second purpose of the arts in industrial arts is to develop an understanding of the validity
of aesthetic experience and the capacity for aesthetic
response. The third purpose of the arts in industrial arts
is to foster aesthetic evaluation of all aspects of the environment and to encourage the disposition to act in accordance with such evaluation. The fourth purpose of the art
program in industrial arts is to enrich and deepen the
individual's experience of the world in which he lives
through an understanding of the contemporary art forms.
The fifth purpose of the arts in industrial arts is to increase
the individual's understanding of past cultures and their
contributions to contemporary culture through an apprecia-
tion of the arts of the past" (97, p. 62).
The resulting statement appears as follows:
Industrial arts should provide for the development of the
student's creative potentialities and foster genuine creative
expression in the arts; it should develop an understanding of
the validity of aesthetic experience and the capacity for
38
aesthetic response; it should foster aesthetic evaluation of all
aspects of the environment; it should enrich and deepen the
student's experience of the world in which he lives through an
understanding of the contemporary art forms; and it should
increase the student's understanding of past cultures and their
contributions to contemporary culture through an appreciation
of the arts of the past.
Expert Jury Review
The foregoing statements along with additional data gathering
information were collated and sent to a jury of individuals who are
frequent contributors and recognized as experts in the field of indus-
trial arts. The letter and questionnaire are found in Appendix B and
C. Portions of the questionnaire lacking clarity and directness were
revised. As a result of the jury's suggestion, an eighth statement
was added:
8.
Industrial arts is that part of general education concerned with
providing youth an opportunity to study about and develop basic
skills with tools, materials, and processes of industrialtechnical fields.
The final draft of the questionnaire is included in Appendix E.
39
Collection of Data
A cover letter, questionnaire, and self-addressed stamped
return envelope were sent to random selected individuals in each
category. Each respondent was asked to read the statements, rank
them in order of importance and return them in the enclosed envelope.
A total of 490 questionnaires were sent out. A follow-up post card
(Appendix F) was sent to those who had not responded within three
weeks. Of the 490 questionnaires sent, 330 were returned for a 67%
response. A complete breakdown of response by category appears
in Appendix G.
Analysis of Data
Once the data had been collected, the following steps were
taken for analysis of the results:
1.
Data from the answer sheet were coded and key punched on
IBM cards for electronic computer analysis.
2.
The data were then analyzed for sums of columns for rank
order in each category.
3.
The coefficient of concordance was applied to ascertain the
extent of agreement among the respondents and the literature.
4.
The Chi-square test for significance of agreement among the
respondents was applied.
40
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the data and the findings
of the hypotheses stated in Chapter I. Chapter III contained the de-
tailed procedure and statistical techniques used to conduct the study.
In order to statistically test the null hypotheses, the Kendall Rank
Correlation Coefficient, T (tau); the Kendall Coefficient of Concord-
ance, W; and the Chi-square tests were used (23, 178). This chapter
will present a preliminary analysis of the data followed by an analysis
arranged according to the order of the stated hypotheses. At the
conclusion of this chapter other demographic data will be presented.
Preliminary Analysis of the Data
In order to better understand the comparisons of the stated
hypotheses, an analysis of the data, by groups, would prove helpful.
To determine the degree of association between the rankings of the
respondents, the Kendall Coefficient of Concordance was used. The
coefficient of concordance is an index of the divergence of the actual
agreement shown in the data from the maximum possible agreement.
The degree of agreement among the respondents is reflected by the
degree of variance among the sums of ranks. W, the coefficient of
concordance, is a function of that degree of variance.
41
The Chi-square test was used to determine the significance
of the rank correlation coefficient. When used in this way, a high
Chi-square indicates a significant relationship in rankings.
Tables 1 through 9 present an analysis of the comparison of
all the groups of respondents to the questionnaire. In reference to
the questionnaire, key phrases can be used to identify each expression (Appendix H). The expressions are identified as follows:
A.
Industrial arts as "General Education"
B. Industrial arts as "Understanding Industry"
C.
Industrial arts as "Technology"
D.
Industrial arts as "Industry and Technology"
E. Industrial arts as "Occupational Education"
F. Industrial arts as "Understanding Our Culture"
G.
Industrial arts as "Art"
H.
Industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills"
All Department Heads and Instructors
Table 1 is a composite summary of all the respondents to the
questionnaire. This table, as well as the rest of the tables in this
section, present the questions as they were given in order, the column
totals, which represents the number given to a particular question,
and the rank order as a result of the column totals. Table 1 indicates
that the total number of respondents ranked the questionnaire in
42
Table 1. Summary of all department heads and instructors
Statement
A
993
Column Totals
Rank Order
C
B
1164
1161
3
2
1
D
1279
E
1507
1664
4
5
6
F
H
G
F
1759
1765
7
8
Coefficient of Concordance W = .139
Chi-square = 320.86* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 330
Sum of Columns 11292
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
G
H
B
C
D
E
128
61
53
44
22
6
9
2
2
6
37
55
67
58
46
26
20
3
39
83
65
44
36
27
15
5
4
115
65
63
33
16
13
9
3
5
16
20
19
25
29
54
100
6
4
17
25
41
63
75
72
18
7
4
5
11
22
38
45
69
112
8
18
35
29
39
51
56
54
38
Rank
A
1
44
43
order A through H.
The second part of Table 1 gives a breakdown of the number
of times each question was given a particular rank. Example: 128
respondents ranked A as 1; 61 ranked B as 1; 6 ranked A as 2; 37
ranked B as 2, etc. The degree of agreement between the first and
fourth rankings indicate that the respondents were definite in their
choice.
All Department Heads
In Table 2 it can be seen that the department heads gave a
slightly different ranking to the questionnaire. Statement C, indus-
trial arts as "Technology, " was given a slightly higher ranking than
statement B, industrial arts as "Understanding Industry." By studying the column totals, it can be seen that the difference was only two
and not enough of a difference in the overall rankings to indicate any
strong divergence of opinion. Referring back to Table 1, it can be
seen that the column totals for statements B, industrial arts as
"Understanding Industry" and statement C, industrial arts as "Technology" are very close.
All Instructors
Table 3 is a summary of all instructors. This table indicates
a slight difference in ranking of statements G, industrial arts as
44
Table 2. Summary of all department hciads
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Orders
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
410
506
504
559
658
732
744
772
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
Coeffici nt of Concordance W = .145
Chi - squad .--- 145.88* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 144
Sum of Columns 4885
*Sigiiificant at the .05 level - 14.1
Rank
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
F.
1
61
26
22
17
10
3
3
0
2
1
16
22
26
30
18
13
9
3
21
34
23
23
12
16
7
2
4
46
33
36
14
4
1
3
1
5
6
9
14
9
10
22
30
31
6
0
7
9
22
29
30
28
11
7
2
1
3
12
16
17
28
53
8
7
15
10
13
25
29
21
19
45
Table 3. Summary of all instructors
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
583
655
660
720
849
932
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
1015
993
Coefficient of Concordance W = .136
Chi-square = 176.89* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 186
Stan of Columns 6407
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
D
E
F
G
H
31
27
12
3
6
2
21
33
41
28
28
13
11
18
49
42
21
24
11
8
3
4
69
32
27
19
12
12
6
2
5
10
11
5
16
19
22
24
69
6
4
10
16
19
34
45
44
7
7
2
4
8
10
22
28
41
59
8
11
20
19
26
26
27
33
19
Rank
A
B
1
67
35
2
5
3
C
46
"Art, " and statement H, industrial arts as "General Education
Including Skills." This might indicate that instructors place a little
more importance on "Skill" but still the difference is not significant.
Again, note the difference between the column totals of statement B,
industrial arts as "Understanding Industry, " and statement C, indus-
trial arts as "Technology."
Department Heads, Type A--Doctoral Level
Table 4 indicates that department heads of institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree place more importance
in statement C, industrial arts as "Technology" and statement D,
industrial arts as "Industry and Technology, " than they do statement
B, industrial arts as "Understanding Industry." However, 10 of the
24 ranked statement A, industrial arts as "General Education, " as
number 1. This may indicate that department heads, who may be
more involved with research, feel that expressions that include
"Technology" and "Industry and Technology" are of growing impor-
tance in industrial arts.
Department Heads, Type B -- Masters Level
Table 5 is a summary of department heads of institutions that
offer degrees up to and including the masters. This rating indicates
that statement G, industrial arts as "Art, " is favored slightly more
47
Table 4. Summary of department heads, type A--Doctoral level
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
A
B
63
101
1
D
E
F
G
H
100
108
109
140
131
2
3
5
6
8
7
C
75
4
Coefficient of Concordance W = .191
Chi-square = 32.01* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 24
Sum of Columns 827
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
10
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
2
6
5
4
5
1
0
3
5
4
3
4
5
2
1
0
4
7
6
6
2
0
1
0
1
5
2
0
4
0
1
3
3
8
6
0
3
0
5
4
7
5
0
7
0
1
1
2
2
1
7
9
8
0
4
0
3
5
3
5
3
Rank
48
Table 5. Summary of department heads, type B--Masters Level
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
194
219
235
259
338
370
357
404
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
8
C
D
E
F
G
H
Coefficient of Concordance W = . 227
Chi-square = 107.94* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 68
Sum of Columns 2376
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
Rank
A
B
1
30
14
9
10
4
1
0
0
2
1
8
13
13
15
6
8
2
3
10
17
12
11
3
11
2
1
4
20
18
19
7
2
0
1
0
5
1
4
4
7
4
12
18
14
6
0
1
6
11
18
11
12
7
7
1
0
0
3
9
10
15
27
8
5
5
4
5
12
16
8
12
49
than statement F, industrial arts as "Understanding Our Culture."
The remaining statements are ranked in order. Again, it can be
seen that almost half of these department heads ranked statement A,
industrial arts as "General Education, " as number 1. At this level,
where research and teaching skills are stressed, department heads
solidly favor the more traditional expression of industrial arts as
"General Education."
Department Heads, Type C--Baccalaureate Level
In Table 6 it can be seen that department heads of institutions
that offer only the baccalaureate degree rank most of the statements
in order except for statement H, industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills." This would seem to indicate that some would
favor the addition of skills in the general education statement. Seven
of the 52 ranked statement H as second.
Instructors, Type A-- Doctoral Level
Table 7 indicates that instructors of institutions that offer up
to and including the doctoral level degree favor statement C, indus-
trial arts as "Technology, " and statement D, industrial arts as
"Industry and Technology," over statement B, industrial arts as
"Understanding Industry." Also the difference in number of respondents who rank statement A, industrial arts as "General
50
Table 6. Summary of department heads, type C--Baccalaureate
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
186
194
200
212
253
247
237
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
6
Coefficient of Concordance W = .072
Chi-square = 26.06* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 52
Sum of Columns 1682
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
21
8
10
5
4
1
2
0
2
0
6
3
8
11
7
4
7
3
6
13
8
8
4
3
4
1
4
19
9
11
5
2
0
2
0
5
3
5
6
2
5
7
9
9
6
0
3
3
6
7
12
11
4
7
1
0
2
7
5
16
6
17
8
2
6
6
5
8
10
8
4
Rank
51
Table 7. Summary of instructors, type A--Doctoral level
Statement
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
115
104
111
145
143
183
180
1
4
2
3
6
5
8
7
A
Column Totals
Rank Order
Coefficient of Concordance W = .207
Chi-square = 44.94* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 31
Sum of Columns 1072
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
10
4
6
7
2
0
1
1
2
2
2
8
7
5
6
1
0
3
5
9
4
5
4
2
1
0
4
11
8
5
1
2
2
1
0
5
2
4
1
1
2
4
4
11
6
0
2
1
2
6
10
8
1
7
0
0
1
2
5
3
7
10
8
1
2
4
5
4
2
7
6
Rank
52
Education, " as number 1 compared to statement C and D as number 1
are not as great. In referring back to Table 4, we see that department heads, type A also indicate much the same rankings. This
might indicate that more department heads and instructors, that are
involved at the research level of industrial arts, favor the statements
that are concerned with "Technology" and "Industry and Technology"
than other levels of teaching.
Instructors, Type B -- Masters Level
Table 8 shows that instructors of institutions that offer up to
and including the masters level degree rank the statements in order
except for statements G, industrial arts as "Art" and statement H,
industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills." Again the
column totals would indicate that they are not quite as definite about
placing a statement that involves skill as last.
