The Industrial Arts Movement
By
Christian R Misner
Introduction
One theory of the birth of Industrial Arts is that of cultural industrial education. It all started at the
turn of the twentieth century (1904), during the pick of the Industrial Revolution. Parents wanted their
children to be able to read, write, and have some ability to apply math skills. A minority went further and
wanted their children to have knowledge of history, civics, and the sciences. One thing was sure, that all
parents of that day felt anxious and feared that their children would not become self-supporting after
completing school