Instructors, Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 9 is a summary of instructors of institutions that offer
only the baccalaureate level degree. The placing of statement C,
industrial arts as "Technology" before statement B, industrial arts
as "Understanding Industry, " would indicate that this classification
of respondents are more favorable to statements that include "technology." The number of respondents that rank any one statement
53
Table 8. Summary of instructors, type B-- Masters level
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
300
325
347
386
434
478
525
483
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Coefficient of Concordance W = .123
Chi-square = 82. 68* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size 96
Sum of Columns 3278
*Significant at the .05 level - 14.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
39
18
15
11
6
1
3
1
2
1
15
17
21
11
16
5
6
3
9
25
20
9
14
4
5
3
4
31
16
15
13
7
7
0
2
5
4
5
4
7
11
11
13
35
6
3
3
11
11
17
22
21
4
7
2
1
4
7
13
14
22
26
8
7
11
8
13
11
15
19
9
Rank
54
Table 9. Summary of instructors, type C.Baccalaureate
Statement
Column Totals
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
215
209
223
270
311
307
330
1
3
2
4
5
7
6
8
D
E
F
G
H
Coefficient of Concordance W = .139
CM-square = 57. 52* degrees of freedom = 7
Columns 8
Sample Size
59
Sum of Columns 2057
*Significant at the . 05 level - 14.1
Rank
A
B
C
1
18
13
10
9
4
2
2
0
2
2
4
8
13
12
6
7
5
3
4
15
18
7
6
5
2
0
4
27
8
7
5
3
3
5
0
5
4
2
0
8
6
7
7
23
6
1
5
4
6
11
13
15
2
7
0
3
3
1
4
11
12
23
8
3
7
7
8
11
10
7
4
55
as number 1 are not nearly as definite as in previous classifications.
Summary
By observing the value of Chi-square in each of the preceding
tables we can conclude with considerable assurance that the agreement among the respondents is higher than it would be by chance.
The very low probability associated with the observed value of W
enables us to reject the possibility that the respondents' rankings
are unrelated to each other.
Analysis of Data
To determine the degree of association or correlation between
two sets of rankings the Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient was
used. The rank correlation coefficient,
T,
is a function of the mini-
mum number of inversions or interchanges between rankings which
is required to transform one ranking to another. A +1 is complete
concordance and -1 is complete disagreement. For the purpose of
comparison of the first question, the statements on the questionnaire,
that represent the written philosophical expressions, were given a
rank order number according to the number of articles determined
by the frequency analysis of the literature, Appendix H. The comparative rankings were taken from the preceding information.
56
Findings Related to the First Hypothesis
The rank correlation coefficient was used in testing the null
hypothesis of no significant relationship between the written philo-
sophical expressions of industrial arts and the expressions of:
1.
Department heads or coordinators and random selected mem-
bers of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions where industrial arts is offered.
2.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions where industrial arts
is offered.
3.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course in industrial arts.
4.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree with a major emphasis in
industrial arts.
5.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the masters level degree with a major emphasis in
industrial arts.
6.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the
57
baccalaureate level degree with a major emphasis in industrial
arts.
7. Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral level
degree.
8.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the masters level
degree.
9. Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
Tables 10 through 18 present an analysis of the written philo-
sophical expressions of industrial arts and the expressions of department heads and instructors at various levels. Again, the key phrases
used to identify each philosophical expression in the questionnaire
are as follows:
A.
Industrial arts as "General Education"
B.
Industrial arts as "Understanding Industry"
C. Industrial arts as "Technology"
D.
Industrial arts as "Industry and Technology"
E. Industrial arts as "Occupational Education"
58
F. Industrial arts as "Understanding Our Culture"
G.
Industrial arts as "Art"
H.
Industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills"
Written Philosophical Expressions- Department Heads and Instructors
Table 10, a summary of the rank correlation between the litera-
ture and the department heads and instructors, a total of all respondents, indicate complete concordance. This would indicate that as a
total group, industrial arts teacher educators are in complete agreement with those who would express industrial arts as "General
Education, " as well as the remaining ranked expressions, in their
publications.
Table 10. Relationship of written philosophical expressions to department heads and instructors
(total sample).
Flank Order
A
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads and
Instructors
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = +1
Written Philosophical Expressions- All Department Heads
Table 11, a summary of the rank correlation between the
literature and all department heads indicate near complete concordance. The difference here would be due to the ranking of statement
59
C, industrial art as "Technology, " before statement B, industrial
arts as "Understanding Industry." This would indicate that some
department heads would place more importance in a philosophical
expression that includes "Technology" as an emphasis.
Table 11. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all department heads
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T= .92
Written Philosophical Expressions--All Instructors
Table 12, a summary of the rank correlation between the
literature and all instructors indicate complete concordance.
Table 12. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all instructors
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = 1
60
Written Philosophical Expressions--Department
Heads, Type A--Doctoral Level
Table 13 presents a summary of the rank correlation between
the literature and department heads of institutions that offer up to
and including the doctoral degree. The concordance here is slightly
less because these department heads indicate more of a preference
for statements C and D which pertain to "Technology" and "Industry
and Technology." The findings of this statistic bear a direct relationship to that of Table 4 which would seem to strengthen the indication
that department heads at the doctoral level favor expression that
include "Technology" and "Industry and Technology."
Table 13. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all department heads, type A -Doctoral level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type A
1
4
2
3
5
6
8
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .78
Written Philosophical ExpressionsDepartment
Heads, Type B -- Masters Level
Table 14, a summary of the rank correlation between the literature and department heads of institutions that offer up to and includ-
ing the masters degree indicate near concordance. It can be seen
61
(Appendix G) that the number of respondents in this category were
the greatest. This, compared to the findings of Table 5, lends support to the assumption that respondents at this level favor the more
traditional expression of industrial arts as "General Education."
Table 14. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all department heads, type B -Masters level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
8
Rank Order
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .92
Written Philosophical ExpressionsDepartment
Heads, Type C-- Baccalaureate Level
Table 15, a summary of the rank correlation between the literature and department heads of institutions that offer a bachelors
degree only, indicates a lesser degree of concordance. Statements
A through E were ranked in order but statement H, industrial arts
as "General Education Including Skills," was given more considera-
tion than F, industrial arts as "Understanding Our Culture, " or G,
industrial arts as "Art." This might indicate that at this level
more consideration would be given to "Skills." However, the difference in this group was not enough to alter the ratings of Table 11.
62
Table 15. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all department heads, type C -Baccalaureate level
Rank Other
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type C
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
6
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .78
Written Philosophical Expression--Instructors,
Type A--Doctoral Level
Table 16 presents a summary of the rank correlation between
the literature and instructors of institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree. This shows one of the least
amounts of agreement of any of the comparisons. The ranking of
statements C and D, the emphasis on "Technology" before B and a
slightly favoring of F and H, an emphasis on "Skills" is the reason
for the relatively low concordance. This might indicate that instruc-
tors at this level are still involved in teaching "teaching skills" as
well as "skills" in addition to being involved in research and favoring
philosophical statements that express industrial arts as "Technology"
and "Industry and Technology."
63
Table 16. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all instructors, type A--Doctoral level
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type A
1
4
2
3
6
5
8
7
Rank Order
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = . 71
Written Philosophical ExpressionsInstructors,
Type B--Masters Level
Table 17, a summary of the rank correlation between the litera-
ture and instructors of institutions that offer up to and including the
masters level degree indicates near concordance. Statement H,
indicating "Skills, " is slightly favored over statement G, industrial
arts as "Art."
Table 17. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all instructors, type B--Masters level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .92
Written Philosophical Expressions--Instructors,
Type C-- Baccalaureate Level
Table 18 presents a summary of the rank correlation between
the literature and instructors of institutions that offer the baccalaureate degree. Again, near correlation is indicated with slight favor
64
given to statement C, "Technology, " and G, "Arts" in industrial
arts.
Table 18. Summary of written philosophical expressions to all instructors, type C--Baccalaureate
level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Literature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type C
1
3
2
4
5
7
6
8
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .85
Findings Related to the Second Hypothesis
The rank correlation coefficient was used in testing the null
hypothesis of no significant relationship of philosophical expressions
between:
1.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions and random selected
members of industrial arts departments who teach at least one
professional course at teacher education institutions.
2.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree and department heads or
coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the masters level
degree.
65
3.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree and department heads or
coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
4.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the masters level degree and department heads or
coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
5.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral level
degree and random selected members of industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to and including the masters
level degree.
6.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral level
degree and random selected members of industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
66
7. Random selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the masters level
degree and random selected members of industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
8.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the doctoral level degree and random selected mem-
bers of industrial arts departments who teach at least one
professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree.
9.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up to and
including the masters level degree and random selected mem-
bers of industrial arts departments who teach at least one
professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the masters level degree.
10.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree and random selected members of industrial
arts departments who teach at least one professional course at
teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
67
level degree.
Tables 19 through 28 present an analysis of the various groups
of respondents at various levels. The key phrases used to identify
each philosophical expression in the questionnaire are as follows:
A.
Industrial arts as "General Education"
B. Industrial arts as "Understanding Industry"
C. Industrial arts as "Technology"
D.
Industrial arts as "Industry and Technology"
E.
Industrial arts as "Occupational Education"
F. Industrial arts as "Understanding Our Culture"
G.
Industrial arts as "Art"
H.
Industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills"
All Department Heads - -All Instructors
Table 19 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of all department heads and all instructors.
Significant agreement exists between these two categories. However,
it can be seen that the department heads tend to put more emphasis
on statement C, industrial arts as "Technology" while instructors
slightly favor statement H, industrial arts as "General Education
Including Skills."
68
Table 19. Summary of philosophical expressions all department heads--all instructors
Rank Order
A
C
B
D
E
F
G
H
Department Heads
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors
1
3
2
4
5
6
8
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = 85
Department Heads, Type A--Doctoral Level- Department Heads, Type B--Masters Level
Table 20 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of department heads, type A and depart-
ment heads, type B. This data reveals that department heads in
institutions that offer the doctoral degree tend to favor as their second
choice statement C, that denotes "Technology" while department heads
of institutions that offer the masters degree are more in agreement
with the overall rankings.
Table 20. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, type A--Doctoral level- Department heads, type B--Masters level
Rank Order
A
C
D
B
E
F
H
G
Dept. Heads, Type A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type B
1
3
4
2
5
7
8
6
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .71
69
Department Heads, Type A--Doctoral LevelDepartment
Heads, Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 21, a summary of the rank correlation between the philosophical expressions of department heads, type A and department
heads, type C presents much the same results as Table 20. The
department heads of institutions that offer the baccalaureate degree
tend to agree with the overall rankings, but place some additional
emphasis on "Skills."
Table 21. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, type A--Doctoral level- Department heads, type d--Baccalaureate level
Rank Order
A
C
D
B
E
F
H
G
Dept. Heads, Type A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type C
1
3
4
2
5
8
6
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: 7 = .71
Department Heads, Type B--Masters LevelDepartment
Heads, Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 22 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of department heads, type B and department
heads, type C. This data indicates that there is a strong relationship
between the two, but department heads of institutions that offer the
baccalaureate degree are much stronger in their emphasis on "Skill."
70
Table 22. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, typ B-- Masters level- Department heads, type C--Baccalaureate level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
G
F
H
Dept. Heads, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dept. Heads, Type C
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
6
Rank Correlation Coefficient: 1-= .85
Instructors, Type A--Doctoral Level--Instructors,
Type B--Masters Level
Table 23 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of instructors, type A and instructors,
type B. Again it can be seen that the instructors at the doctoral
level place more importance on "Technology" than did the instructors
at the masters level. However, both did agree that more importance
should be placed on "Skills" in industrial arts than "Arts."
Table 23. Summary of philosophical expressions instructors, type A--Doctoral level--Instructors,
type B--Masters level
Rank Order
A
C
D
B
F
E
H
G
Instructors, Type A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type B
1
3
4
2
6
5
7
8
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .78
Instructors, Type A--Doctoral Level -- Instructors,
Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 24, a summary of the rank correlation between the philo-
sophical expressions of instructors, type A. and instructors, type
C,
71
shows that these two categories have the least amount of agreement
of any of the comparisons. There is agreement of the first two
statements, A and C, but the remaining statements were not in
order or in agreement.
Table 24. Summary of philosophical expressions instructors, type A--Doctoral level--Instructors,
type C--Baccalaureate level
Rank Order
A
C
D
B
F
E
H
G
Instructors, Type A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type C
1
2
4
3
7
5
8
6
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T= . 64
Instructors, Type B--Masters LevelInstructors,
Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 25 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of instructors, type B and instructors,
type C. The type B instructors are more in agreement with the
overall findings, while the type C instructors favor somewhat the
"Technology" and "Art" in industrial arts.
Table 25. Summary of philosophical expressions instructors, type B--Masters level--instructors,
type C--Baccalaureate level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Instructors, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type C
1
3
2
4
5
7
8
6
Rank Correlation Coefficient: T = .78
72
Department Heads, Type A--Doctoral Level- Instructors, Type A--Doctoral Level
Table 26 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of department heads, type A and instruc-
tors, type A. This is the most significant agreement of any of the
tables presented in this section. Both groups were in complete
agreement of their first four choices. Notice that statements C and
D, that imply "Technology," were chosen before statement B, indus-
trial arts as "Understanding Industry." Also, statements G and H
were chosen in the same order.
Table 26. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, type A--Doctoral level- Instructors, type A --Doctoral level
Rank Order
A
C
D
B
E
F
H
G
Dept. Heads, Type A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type A
1
2
3
4
6
S
7
8
Rank Correlation Coefficient: 7. = .92
Department Heads, Type B-- Masters Level- Instructors, Type B--Masters Level
Table 27 shows the summary of the rank correlation between
the philosophical expressions of department heads, type B and instruc-
tors, type B. Although the rank correlation coefficient of these two
groups is not quite as high as the previous comparison, it can be
seen that there is complete agreement on the first five statements.
73
Table 27. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, type B--Masters level- Instructors, type B--Masters level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
G
F
H
Dept. Heads, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type B
1
2
3
4
5
8
6
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: 77 .85
Department Heads, Type C--Baccalaureate Level- Instructors, Type C--Baccalaureate Level
Table 28 is a summary of the rank correlation between the
philosophical expressions of department heads, type C and instructors,
type C. The data shows that for the most part the department heads
are in agreement with the overall findings except for statement H,
industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills, " which receives some acknowledgment. The instructors are also in agreement
except for the rating of statement C, industrial arts as "Technology."
Table 28. Summary of philosophical expressions department heads, type C--Baccalaureate level- Instructors, type C--Baccalaureate level
Rank Order
A
B
C
D
E
H
G
F
Dept. Heads, Type C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Instructors, Type C
1
3
2
4
5
8
6
7
Rank Correlation Coefficient: 7 = .78
74
Summary
Tables 10 through 28 represent a summary of the data related
to the findings of the questions of this study. In all cases it can be
seen that statement A, industrial arts as "General Education," was
chosen by each group as number one. The major differences in state-
ment choice was usually within statement B, industrial arts as "Understanding Industry, " statement C, industrial arts as "Technology, "
and statement D, industrial arts as "Industry and Technology."
Often statement G, industrial arts as "Art, " and statement H, industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills, " were given different rankings, but not enough to make a significant difference.
The
high degree of agreement between department heads, type A, doctoral
level, and instructors, type A, doctoral level, Table 26, is probably
due to the smaller number of respondents (Appendix G) and the close
association and purpose of this group at the doctoral level. Although
a larger group (Appendix G), the respondents working at the masters
level, Table 27, expressed considerable agreement. The difference
may be attributed to the fact that the instructors, although they do
teach at least one professional course, are skill oriented in their
particular area. The differences indicated between the department
heads and instructors at the baccalaureate level, Table 28, may be
due to the fact that each is primarily involved in his own area of
75
concentration.
The high rank correlation coefficient of each of the comparisons
in this section would indicate that there is a significant relationship
between the literature and the groups that were compared.
Demographic Data
In addition to the statistical data presented in the analysis of
the hypotheses, further descriptive or demographic data related to
the groups should prove helpful. Each of the following tables gives
a contingency coefficient and the Chi-square statistics for the areas
reported. When used in this way, a low Chi-square indicates that
there is no significant difference between the observed and expected.
Philosophical Expressions of Groups by Age
Tables 29, 30 and 31 present a summary of the philosophical
expressions indicated by respondents of different age groups. These
age groupings were selected to test those respondents who would have
been engaged in undergraduate studies during different periods cov-
ered by this study. A study of these tables reveals that no one age
group or type varies significantly from the other. This would tend
to indicate that the period of time in which the respondent was likely
to have been engaged in undergraduate work made no appreciable
difference upon his choice of expressions. Each of the categories
by age groups selected as their first choice the philosophical
76
expression that expressed industrial arts as "General Education."
Table 29. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of total respondents by age group
Order
Age
A
B
C
D
H
G
F
E
No.
Up to 30
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
10
30 to 45
130
130
129
128
129
127
129
128
129
45 to 55
117
115
110
111
111
107
110
105
113
73
70
66
66
68
64
68
64
68
330
325
315
314
317
307
316
306
320
Above 55
Total
Chi-square = 1.99* degrees of freedom = 21
Contingency Coefficient = .01
*Significant at the .05 level - 32.7
Table 30. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of all department heads by age group
Order
Age
A
C
B
D
G
F
E
H
No.
Up to 30
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30 to 45
43
43
42
42
42
41
42
41
43
45 to 55
63
62
58
60
60
57
58
57
58
Above 55
38
37
35
36
36
33
36
35
37
145
143
136
139
139
132
137
134
139
Total
Chi-square = .82* degrees of freedom = 21
Contingency Coefficient = .01
*Significant at the .05 level - 32.7
77
Table 31. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of all instructors by age group
A
Order
Age
C
B
D
E
F
G
H
No.
Up to 30
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
9
30 to 45
87
87
87
86
87
86
87
87
86
45 to 55
54
53
52
51
51
50
52
49
54
Above 55
33
31
30
32
31
31
31
29
31
183
180
178
177
177
175
178
173
180
Total
Chi-square = 2.87* degrees of freedom = 21
Contingency Coefficient = .02
*Significant at the . 05 level - 32.7
Philosophical Expressions of Groups by
Years Teaching in Higher Education
Tables 32, 33 and 34 are a summary of the philosophical
expressions of the respondents according to the number of years
they have been engaged in teaching in higher education. This test
was selected to see if their years of experience in teaching in higher
education would have an effect on their choice of philosophical expres-
sions. An examination of these tables reveals that each of the categories by years of teaching in higher education indicate as their
first choice the philosophical expression which expressed industrial
arts as "General Education."
78
Table 32. Summary of choice of philosophical expression of total respondents by number of years
teaching in higher education
Order
Years
A
No.
0-5
60
60
59
58
58
58
58
57
59
6-10
63
63
62
61
62
60
61
60
61
11-15
82
81
78
78
80
77
79
77
80
16-20
51
50
46
48
47
46
49
46
49
21-25
51
48
46
47
48
45
46
44
49
26-Up
23
23
23
22
22
21
22
22
22
Total
330
325
314
314
317
307
315
306
320
Chi-square = 2.26* degrees of freedom = 35
Contingency Coefficient = .01
*Significant at the .05 level - 49.77
Table 33. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of all department heads by number of
years teaching in higher education
Order
Years
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
No,
0-5
13
13
12
13
12
13
12
12
13
6-10
18
18
18
17
18
16
17
16
17
11-15
44
44
43
43
43
42
43
42
43
16-2 0
25
24
21
23
22
22
23
22
23
21-25
33
32
30
32
32
29
30
30
32
26-Up
12
12
12
12
12
10
12
11
12
145
143
136
140
139
132
137
133
140
Total
Chi-square = 3.21* degrees of freedom = 35
Contingency Coefficient = .03
*Significant at the . 05 level - 49.77
79
Table 34. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of all instructors by number of years
teaching in higher education
Order
Years
A
No.
0-5
47
47
47
46
46
45
46
45
46
6-10
45
45
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
11-15
38
37
36
35
37
35
36
35
37
16-20
26
26
25
25
25
24
26
24
26
21-25
18
16
16
15
16
16
16
14
17
26-Up
11
11
11
10
10
11
10
11
10
Total
185
182
179
175
178
175
178
173
180
Chi-square = 3.87* degrees of freedom = 35
Contingency Coefficient = .02
*Significant at the . 05 level 49.77
Philosophical Expressions of Groups by Degrees
Tables 35, 36 and 37 present a summary of the philosophical
expressions of the respondents according to their level of educational
attainment. This test was conducted to determine if the degree
attainment of the respondents would have an effect upon their choice
of philosophical expressions. Again an examination of these tables
reveals that each of the categories by degree attainment chose the
philosophical expression which expressed industrial arts as "General
Education."
80
Table 35. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of total respondents by degree
attainment
A
Order
Degree
D
C
B
H
G
F
E
No.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Master
77
74
74
73
74
73
73
71
75
Doctor
251
249
239
239
241
232
240
237
243
Total
330
325
315
314
317
307
315
310
320
Bachelor
Chi-square = .33*degrees of freedom = 14
Contingency Coefficient = .01
*Significant at the .05 level - 23.7
Table 36. Summary of choice of philosophical expressions of all department heads by degree
attainment
Order
Degree
A
C
B
D
G
F
E
H
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Master
28
27
27
27
27
26
27
25
28
Doctor
116
115
108
111
111
105
109
107
111
Total
145
143
136
139
139
132
137
133
140
Bachelor
Chi-square = .58* degrees of freedom = 14
Contingency Coefficient =-- .01
*Significant at the .05 level - 23.7
81
Table 37. Summary of choice of philosophical expression of all instructors by degree attainment
A
Order
C
B
D
G
F
E
H
No.
Degree
Bachelor
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Master
49
47
47
46
47
47
46
46
47
Doctor
135
134
131
128
130
127
131
126
132
Total
185
182
179
175
178
175
178
173
180
Chi-square = . 37* degrees of freedom = 14
Contingency Coefficient = . 01
*Significant at the . 05 level - 23.7
Summary
Tables 29 through 37 represent a summary of additional data
obtained from the questionnaire and presented for further analysis of
the hypotheses.
Tables 29, 30 and 31 show the choice of philosophical expres-
sions of different age groups and categories. These age groupings
were selected to test those respondents who would most likely have
been engaged in undergraduate studies during different periods of
time.
These tables reveal that no one age group or type varies sig-
nificantly from the other. This would tend to indicate that the period
of time in which the respondent was likely to have been engaged in
82
undergraduate work made no appreciable difference upon his choice
of philosophical expressions. Each of the categories by age groups
indicated the philosophical expression that expressed industrial arts
as "General Education" as their first choice.
Tables 32, 33 and 34 indicate the choice of philosophical ex-
pressions of the respondents according to the number of years they
have been engaged in teaching higher education. This information
reveals that the number of years experience in teaching in higher
education makes no significant difference in their choice and each
of the categories selected the philosophical expression that expressed
industrial arts as "General Education."
Tables 35, 36 and 37 present the results of the tests to see if
the level of educational attainment would have an effect upon the
respondents choice of philosophical expressions. These tables re-
veal that each of the categories at all levels of degree attainment
indicated the philosophical expression that expressed industrial
arts as "General Education" as their first choice.
83
V.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the cur-
rent written philosophical expressions of industrial arts with the
acceptance of these expressions by select groups of industrial arts
teacher educators. An additional purpose of this study was to make
comparisons of the acceptance of these expressions between select
groups of industrial arts teacher educators.
In order to accomplish this study, two questions were considered:
1.
Is there a significant relationship of philosophical expressions
of industrial arts, as expressed in periodicals, and the acceptance of these expressions by department heads or coordinators
and selected members of industrial arts departments in teacher
education institutions that offer the baccalaureate, masters,
and doctoral level degree?
2.
Is there a difference of philosophical expressions between
department heads or coordinators and selected members of
industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions
that offer the baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral level
degree?
84
Procedures
The data for this study were obtained through the use of a
questionnaire derived from a frequency analysis of selected literature. The questionnaire was administered in teacher training insti-
tutions to industrial arts department heads or coordinators and a
random member of that department who teaches at least one professional course.
The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient; -r (tau); the Kendall
Coefficient of Concordance, W; and the Chi-square test were used
in statistically analyzing the data.
Summary
The analysis of the preliminary data used in this study indicate
a high degree of relationship in the ranking of the statements by the
respondents. In this case a significant value of the coefficient of
concordance may be interpreted as meaning that the respondents are
applying essentially the same standard in ranking the statements.
A pooled ranking of this type may serve as a "standard," especially
when there is no objective external criterion for ranking the statements. It should be stated that a significant value of the coefficient
of concordance does not mean that the rankings observed are correct.
It is possible that the respondents can agree in ranking the statements
85
because they all employ the wrong criterion.
The findings of this study indicate that there is a significant
relationship of philosophical expressions of industrial arts, as
expressed in periodicals, and the acceptance of these expressions
by department heads or coordinators and selected members of indus-
trial arts departments.
The department heads and instructors, the total of all respondents, indicate that they are in complete agreement with those who
would express industrial arts as "General Education, " as well as
the remaining ranked statements, in their publications. All department heads indicate near complete concordance. Although the major-
ity chose statement A, industrial arts as "General Education, " some
would place more importance in a philosophical expression that includes "Technology" as an emphasis. The rank correlation between
the literature and all instructors indicate complete concordance. An
analysis of the above comparisons would indicate that department
heads, who tend to be engaged more in research, would be more
inclined to favor philosophical statements that include an emphasis
on "Technology" than would instructors who are more involved in
subject matter areas. Philosophical statements that emphasize
industrial arts as a study of "Technology" first began to appear in
any quantity in the early 1960's.
The majority of department heads at the doctoral level ranked
86
the philosophical expression that expressed industrial arts as
"General Education" as their first choice, but as their second and
third choice ranked philosophical statements that would include
"Technology" and "Industry and Technology." Compared to the de-
partment heads as a whole, the department heads at the doctoral
level, who are more likely to be engaged in research, tend to favor
philosophical statements that express industrial arts as "Technology"
or "Industry and Technology." Department heads at the masters
level by and large agreed with the rankings expressed in the literature. Department heads at the baccalaureate level ranked the philo-
sophical statement that expressed industrial arts as "General Education" as their number one choice, but also ranked high the philosoph-
ical statement that expressed industrial arts as "General Education
Including Skills."
Instructors at the doctoral level ranked the philosophical state-
ment that expressed industrial arts as "General Education" as their
first choice, but like their department heads gave more emphasis to
statements that included "Technology and Industry" and "Technology."
In addition, they gave a higher ranking to the statement that included
"Skills" which might indicate they are still inclined to place emphasis
on subject matter areas. Instructors at the masters level agree
almost entirely with the ranking of the written philosophical state-
ments, giving slight preference to the philosophical statement that
87
expresses industrial arts as "General Education Including Skills."
Instructors at the baccalaureate level rank as their first choice the
philosophical statement that expresses industrial arts as "General
Education" but as their second choice the statement that includes
"Technology" indicating that research done at the undergraduate level
to further teaching skills is affected by writings emphasizing technology.
Summary of rank correlation coefficient tables:
1.
Literature
Total Composite
+1
2.
Literature
All Department Heads
+.92
3.
Literature
All Instructors
+1
4.
Literature
Department Heads, Type A
+.78
5.
Literature
Department Heads, Type B
+.92
6.
Literature
Department Heads, Type C
+.78
7.
Literature
Instructors, Type A
+.71
8.
Literature
Instructors, Type B
+.92
9.
Literature
Instructors, Type C
+.85
This study also indicates that there is a significant relationship
of philosophical expressions between department heads or coordinators
and selected members of industrial arts departments.
The comparison of philosophical expressions of all department
heads to all instructors indicate that both rank as their first choice
88
the philosophical statement that expresses industrial arts as "General
Education." However, department heads tend to put more emphasis
on "Technology" while instructors emphasize "General Education
Including Skills, " indicating that department heads as a whole may
be more involved in research while instructors are more involved in
subject matter areas. The philosophical expression of department
heads at the doctoral level indicate more of an emphasis on "Tech-
nology" while department heads at the masters level are more in
agreement with the over-all ranking of the written philosophical ex-
pressions. Department heads at the doctoral level place more emphasis on "Technology" as compared to the emphasis on "Skills" by
department heads at the baccalaureate level. Department heads at
the masters level and department heads at the baccalaureate level
agree very strongly in their ranking of the statements, the exception
being that department heads at the baccalaureate level place more
emphasis on "Skills."
The comparison of the rankings of philosphical expressions
between instructors at the doctoral level and instructors at the
masters level indicate that while they both select the expression of
industrial arts as "General Education" as their first choice, instructors at the doctoral level place more emphasis on "Technology" than
those at the masters level. Instructors at the doctoral level and
instructors at the baccalaureate level agree that emphasis should be
89
on industrial arts as "General Education" as well as "Technology"
perhaps indicating an interest in research for teaching skills in
subject matter areas. Instructors at the masters level compared
to instructors at the baccalaureate level indicate that the masters
level instructors are more in agreement with the over-all ranking
of the philosophical statements while instructors at the baccalaureate
level place some emphasis on "Technology."
A comparison of the ranking of philosophical statements between
department heads at the doctoral level and instructors at the doctoral
level indicate near complete agreement. Each group gave major
emphasis as expressing industrial arts as "General Education" while
placing secondary importance on "Technology." Department heads
at the masters level when compared with instructors at the masters
level indicate a close association in their rankings also. They also
selected as their first choice emphasizing industrial arts as "General
Education, " but both were in agreement about placing the secondary
emphasis upon industrial arts as "Understanding Industry" before
industrial arts as "Technology." Department heads and instructors
at the baccalaureate level again agreed that the philosophical expres-
sion that expresses industrial arts as "General Education" should be
placed first, but department heads favored "Understanding Industry"
as their second choice while the instructors favored "Technology."
90
Summary of rank correlation coefficient tables:
1.
All Department Heads--All Instructors
+. 85
2.
Department Heads, Type A-- Type B
+.71
3.
Department Heads, Type A- Type C
+.71
4.
Department Heads, Type B- - Type C
+.85
5.
Instructors, Type A- - Type B
-E. 78
6.
Instructors, Type A-- Type C
64
7.
Instructors, Type B--Type C
+.78
8.
Department Heads, Type AInstructors, Type A +.92
9.
Department Heads, Type BInstructors, Type B +.85
10.
Department Heads, Type C -- Instructors, Type C +.78
An analysis of other demographic data obtained from the ques-
tionnaire substantiated the findings that a significant degree of relationship exists within all categories studied. The philosophical
expressions selected by respondents of different age groups indicate
that the period of time in which the respondent was likely to have
been engaged in undergraduate work made no appreciable difference
in his choice of expressions. Each of the categories by age groups
selected as their first choice the philosophical expression that ex-
pressed industrial arts as "General Education." The philosophical
expressions selected by respondents according to the number of
years they have been engaged in teaching in higher education indicate
that their years of experience in teaching in higher education made
91
no difference in their choice of philosophical expressions. Each of
the categories by years of teaching in higher education indicated as
their first choice the philosophical expression that expressed indus-
trial arts as "General Education." The philosophical expressions
selected by respondents according to their level of educational attain-
ment indicate that their degree attainment made no difference in their
choice of philosophical expressions. Each of the categories by level
of educational attainment selected as their first choice the philosoph-
ical expression that expressed industrial arts as "General Education."
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the data obtained
in this study:
1.
There is a significant relationship between the written philo-
sophical expressions of industrial arts and the expressions of:
a.
Department heads or coordinators and random selected
members of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions where industrial arts is offered.
b.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions where industrial
arts is offered.
c.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course in industrial arts.
92
d.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the doctoral level degree with a major
emphasis in industrial arts.
e.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the masters level degree with a major
emphasis in industrial arts.
f.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the
baccalaureate level degree with a major emphasis in
industrial arts.
g.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral
level degree.
h.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher
education institutions that offer up to and including the
masters level degree.
i.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate level degree.
93
2.
There is a significant relationship of philosophical expressions
between:
a.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments in teacher education institutions and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who teach
at least one professional course at teacher education institutions.
b.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the doctoral level degree and department
heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at
teacher education institutions that offer up to and including
the masters level degree.
c.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the doctoral level degree and department
heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at
teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
level degree.
d.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the masters level degree and department
heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at
94
teacher education insitutions that offer the baccalaureate
level degree.
e.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral
level degree and random selected members of industrial
arts departments who teach at least one professional course
at teacher education institutions that offer up to and includ-
ing the masters level degree.
f.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral
level degree and random selected members of industrial
arts departments who teach at least one professional course
at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
level degree.
g.
Random selected members of industrial arts departments
who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the masters
level degree and random selected members of industrial
arts departments who teach at least one professional course
at teacher education institutions that offer the baccalaureate
level degree.
95
h.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts
departments at teacher education institutions that offer
up to and including the doctoral level degree and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who teach
at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer up to and including the doctoral level
degree.
i.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer up
to and including the masters level degree and random
selected members of industrial arts departments who
teach at least one professional course at teacher education
institutions that offer up to and including the masters level
degree.
j.
Department heads or coordinators of industrial arts departments at teacher education institutions that offer the
baccalaureate level degree and random selected members
of industrial arts departments who teach at least one professional course at teacher education institutions that offer
the baccalaureate level degree.
96
Recommendations
It is recommended that the findings of this study be taken into
consideration by national leaders in industrial arts education in
recognition of a need for change to a more contemporary philosophy
of industrial arts.
It is recommended that national leaders in industrial arts
education recognize the need to up-date the philosophy of industrial
arts to reflect the philosophical expressions derived from professional publications.
It is further recommended that individuals or institutions take
into consideration the findings of this study and recognize the need
for change in program purpose before developing further programs
in industrial arts.
It is also recommended that further research be conducted to
determine the objective criterion used by the respondents to arrive
at the results of this study.
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Abercrombie, Towne R. New conceptions of industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:242 -244. June,
1945.
The implications of industrial arts for general
2.
education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:405-406.
November, 1945.
3.
American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education. Planning industrial arts facilities, 8th yearbook. Bloomington,
Illinois, McKnight & McKnight, 19 59. 247 p.
Status of research in industrial arts, 15th
4.
yearbook. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight & McKnight, 1966.
176 p.
5.
American Vocational Association. A guide to improving instruction in industrial arts. Washington, D.C., The Association,
19 53.
6.
7.
120 p.
A guide to improving instruction in industrial
arts. Washington, D. C., The Association, 1956.
Industrial arts policy and planning committee.
, The Association, 1958.
Washington, D. C.
8.
Ashley, Lawrence F. Co-operative relationships of industrial
arts and vocational education. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 34:277-281. September, 1945.
9.
A staff compiled report. Shop facilities 19 14-1964. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 53:31 -33. May, 1964.
10.
Barlow, Melvin L. History of industrial education in the United
States. Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett, 1967. 512 p.
11.
Bartell, Carl and J. J. Littrell. An occupational emphasis for
industrial arts. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 24:
28-30. January-February, 1965.
98
12.
Beck, Robert H. and Howard F. Nelson. Industrial arts in
the 60's. American Vocational Journal 3 5:18-19. September,
19 60.
13.
Bennett, Dean B. Industrial arts and environmental education.
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:34 -36. Special
Convention Issue, 1970.
14.
Benson, M. James. The function and structure of industrial
arts in the educational philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 5:5-13. Fall, 1967.
15.
Bick, Alexander F. Industrial arts goals and potentials. The
Industrial Arts Teacher 17:8-10. September-October, 1957.
16.
Bohn, Ralph C. Industrial arts in the comprehensive high
school. American Vocational Journal 33:21. April, 1958.
17.
Bonser, Frederick G. and Lois C. Mossman. Industrial arts
for elementary schools. New York, MacMillan, 1927. 491 p.
18.
Bornstein, A. P. Man, the sorcerer's apprentice? The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 27:16-17. September-October,
19 67.
19.
Brown, Kenneth W. Establishment of a philosophy: a key to
excellence. The Industrial Arts Teacher 22:10 -13. SeptemberOctober, 1962.
The Industrial Arts
September-October,
1962.
Teacher 22:18-19.
20. Brown, Robert D. A look at objectives.
21.
Industrial arts laboratory planning and administration. Milwaukee, Bruce, 1969. 327 p.
22.
Brown, Walter C. and John H. Erickson. Aims of industrial
education on which there is reasonable agreement. American
Vocational Journal 38:25-26. March, 1963.
23.
Bruning, James L. and B. L. Kintz. Computational handbook
of statistics. Glenview, Illinois, Scots Forsman, 1968.
24.
Buston, Robert E. It's a sign of the times. The Journal of
Industrial Education 27:10-11. January-February, 1968.
99
Goals for industrial arts. The Industrial
Arts Teacher 22:9-10. September-October, 1962.
25. Caldwell, John T.
26.
Calvin, Lawrence V. Our industrial objective. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 37:195. May, 1948.
27.
Carrel, Joseph J. Industriology, the study of industry. American Vocational Journal 40:26-27. May, 1965.
28.
Cochran, Leslie H. Innovative programs in industrial education. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight & McKnight, 1970.
114 p.
29.
Coger, R. Mondell. A national sense of direction for industrial
arts. American Vocational Journal 43:32. March, 1968.
30.
Coleman, Wayne. Industrial arts, the terms: just what does
it mean? American Vocational Journal 33:23-24. March, 1958.
31.
Coleman, Wayne, Paul W. Davis and Robert R. Wallberg. The
relationship of industrial arts to the curriculum. American
Vocational Journal 36:21. October, 1961.
32. Coltharp, Raymond J.
Industrial arts and citizenship. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:153-154. April, 1945.
33. Commissioner Kepple on industrial arts. Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 23:14. January-February, 1964.
34. Coover, S. L.
Industrial arts and general education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:28. May, 1960.
Providing basic values. The Industrial
Arts Teacher 22:7-8. November-December, 1962.
35. Dawson, Kenneth E.
36.
Practical arts development. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47:114-118.
November, 196 3.
37.
Decker, Howard S. and Ralph C. Bohn. Industrial arts. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 52:
50-57. September, 1968.
38. Decker, Howard S.
The Washington symposium. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 28:14-16. November-December,
1968.
100
39.
Devore, Paul W. Practical arts issues. National Association
of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47:108-114. November,
19 63.
40. Diamond, Thomas. "Art" and industrial arts. School Shop
13:2.
January, 1954.
41.
Dudley, Arthur J. Six cardinal aims of industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:23. October, 1961.
42.
Automation and education. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 52:38-40. April, 1963.
43.
The northeast: philosophy, program direction, and relationships. Journal of Industrial Arts Education
23:57. January-February, 1964.
44.
Challenges to industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 53:59. February, 1964.
45.
Duffy, Joseph. A new look at industrial arts. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 49:14-15. April, 1960.
46.
Let's revamp industrial arts programs to
reflect technological needs. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 52:20-21. November, 1963.
47.
The functions of industry. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 29:11-17. March-April, 1970.
48. Engelbrektson, Sune. A search for direction.
The Industrial
Arts Teacher 21:15-20. January-February, 1962.
49.
Ericson, Emanuel E. Teaching the industrial arts. Peoria,
Illinois, Manual Arts, 1946. 384 p.
50.
Teaching the industrial arts. 2d ed.
Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett, 1956. 384 p.
51.
Occupational orientation through industrial
American
Vocational
Journal 32:24-26. March, 1957.
arts.
52.
Face, Wesley L., Eugene R. Flug and Robert S. Swanson. A
conceptual approach to the study of American industry. American Vocational Journal 40:15-17. March, 1965.
101
53.
Face, Wesley L. and Eugene R. Flug. American industry
project. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:24-28.
May, 1966.
54.
Feirer, John L. Administering industrial education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:48-49. May, 1961.
55.
Is industrial arts relevant? Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 59:29.
56.
February, 1970.
Feirer, John L. and John R. Lindbeck. Industrial arts education. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Research in
Education, 19 64.
116 p.
57.
Floyd, William G. Industrial arts: a new approach. National
Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 51:24-31.
March, 1967.
58.
Fox, Deyo B. Improving the industrial arts. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 38:259-261. September, 1949.
59.
Friese, John F. Course making in industrial education.
Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett, 1946. 297 p.
60.
Help from the past. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:28. October, 1964.
61.
Friese, John F. and William A. Williams. Course making in
industrial education. 3d ed. Peoria, Illinois, Charles A.
Bennett, 1966. 301 p.
62.
Fryklund, Vern C. Planning must ever be-the ongoing objective. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 44:147-149.
May, 1955.
63.
Funderburk, Earl C. A superintendent looks at industrial
arts. Industrial Arts Teacher 22:16-20. May-June, 1963.
64.
Fuzak, John A. An analysis of developments affecting education to determine implications for industrial arts. The Industrial Arts Teacher 16:18. May-June, 19 57.
65.
Analysis of developments to determine implications for industrial arts. The Industrial Arts Teacher 17:
12-13. November-December, 1957.
102
66.
Gerbracht, Carl and Frank A. Scholfield.
. "And the problems of life related to these changes". . . Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 46:113. April, 1957.
67.
Gerrish, Howard H. A new shop philosophy for industrial arts.
American Vocational Journal 41:20-22. January, 1966.
68.
Giachino, Jr. W. and Ralph 0. Gallington. Course construction
in industrial arts and vocational education. Chicago, American
Technical Society, 1961. 234 p.
69.
Course construction in industrial arts, vocational and technical education. Chicago, American Technical
Society, 1967. 314 p.
70. Glazener, Everett R.
Foundations of industrial education.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 7:5-8. Winter, 1970.
71.
Gottschall, Franklin H. The comprehensive industrial-arts
program. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:337341. October, 1946.
72. Grieder, Calvin. Now
It's time for--a renaissance for the
practical arts. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:22-23.
January- February, 1964.
73.
Hackett, Donald F. Study of American industry is essential
to liberalizing general education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:25-28. April, 1964.
Determining content in industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:24-25. May, 1961.
74. Hammond, Robert G.
75. Hankin, Edward K. Industrial arts vs. unsubsidized vocational
education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:229231. June, 1950.
76.
Vocational-industrial education and industrial
arts-time for clarification. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 42:185-186. June, 1953.
77.
Hardin, Robert A. Our evolving philosophy of industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:179-182. May,
1950.
103
78.
Harrison, 0. S. Automation and industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 50:20-21. November, 1961.
79.
Haunton, Gerald. An outsider views. . . the American industrial arts program. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education
56:28-30. June, 1967.
80.
Haws, Robert W. Putting "industry" into industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 47:303-304.
December, 1958.
81. Hornbake, R. Lee.
Industrial arts in mobilization. American
Vocational Journal 26:21-23. May, 1951.
Time for progress. School Shop 15:7-8.
82.
June, 1956.
83.
What do we believe and why? (Editorial)
School Shop 26:2. September, 1956.
84.
Technology: implications for education. The
Industrial Arts Teacher 21:18-20. May-June, 1962.
85.
There's a place for us. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 27:12-15. March-April, 1968.
86. Hostetler, Ivan.
Industrial arts in 1975: hopes for the future.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 51:18-20. May, 1962.
87.
Manual arts, 1914--industrial arts, 1964.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:19-22. May, 1964.
88.
89.
Householder, D. L. Industrial arts teacher education: intellectual perspective and developmental focus. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 4:49-55. December, 1966.
Hutchcroft, C. Robert. Industrial arts contributes to general
education. The Industrial Arts Teacher 19:9-10. NovemberDec ember, 1959.
90. Industrial Arts Policy and Planning Committee. A statement
of industrial arts in education. American Vocational Journal
34:18-20. November, 1959.
104
91. Jacobson, Eckhart A. The technological future.
The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 29:10-12. Special Convention Issue,
1970.
92.
Jarvis, John A. Should the objectives of industrial arts change?
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:18-19. November,
1961.
93.
The place and purpose of industrial arts.
School Shop 22:17. February, 1963.
94. Johnston, Ralph 0.
Matching men and jobs--recognizing the
industrial arts curriculum. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 37:350-352. November, 1948.
95. Kabakjian, Edward. A role to play in manpower development.
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:36-39. MarchApril, 1970.
96. Kachel, Harold Stanley. An identification of philosophical
beliefs of professional leaders and industrial arts teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Greeley, Colorado State
College, 1967. 268 numb. leaves. (Microfilm)
97.
Kagy, Frederick D. The place and relation of art and industrial arts in the school curriculum. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education 4:56-63. Summer, 1967.
98.
Karnes, M. Ray. Improving industrial arts education. The
Industrial Arts Teacher 19:7. May-June, 1960.
99.
Kelly, William T. A teacherst declaration for space-age
industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:
12-14. January, 1961.
100.
Kirby, Jack. Industriology: a bid to "teach it like it is."
School Shop 28:44-45. December, 1968.
101.
Koble, Ronald L. Foundations of industrial arts education.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 7:18-20. Winter,
1970.
102.
Kranzberg, Melvin. Technology is important--really it is.
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 27:29-32. SeptemberOctober, 1967.
105
103.
Kurth, E. L. Industrial arts' newest obligation. School Shop
15:7-9. November, 1955.
104.
Lamb, Auburn J. This I do believe. School Shop 10:7. January, 1951.
105.
Lamb, L. H. Industrial arts and vocational education in the
post war period. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:
239-240. June, 1945.
106.
Lauda, Donald P. In the midst of change. Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 29:34. September-October, 1969.
Industrial arts and work: two concepts in
107.
question. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:18-21.
March-April, 1970.
108.
Leavitt, Gerome. Woodwork for 7th and 8th grades. National
Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 29:63-66.
March, 1945.
109.
Lindbeck, John R. A framework for research in industrial
arts. Doctoral dissertation. Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota, 1958. 166 numb. leaves. (Microfilm)
110.
An insider replies . . . the American industrial arts program. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education
56:29.
111.
June, 1967.
Lockette, Rutherford E. Implications for industrial arts
education. American Vocational Journal 39:26-27. April,
1964.
112.
What research has to say for content in industrial education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 2:1124.
113.
Social barriers to the release of human potential: barriers of cultural detrivation. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education 3:57-65. Spring, 1966.
114.
London, H. H. Background and outlook in industrial education.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 38:257-258. September, 1949.
106
115.
London, H. H. and Ivan Hostetler. Industrial education in the
years ahead. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:147151. April, 1946.
116.
London, H. H. and Rowland F. Nagel. Industrial arts contributions to industry manpower needs. American Vocational Journal 38:29-30. February, 1963.
117.
Lux, Donald G. The role of art in industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 47:145-146. May, 1958.
118.
Teach them how to solve problems. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 48:147-150. May, 1959.
119.
The industrial arts curriculum project. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:12. November-December,
1969.
120.
Maddox, Marion E. Should the objectives of industrial arts
change? Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:19-20.
November, 1961.
121.
Maley, Donald. Basis for organizing the content of industrial
arts with emphasis on the research and experimentation program. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 1:22-31. Fall,
1963.
122.
Technology, industry and the individual. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:24. May, 1966.
123.
Into the mainstream. American Vocational
Journal 45:42-43. February, 1970.
124.
How industrial arts relates to occupational
education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 59:30-32.
February, 1970.
125.
Malia, Daniel H. How about industry? The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 27:10-11. September-October, 1967.
126.
More on the age-old controversy. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 28:18-19. November-December,
1968.
107
127.
Mays, Arthur B. Needed emphasis in industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:279-281. September,
1946.
128.
Industrial education. Encyclopaedia of Education Research, New York, MacMillan, 1950. 571 p.
129.
Essentials of industrial education. New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1952. 248 p.
130.
McGovern, Troyce D. Selecting I-A solids from industry.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:17. June, 1960.
131.
McKay, Donald B. Realism in industrial arts. School Shop
13:9. March, 1954.
132.
Meyer, Harvey K. Creed, deed, and need. The Industrial
Arts Teacher 19:16-18. November-December, 1959.
133.
Meyn, Al W. The future of industrial arts and vocational education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:1. January,
1945.
134.
Miller, Rex and Lee H. Smalley. Selected readings for industrial arts. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight & McKnight, 1963.
357 p.
135.
Miller, W. R. How lucky we are. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 28:18-21. September-October, 1968.
136.
Moeller, Carl A. Industrial arts role in occupational preparation. American Vocational Journal 40:27. May, 1965.
137.
Monroe, Lynn C. The importance of industrial arts. American
Vocational Journal 26:14. March, 1951.
138.
Moss, Jr., Gerome and Ronald W. Stadt. A framework for
industrial arts curriculum redevelopment in the secondary
schools. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 3:18-29.
Winter, 1966.
139.
Muhle, Glen J. and Jean R. Walter. Let's fuse industrial arts
with the academic subjects. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:15-16. May-June, 1964.
108
140.
Myers, Ward L. The next 20 years in industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 40:3 17-3 18. October, 1951.
141.
Newbauer, G. W. and Robert D. Brown. Experts evaluate
industrial arts' unique contributions. American Vocational
Journal 35:23-24. September, 19 60.
142.
Nihart, Claude E. The importance of skill. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 39:187. May, 1950.
Industrial arts traditional. Industrial Arts
143.
and Vocational Education 41:145-147. May, 1952.
144.
Olsen, Harold P. Are we guilty of technertia in industrial arts?
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 24:49-51. JanuaryFebruary, 1965.
145.
Olson, Delmar W. Reactions to a new look at industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:26. May, 1960.
146.
June, 1960.
A call to industrial arts. School Shop 19:9-10.
147.
Industrial arts and technology. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1963. 367 p.
148.
A new industrial arts for today's schools.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:24. May, 1966.
149.
Future. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 26:54-55. January- February, 1967.
150.
A logic-base. The Journal of Industrial Arts
Education 28:21-22. January-February, 19 69.
151.
Industrial arts recast. Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 28:5. May-June, 1969.
152.
Paige, Theodore. Industrial arts and culture. School Shop 12:
7-8. March, 1953.
153.
Parker, James A. Modern trends in industrial arts and vocational education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 43:
199-200. June, 1954.
109
154.
Pawelek, Stanley J. Industrial arts education in a democracy.
School Shop 13:11. September, 1953.
155.
Perry, Donald E. Industrial arts: the what, how and why of
our future. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:12-13.
January, 1964.
156.
Perry, Kenneth F. The industrial arts salutes John Dewey.
The Industrial Arts Teacher 19:7-9. January-February, 1960.
157.
Cedro for a renaissance in industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:14-16. June,
1960.
158.
Pratzner, Frank C. Changing the goals of industrial arts: an
occupational development curriculum. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education 6:31-40. Winter, 1969.
159.
Randels, Malvern W. Should organizational patterns for industrial arts change? Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:
44-45. December, 1961.
160.
Reed, Howard 0. Theories of industrial arts education. American Vocational Journal 33:25. January, 1958.
161.
Richards, Maurice F. Sputnik education and industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 47:213-214. September, 1958.
162.
Righthand, Herbert. What research has to say for industrial
education: philosophy and objectives. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education 2:5-13. Spring, 1964.
163.
Rokusek, H. James. Industrial arts teacher education--its
responsibilities to the public school program. The Industrial
Arts Teacher 21:11-13. January-February, 1962.
164.
Rudiger, Robert. Industrial education and the Conant study.
Industrial Arts and Vocational' Education 49:14-16. February,
1960.
165.
Ruley, M. J. Blueprint for industrial education. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 50:14-16. December, 1961.
110
166.
Russell, James E. Our changing technology. The Industrial
Arts Teacher 20:8-12. May-June, 1961.
167.
Schad, Joseph A. Industrial arts and vocational industrial
education. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 38:40-51. December, 1954.
Let's start three fires in industrial arts.
168.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 56:22-23. June,
1967.
169.
Schmitt, Marshall. L. Why--the industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 50:49-50. May, 1961.
170.
What are the values of industrial arts ? The
Industrial Arts Teacher 23:11-15. September-October, 1963.
171.
Seckendorf, Robert S. Is it what or how? The Industrial Arts
Teacher 22:8. March-April, 1963.
172.
Policy for action. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 27:7-9. March-April, 1968.
173.
Where should we be going in industrial arts?
National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin
53:98-107. November, 1969.
174.
Seefeld, Kermit A. Do-it-yourself. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 45:114-115. March, 1956.
Seefeld says: (Editorial) The Industrial Arts
175.
Teacher 18:4. January-February, 1959.
176.
Selvidge, R. W. and Vern C. Fryklund. Principals of trade
and industrial teaching. Peoria, Illinois, Charles A. Bennett,
1946. 395 p.
177.
Shattuck, Edward A. A curricular view of industrial education.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:147-149. April,
1950.
178.
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral
sciences. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956.
111
179.
Silvius, G. Harold and Ralph C. Bohn. Organizing course
materials for industrial education. Bloomington, Illinois,
McKnight & McKnight, 1961. 459 p.
180.
Silvius, G. Harold and Estell H. Curry. Teaching successfully
in industrial education. Bloomington, Illinois, McKnight &
McKnight, 1967. 645 p.
181.
Smith, Homer J. Basic assumptions. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 3 5:23 5-23 6. June, 1946.
182. Sommers, Wesley S. Toward excellence in industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 51:20-21. November,
19 62.
183.
Sotzin, Herbert A. The five "Wls." School Shop 14:25. May,
19 55.
184.
Sparks, Clarence. Industrial education in the wake of the
satellites. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 48:37-38.
February, 19 59.
185.
Spence, William T. Status of industrial arts education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:18. November, 1966.
186.
Spencer, Albert G. Perception of the "understanding of industry" objective by industrial arts teachers and teacher educators.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 7:36 -39. Winter, 1970.
187.
Sredl, Henry J. Part 4: Industrial arts in the 19401s. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 26:50-53. JanuaryFebruary, 1967.
188.
Part 5: Industrial arts in the 19 50's. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 26:53-57. March-April,
19 67.
189.
Part 6: Industrial arts in the 1960's. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 26:3 2. May-June, 1967.
190.
Stadt, Ronald W. Criteria for evaluating theories of industrial
arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:26-28.
September, 1964.
112
191.
Stadt, Ronald W. Analyzing industry and organizing content
for industrial arts. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education
25:25- 27. January- February, 19 66.
192.
Steeb, Ralph. To define a position. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 28:10-11. November-December, 1968.
193.
Streichler, Jerry. Industrial education in step with technology?
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 52:16-18. November,
1963.
194.
Curriculum concepts and courses: direction
for teacher educators. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education
29:32. January-February, 1970.
195.
Struck, F. Theodore. Creative teaching: industrial arts and
.
vocational education. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1938.
623 p.
196.
Stucki, Ralph E. Modern industrial arts. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 39:258. September, 1950.
197.
Svendsen, Ethan A. T. Industrial arts: liberal aspects. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 4:15-19. Summer, 1967.
198.
Sylvius, G. Harold. Functional aims for industrial education
in the American school. The Industrial Arts Teacher 19:1 1-12.
November-December, 1959.
199.
Teel, Dean. Delimiting a discipline in part. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 56:35. September, 1967.
200.
Vaughan, Maurice S. A case for compatability. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 28:14-17. September-October,
19 68.
201.
Venable, Tom C. Industrial arts and the central purpose of
American education. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education
24:23 - 26. September -October, 19 64.
202.
Venn, Grant. Title I, HR 15066: a better answer? The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 27:16-19. May-June, 1968.
113
203.
Venn, Grant. On industrial arts and vocational education.
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:15. SeptemberOctober, 1969.
204.
Warburton, Minnie. The Grove Park Institute. Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 29:28. September-October, 1969.
205.
Wenrich, Ralph C. The industrial arts program and the
secondary school boy. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:287-290. September, 1946.
206.
What's the issue? The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 25:
40-43. May-June, 1966.
207.
Whitesel, John A. Industrial arts in the modern senior high
school. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:331-333.
October, 1946.
208.
Whitney, Donald T. Industrial arts and the 60 percent. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 40:48-50. February, 1951.
Industrial arts in retrospect and prospect.
School Shop 11:7-8. February, 1952.
209. Wilber, Gordon 0.
Some basic concepts concerning industrial
210.
arts. School Shop 13:7. December, 1953.
211.
Industrial arts in general education. Scranton,
Pennsylvania, International Textbook, 1953. 362 p.
Industrial arts in the atomic age. School Shop
212.
14:9-10. September, 1954.
Does industrial arts have a mission? School
213.
Shop 15:11. February, 1956.
214.
Wilcox, F. Glade. Industrial arts for the liberal arts student.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 41:263-265. October,
1952.
215.
Williams, Robert Bruce. A psychological reappraisal. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:13-14. Special convention issue, 1970.
114
216.
Willoughby, George A. Industrial arts contributes to effective
living. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 44:141. April,
19 55.
217.
Woodward, Robert L. Industrial arts--a vital part of every
student's need. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:24-25.
January-February, 1964.
218.
Woody, Earl T. Analysis of the perceived objectives among
industrial arts teachers. Doctoral Dissertation. Greeley,
Colorado State College, 1963. 154 numb. leaves.
219.
Wright, Ralph E. Practical arts--a practical view. National
Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47 :118120. November, 1963.
220-.
Yager, Sylvan A. Twins, although not identical. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 4 1:101-10 2. March, 1952.
Challenges and opportunities, The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 27:18-19. September-October,
221. Ziegfeld, Edwin.
19 67.
APPENDICES
115
APPENDIX A
116
Dr. David C. Bjorkquist
Industrial Education Department
125 Peik Hall
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Dr. Ralph C. Bohn
Industrial Studies Department
School of Applied Sciences and Arts
San Jose State College
San Jose, California 95114
Dr. Kenneth W. Brown
Division of Industrial Arts Education
1300 Elmwood Avenue - 33/3A
State University College at Buffalo
Buffalo, New York 14222
Dr. Walter C. Brown
Division of Technology
College of Engineering Sciences
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona 85281
Dr. Paul W. DeVore
Industrial Education Department
College of Human Resources and Education
West Virginia University
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506
Dr. Eugene R. Flug
Industrial Teacher Education Department
School of Applied Science and Technology
Stout State University
Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751
Dr. Wesley L. Face
Industrial Teacher Education Department
School of Applied Science and Technology
Stout State University
Menomonie, Wisconsin 54751
117
Dr. Daniel L. Householder
Department of Industrial Education
South Campus Courts, "A"
School of Technology
Purdue University
Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Dr. Frederick D. Kagy
Department of Industrial Technology
College of Applied Science and Technology
Illinois State University
Normal, Illinois 61761
Dr. Jack Kirby
Department of Industrial Education
College of Industry
Wisconsin State University, Platteville
Platteville, Wisconsin 53818
Dr. John R. Lindbeck
Department of Industrial Education
College of Applied Sciences
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49001
Dr. Rutherford E. Lockette
Department of Vocational Education and Practical Arts
School of Education
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Dr. Lynn C. Monroe
School of Education
Moore Hall 208
University of California at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90024
Dr. Delmar Olson
Department of Industrial and Technical Education
School of Education
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
118
Dr. Willis E. Ray
College of Education
Academic Faculty of Industrial Technology
1712 Neil Avenue, 36/6A
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
119
APPENDIX B
120
Dear
During the past few years there has been a growing divergence of
opinion as to the direction of industrial arts. It would appear that
industrial arts teacher educators may have a great deal of influence
in determining or perpetuating the philosophy of industrial arts. I
believe that a study of these philosophical expressions and their
acceptance by industrial arts teacher educators may offer an insight
into the present direction of industrial arts education.
As an expert and contributor in the field of industrial arts, I feel
that you would be best qualified as a member of a jury of experts to
help me in this endeavor. Enclosed you will find a preliminary copy
of the questionnaire that I plan to use as a data gathering instrument
for my dissertation. I would invite you to critically read the questionnaire and return to me comments on such items as completeness,
clarity, appropriateness or any other area you feel to be important.
This questionnaire is designed to determine the philosophy of industrial arts teacher educators. The statements are the result of a
comprehensive analysis of selected literature of the past twenty-five
years. The data will then be compared to determine the degree of
acceptance by various groups of industrial arts teacher educators and
the literature.
Your judgment and opinion will be considered a valuable contribution
in this matter.
Approved:
Sincerely,
Dr. Earl E. Smith
Professor of Industrial Education
David W. Parker
Doctoral Candidate
School of Education
Oregon State University
School of Education
Oregon State University
DP/jp
Enc 1.
121
APPENDIX C
122
QUESTIONNAIRE
A Comparison of Current Philosophical Expressions of Industrial Arts
With Their Acceptance by Industrial Arts Teacher Educators
Purpose of Study:
It is the purpose of this questionnaire to determine the philosophical expression
that most nearly represents your philosophy of industrial arts education.
Part I. Personal Data--Please fill in the personal information required below. Be assured that this
information will be held in strict confidence and will not be used in any way
as personal identification in the study.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name:
Institution:
Position:
Technical Subjects
Area of Instruction: Professional Subjects
Rank:
Degrees
Year Granted
Major
Institution
1
2
3
4
7.
8.
Age:
Number of years teaching industrial arts:
Part II.
1
Philosophy--Please read the following philosophical expressions. Select the statement
that most nearly represents your philosophy of industrial arts and place the
letter beside number 1 just below. Continue to rank, in order of importance,
the remaining statements in the same manner. If you cannot find one that
you can agree with, would you please express yours in the space provided below.
If possible, please include a reference that relates to your philosophy.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A. Industrial arts is a phase of general education which provides for the study of industry, its
organization, tools, materials, equipment, processes, products, occupations, and the problems
resulting from the industrial and technological nature of our society.
B.
C.
Industrial Arts is a study of industry and American industrial civilization in terms of its origin,
development, organization, processes, operations and products, and their effect upon our
culture
Industrial arts is the study of technology: its origins, development, and advance: its technical,
economic, social, occupational, recreational, cultural and cultural nature and influence:
through research, experiment, design, invention, development, construction, and operation
with industrial materials, processes, products, and energies; for the purpose of acquainting
the students with the technological culture and aiding him in the discovery and development,
release and realization of his own native potential therein.
123
D.
Industrial arts is a study of industry and technology: through study, experimentation, and
application students learn to participate in activities in which they use industrial-technical
tools, machines, materials, and processes, as well as language arts, mathematics, science,
and social science in solving meaningful problems designed to develop their understanding
and knowledge of significant technological contributions, contemporary industry and their
ability to live and contribute in a dynamic industrial and technological era.
E.
Industrial arts is occupational education: it provides students with an exposure to a broad range
of occupations for which special skills are required and the requisites for careers in such occupations, and guides them to a point where they are ready to begin specific and concentrated
preparation for the occupation of their choice.
F.
Industrial arts is the study and understanding of our material culture, past and present, which
inclUdes industry, production and processes, essential for successful living in our contemporary
industrial society.
G.
Industrial arts should provide for the development of the students creative potentialities and
foster genuine creative expression in the arts; it should develop an understanding of the validity
of aesthetic experience and the capacity for aesthetic response; it should foster aesthetic evaluation of all aspects of the environment; it should enrich and deepen the student's experience of
the world in which he lives through an understanding of the contemporary art forms; and it
should increase the student's understanding of past cultures and their contributions to contemporary culture through an appreciation of the arts of the past.
H.
Your prompt return of this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope will be greatly appreciated.
Approved:
Sincerely,
Dr. Earl E Smith
David W. Parker
Doctoral Candidate
School of Education
Oregon State University
Professor of Industrial Education
School of Education
Oregon State University
124
APPENDIX D
125
Dear Dr.
During the past few years there has been a growing divergence of
opinion as to the direction of industrial arts. It would appear that
industrial arts teacher educators may have a great deal of influence
in determining or perpetuating the philosophy of industrial arts. I
believe that a study of the acceptance of selected philosophical expressions and their acceptance by industrial arts teacher educators
may offer an insight into the present direction of industrial arts
education.
This questionnaire is designed to determine the philosophical point
of view of industrial arts teacher educators. The statements are the
result of a comprehensive analysis of selected literature of the past
twenty-five years. The data will then be compared to determine the
degree of acceptance by various groups of industrial arts teacher
educators and the literature.
Your cooperation will be considered a valuable contribution to this
study.
Approved:
Sincerely,
Dr. Earl E. Smith
Professor of Industrial Education
David W. Parker
Doctoral Candidate
School of Education
Oregon State University
School of Education
Oregon State University
DP/jp
Encl.
126
APPENDIX E
127
QUESTIONNAIRE
A Comparison of Current Philosophical Expressions of Industrial Arts
With Their Acceptance by Industrial Arts Teacher Educators
Purpose of Study:
It is the purpose of this questionnaire to determine the philosophical expression
that most nearly represents your point of vi ew of industrial arts education.
Part I. Personal Data--Please fill in the personal information required below. Be assured that this
information will be held in strict confidence and will not be used in any way as
personal identification in the study.
1. Name:
2. Institution:
3. Position:
4. Area of Instruction: Professional Subjects
Technical Subjects
5. Rank:
6.
Institution
Degrees
Major
Year Granted
1
2
3
4
7. Age:
8.
Number of years teaching industrial arts: Public Ed.
Hi gher Ed.
Part II. Philosophical expressionPlease read the following statements. Select the statement that
most nearly represents your point of view of industrial arts and place the letter
that identifies the statement beside number 1 just below. Continue to rank, in
order of importance, the remaining statements in the same manner. If you
cannot find a statement with which you can completely agree, then select a
statement and modify it by underlining words or phrases you would delete. If
you cannot find one that you can agree with, would you please express yours
in the space provided below. If possible, please include a reference that relates
to your guiding principles.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A.
Industrial arts is a phase of general education which provides for the study of industry, its
organization, tools, materials, equipment, processes, products, occupations, and the problems
resulting from the industrial and technological nature of our society.
B.
Industrial arts is a study of industry and American industrial civilization in terms of its origin,
development, organizati on, processes, operations and products, and their effect upon our
culture.
C.
Industrial arts is the study of technology: its origins, development, and advance: its technical,
economic, social, occupational, recreational, cultural and cultural nature and influence:
through research, experiment, design, invention, development, construction, and operation
with industrial materials, processes, products, and energies; for the purpose of acquainting the
students with the technological culture and aiding him in the discovery and development, release
and realization of his own native potential therein.
128
D.
Industrial arts is a study of industry and technology: through study, experimentation, and
application students learn to participate in activities in which they use industrial-technical
tools, machines, materi als, and processes, as well as language arts, mathematics, science,
and social science in solving meaningful problems designed to develop their understanding and
knowledge of significant technological contributions, contemporary industry and their ability
to live and contribute in a dynamic industrial and technological era.
E.
Industrial arts is occupational education: it provides students with an exposure to a broad range
of occupations for which special skills are required and the requisites for careers in such occupations, and guides them to a point where they are ready to begin specific and concentrated
preparation for the occupation of their choice.
F.
Industrial arts is the study and understanding of our material culture, past and present, which
includes industry, production and processes, essential for successful living in our contemporary
industrial society.
G.
Industrial arts should provide for the development of the students creative potentialities and
foster genuine creative expression in the arts; it should develop an understanding of the validity
of aesthetic experience and the capacity for aesthetic response; it should foster aesthetic evaluation of all aspects of the environment; it should enrich and deepen the student's experience of
the world in which he lives through an understanding of the contemporary art forms; and it
should increase the student's understanding of past cultures and their contributions to contemporary culture through an appreciation of the arts of the past.
H.
Industrial arts is that part of general education concerned with providing youth an opportunity
to study about and to develop basic skills with tools, materials, and processes of industrialtechnical fields.
I.
Your prompt return of this questionnaire in the enclosed envelope will be greatly appreciated.
Approved:
Sincerely,
Dr. Earl E. Smith
David W. Parker
Doctoral Candidate
School of Education
Oregon State University
Professor of Industrial Education
School of Education
Oregon State University
129
APPENDIX F
130
Dear Sir:
A few weeks ago you received a questionnaire designed to
determine your philosophical point of view concerning industrial
arts. If you have not already returned the questionnaire, it would
be appreciated if you would return it as soon as possible.
Your cooperation will be considered a valuable contribution
to the study.
Sincerely,
131
APPENDIX G
132
Number of Respondents by Type and Level
I
Department
II
Heads
Instructors
A - Doctoral Level
24
31
55
B
Masters Level
68
96
164
C
Baccalaureate Level
52
59
111
144
186
330
133
APPENDIX H
General
Education
1970
69
68
3
3
Understanding
Industry
Technology
Industry
Technology
2
4
1
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
67
5
5
2
2
66
3
4
3
4
1
6
7
2
3
1
4
1
3
6
6
3
59
58
57
56
3
55
3
2
2
3
3
65
64
63
62
61
60
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
Occupational Understanding
Education
Our Culture
3
2
1
4
2
1
3
3
2
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Industrial
"Arts"
1
7
6
5
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1
8
12
14
10
6
13
13
9
12
10
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
4
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
0
5
7
91
6
7
1
39
31
14
12
6
3
196
135
APPENDIX I
136
Abercrombie, Towne R. New conceptions of industrial arts.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:242-244. 1945.
The implications of industrial arts for general education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:405-406.
1945.
Ashley, Lawrence F. Co-operative relationships of industrial arts
and vocational education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:277-281.
1945.
Beck, Robert H. and Howard F. Nelson. Industrial arts in the 60's.
American Vocational Journal 35:18-19. 1960.
Bick, Alexander F. Industrial arts goals and potentials. The Industrial Arts Teacher 17:8-10. 1957.
Bohn, Ralph C. Industrial arts in the comprehensive high school.
American Vocational Journal 33:21. 1958.
Brown, Walter C. and John H. Erickson. Aims of industrial education on which there is reasonable agreement. American Vocational Journal 38:25-26.
1963.
Calvin, Lawrence V. Our industrial objective. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 37:195. 1948.
Coleman, Wayne D. Industrial arts, The terms: Just what does it
mean? American Vocational Journal 33:23-24.
1958.
Coltharp, Raymond J. Industrial arts and citizenship. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 34:153-154. 1945
Coover, S. L. Industrial arts and general education. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 49:28.
1960.
Dawson, Kenneth E. Providing basic values. The Industrial Arts
Teacher 22:7-8. 1962.
Decker, Howard S. and Ralph C Bohn. Industrial arts. National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin 52:50-57.
19 68.
Devore, Paul W. Practical arts issues. National Association of
Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47:108-114. 1963.
137
Dudley, Arthur J. Six cardinal aims of industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 50:23. 1961.
Automation and education. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 52:38-40. 1963.
Challenges to industrial arts. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 53:59. 1964.
Duffy, Joseph W. A new look at industrial arts. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 49:14-15. 1960.
The functions of industry. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 29:11-17. 1970.
Fox, Deyo B. Improving the industrial arts. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 38:259-261. 1949.
Friese, John F. Help from the past. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 53:28.
1964.
Funderburk, Earl C. A superintendent looks at industrial arts.
Industrial Arts Teacher 22:16-20. 1963.
Fuzak, John A. An analysis of developments affecting education to
determine implications for industrial arts. The Industrial Arts
Teacher 16:18. 1957.
Analysis of developments to determine implications
for industrial arts. The Industrial Arts Teacher 17:12-13.
1957.
Glazener, Everett R. Foundations of industrial education. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education 7:5-8. 1970.
Gottschall, Franklin H. The comprehensive industrial-arts program.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:337-341. 1946.
Grieder, Calvin. Now It's time for--A renaissance for the practical
arts. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:22-23. 1964.
Hammond, Robert G. Determining content in industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:24-25. 1961.
138
Hankin, Edward K. Industrial arts vs. unsubsidized vocational
education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:229231.
1950.
Vocational-industrial education and industrial arts- Time for clarification. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 42:185 -186.
1953
Hardin, Robert A. Our evolving philosophy of industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:179-182. 1950.
Hornbake, R. Lee. Industrial arts in mobilization. American Vocational Journal 26:21-23. 1951.
Time for progress. School Shop 15:7-8. 1956.
What do we believe and why? (Editorial) School
Shop 26:2.
1956.
There's a place for us. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 27:12-15.
1968.
Hostetler, Ivan. Manual arts, 1914Industrial arts, 1964. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:19-22. 1964.
Hutchcroft, C. Robert. Industrial arts contributes to general education. The Industrial Arts Teacher 19:9-10. 1959.
Industrial Arts Policy and Planning Committee of the American Vocational Association. A statement of industrial arts in education.
American Vocational Journal 34:18-20. 1959.
Jarvis, John A. Should the objectives of industrial arts change?
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:18-19. 1961.
The place and purpose of industrial arts. School
Shop 22:17.
1963.
Johnston, Ralph 0. Matching men and jobs --Recognizing the industrial arts curriculum. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 37:350-352.
1948.
Kelly, William T. A teachers' declaration for space-age industrial
arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:12-14. 1961.
139
Kurth, E. L. Industrial arts' newest obligation. School shop 15:7-9.
19 55.
Lamb, L. H. Industrial arts and vocational education in the post war
period. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:239-240.
1945.
Leavitt, Gerome. Woodwork for 7th and 8th grade. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 29:63-66. 1945.
London, H. H. Background and outlook in industrial education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 38:257-258. 1949.
London, H. H. and Ivan Hostetler. Industrial education in the years
ahead. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:147-151.
1946.
Lux, Donald G. The role of art in industrial arts. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 47 :145 -146. 1958.
Teach them how to solve problems. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 48:147-150. 1959.
Maddox, Marion E. Should the objectives of industrial arts change?
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50:19-20. 1961.
Maley, Donald. Basis for organizing the content of industrial arts
with emphasis on the research and experimentation program.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 1 :22 -31. 1963.
Mays, Arthur B. Needed emphasis in industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 35:279 -281.
1946.
McKay, Donald B. Realism in industrial arts. School Shop 13:9.
1954.
Meyn, Al W. The future of industrial arts and vocational education.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 34:1. 1945.
Monroe, Lynn C. The importance of industrial arts. American
Vocational Journal 26:14. 19 51.
Muhle, Glen J. and Jean R. Walter. Let's fuse industrial arts with
the academic subjects. Journal of Industrial Arts Education
23:15-16.
1964.
140
Newbauer, G. W. and Robert D. Brown. Experts evaluate industrial
arts' unique contributions. American Vocational Journal 35 :2324.
1960.
Nihart, Claude E. The importance of skill. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 39:187. 1950.
Industrial-arts traditional. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 41:145-147.
1952.
Parker, James A. Modern trends in industrial arts and vocational
education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 43:199-200.
19 54.
Perry, Donald E. Industrial arts: The what, how and why of our
future. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:12-13.
19 64.
Perry, Kenneth F. The industrial arts salutes John Dewey. The
Industrial Arts Teacher 19:7-9. 1960.
Cedro for a Renaissance in industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:14-16. 1960.
Rokusek, H. James. Industrial arts teacher education - -It's responsibilities to the public school program. Industrial Arts Teacher
21:11-13.
1962.
Schmitt, Marshall L. Why - -The industrial arts. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 50:49-50. 1961.
Seckendorf, Robert S. Is it what or how? Industrial Arts Teacher
22:8, 31.
1963.
Seefeld, Kermit A. Do-it-yourself. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 45:114-115.
1956.
Seefeld says: (Editorial) The Industrial Arts
Teacher 18:4.
1959.
Shattuck, Edward A. A curricular view of industrial education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:147-149. 1950.
Smith, Homer J. Basic assumptions. Industrial Arts and Vocational
Education 35:235-236.
1946.
141
Sommers, Wesley S. Toward excellence in industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 51:20-21. 1962.
Sotzin, Herbert A. The five "-Ws". School Shop 14:24. 1955.
Stucki, Ralph E. Modern industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 39:258. 1950.
Vaughan, Maurice S. A case for compatability. The Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 28:14-17. 1968.
Wenrich, Ralph C. The industrial-arts program and the secondary
school boy. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:287290.
1946.
Whitney, Donald T. Industrial arts and the 60 percent. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 40:48-50. 1951.
Wilbur, Gordon 0. Industrial arts in retrospect and prospect.
School Shop 11:7-8.
1952.
Some basic concepts concerning industrial arts.
School Shop 13:7.
1953.
Willoughby, George A. Industrial arts contributes to effective living.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 44:141. 1955.
Yager, Sylvan A. Twins, although not identical. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 41:101-102. 1952.
142
APPENDIX J
143
A staff compiled report. Shop facilities 1914-1964. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 53:31-33. 1964.
Bennett, Dean B. Industrial arts and environmental education. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:34-36. 1970. Special
convention issue.
Buston, Robert E. It's a sign of the times. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 27:10-11. 1968.
Carrel, Joseph J. Industriology: The study of industry. American
Vocational Journal 40:26-27. 1965.
Coger, R. Mondell. A national sense of direction for industrial arts.
American Vocational Journal 43:32. 1968.
Engelbrekston, Sune. A search for direction. The Industrial Arts
Teacher 21:15-20. 1962.
Face, Wesley L., Eugene R. F. Flug and Robert S. Swanson.
conceptual approach to the study of American Industry.
American Vocational Journal 40:15-17. 1965.
A
Face, Wesley L. and Eugene R. Flug. American industry project.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:24-28. 1966.
Feirer, John L. Administering industrial education. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 50:48-49. 1961.
Fryklund, Vern C. Planning must ever be--The ongoing objective.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 44:147-149. 1955.
Harrison, 0. S. Automation and industrial arts. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 50:20-21. 1961.
Haunton, Gerald. An outsider views. . . The American industrial
area program. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 56:28.
1967.
Haws, Robert W. Putting "industry" into industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 47:303-304. 1958.
Hornbake, R. Lee. Technology: Implications for education. Industrial Arts Teacher 21:18-20. 1962.
144
Hostetler, Ivan. Industrial arts in 1975: Hopes for the future.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 51:18-20. 1962.
Householder, D. L. Industrial arts teacher education: Intellectual
perspective and developmental focus. Journal of Industrial
Teacher Education 4:49-55. 19 66.
Kirby, Jack. Industriology: A bid to "teach it like it is." School
Shop 28:44-45. 1968.
Lamb, Auburn J. This I do believe. School Shop 10:7. 1951.
Lockette, Rutherford E. Implications for industrial arts education.
American Vocational Journal 39:26-27. 19 64.
What research has to say for content in industrial
education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 2:11-24.
19 65.
Lux, Donald G. The industrial arts curriculum project. Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 29:12. 1969.
Malia, Daniel H. How about industry? The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 27:10-11. 19 67.
McGovern, Troyce D. Selecting I-A solids from industry. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 49:17. 19 60.
Moeller, Carl A. Industrial arts role in occupational preparation.
American Vocational Journal 40: 27.
19 65.
Moss, Jr., Gerome and Ronald W. Stadt. A framework for industrial
arts curriculum redevelopment in the secondary schools. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 3:18-29. 1966.
Myers, Ward L. The next 20 years in industrial arts. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 40 :317 -318. 1951.
Olson, Delmar W. A call to industrial arts. School Shop 19:9-10.
19 60.
Richards, Maurice F. Sputnik education and industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 47:213-214. 1958.
145
Russell, James E. Our changing technology, Industrial Arts
Teacher 20:8- 12.
1961.
Seckendorf, Robert S. Policy for action. The Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 27:7-9. 1968.
Where should we be going in industrial arts? National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 53:
98-107.
1969.
Sparks, Clarence. Industrial education in the wake of the satellites.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 48:37-38. 1959.
Spencer, Albert G. Perception of the "understanding of industry"
objective by industrial arts teachers and teacher educators.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 7:36-39. 1970.
Svendsen, Ethan A. T. Industrial arts: Liberal aspects. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education 4:15-19. 1967.
Sylvius, G. Harold. Functional aims for industrial education in the
American school. Industrial Arts Teacher 19:11-12. 1959.
Teel, Dean. Delimiting a discipline in part. Industrial Arts and
Vocational Education 56:35. 1967.
Wilber, Gordon 0. Industrial arts in the atomic age. School Shop
14:9-10.
1954.
Wilcox, F. Glade. Industrial arts for the liberal arts student. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 41:263-265. 1952.
Ziegfeld, Edwin. Challenges and opportunities. The Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 27:18-19. 1967.
146
APPENDIX K
147
Bornstein, A. P. Man, the sorcerer's apprentice? The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 27:16-17. 1967.
Coleman, Wayne D., Paul W. Davis and Robert R. Wallberg. The
relationship of industrial arts to the curriculum. American
Vocational Journal 36:21. 1961.
Commissioner Kepple on industrial arts. Journal of Industrial Arts
Education 23:14.
1964.
Duffy, Joseph W. Let's revamp industrial arts programs to reflect
technological needs. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education
52:20-21. 1963.
Floyd, William G. Industrial arts: A new approach. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 51:24-31. 1967.
Hackett, Donald F. Study of American industry is essential to liberalizing general education. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 53:25-28. 1964.
Jacobson, Eckhart A. The technological future. The Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 29:10-12. 1970. Special Convention
Issue.
Kabakjian, Edward. A role to play in manpower development. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:36-39. 1970.
Koble, Ronald L. Foundations of industrial arts education. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education 7:18-20. 1970.
Kranzberg, Melvin. Technology is importantIt really is. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 27:29-32. 1967.
Lauda, Donald P. In the midst of change. Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 29:34. 1969.
Industrial arts and work: Two concepts in question.
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:18-21. 1970.
Lockette, Rutherford E. Social barriers to the release of human
potential: Barriers of cultural detrivation. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 3:57-65. 1966.
148
Meyer, Harvey K. Creed, deed, and need. The Industrial Arts
Teacher 19 :16- 18.
1959.
Olsen, Harold P. Are we guilty of technertia in industrial arts?
The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 24:49-51, 1965.
Olson, Delmar W. Reactions to a new look at industrial arts. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:26. 1960.
A new industrial arts for today's schools. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 55:24. 1966.
Future. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education
26:54-55.
1967.
A logic-base. The Journal of Industrial Arts
Education 28:21-22. 1969.
Industrial arts recast. Journal of Industrial Arts
Education 28:5.
1969.
Randels, Malvern W. Should organizational patterns for industrial
arts change? Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 50 :4445.
1961.
Ruley, M. J. Blueprint for industrial education. Industrial Arts
and Vocational Education 50:14-16. 1961.
Schad, Joseph A. Industrial arts and vocational industrial education.
National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin
38:48-51. 1954.
Schmitt, Marshall L. What are the values of industrial arts? Industrial Arts Teacher 23:11-15. 1963.
Spence, William T. Status of industrial arts education. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 55:18. 1966.
Sredl, Henry J. Part 5: Industrial arts in the 19501s. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 26:53-57. 1967.
Streichler, Jerry. Industrial education in step with technology? Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 52:16-18.
1963.
149
Venable, Tom C. Industrial arts and the central purpose of American
education. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 24:23-26.
1964.
Warburton, Minnie. The Grove Park Institute. Journal of Industrial
Arts Education 29:28. 1969.
What's the issue? The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 25:40-43.
1966.
Wright, Ralph E. Practical arts. A principals view. National
Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47 :118120.
1963.
150
APPENDIX L
151
Benson, M. James. The function and structure of industrial arts in
the educational philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Journal
of Industrial Teacher Education 5:5-13. 1967.
Brown, Kenneth W. Establishment of a philosophy: A key to excellence. The Industrial Arts Teacher 22:10-13. 1962.
Dawson, Kenneth E. Practical arts developments. National Association of Secondary-School Principals Bulletin 47:114-118. 1963.
Decker, Howard S. The Washington symposium.
Industrial Arts Education 28:14-16. 1968.
The Journal of
Gerrish, Howard H. A new shop philosophy for industrial arts.
American Vocational Journal 41:20-22. 1966.
Lindbeck, John R. An insider replieS . . The Americn industrial
arts program. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 56:29.
.
1967.
Maley, Donald. Technology, industry and the individual. Industrial
Arts and Vocational Education 55:24. 1966.
Miller, W. R. How lucky we are. The Journal of Industrial Arts
Education 28:18-21.
1968.
Stadt, Ronald W. Analyzing industry and organizing content for
industrial arts. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 25:
25-27. 1966.
Venn, Grant. On industrial arts and vocational education. The
Journal of Industrial Arts Education 29:15. 1969.
Whitesel, John A. Industrial arts in the modern senior high school.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 35:331-333. 1946.
Wilber, Gordon 0. Does industrial arts have a mission? School
Shop 15:11, 24. 1956.
Woodward, Robert L. Industrial arts--A vital part of every student's
need. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:24-25. 1964.
152
APPENDIX M
153
Bartell, Carl and J. J. Littrell. An occupational emphasis for
industrial arts. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education 24:
28-30.
1965.
Erickson, Emanuel E. Occupational orientation through industrial
arts. American Vocational Journal 32 :24 -26. 1957.
London, H. H. and Rowland F. Nagel. Industrial arts contributes to
industry manpower needs. American Vocational Journal 38:
29-30.
1963.
Maley, Donald. How industrial arts relates to occupational education.
Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 59:30 -32, 70. 1970.
Malia, Daniel H. More on the agetold controversy. The Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 28:18-19. 1968.
Pawelek, Stanley J. Industrial-arts education in a democracy.
School Shop 13:11.
19 53.
Pratzner, Frank C. Changing the goals of industrial arts: An occupational development curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher
Education 6:31 -40.
19 69.
Rudiger, Robert. Industrial education and the Conant study. Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 49:14-16. 1960.
Sredl, Henry J. Part 6: Industrial arts in the 1960's. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 26:32. 1967.
Steeb, Ralph. To define a position.
Education 28:10-11. 1968.
The Journal of Industrial Arts
Venn, Grant. Title I, HR 15066: A better answer? The Journal of
Industrial Arts Education 27:16-19. 1968.
Williams, Robert Bruce. A psychological reappraisal. The Journal
of Industrial Arts Education 29:13- 14. 1970. A special convention issue.
154
APPENDIX N
155
Brown, Robert D. A look at objectives. The Industrial Arts Teacher
22:18-19.
1962.
Caldwell, John T. Goals for industrial arts. The Industrial Arts
Teacher 22:9-10. 1962.
Dudley, Arthur J. The northeast: Philosophy, program direction,
and relationships. Journal of Industrial Arts Education 23:57.
1964.
Gerbracht, Carl and Frank A. Scholfield. . . . "And the problems
of life related to these changes". . . Industrial Arts and Vocational Education 46:113. 1957.
Reed, Howard 0. Theories of industrial arts education. American
Vocational Journal 33:25. 1958.
Streichler, Jerry. Curriculum concepts and courses: Directions for
teacher educators. The Journal of Industrial Arts Education
29:32.
1970.
156
APPENDIX 0
157
Diamond, Thomas. "Art" and industrial arts. School Shop 13:2.
19 54.
Kagy, Frederick D. The place and relation of art and industrial
arts in the school curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher
Education 4:56-630
1967.
Paige, Theodore. Industrial arts and culture. School Shop 1 2:7-8.
19 53 .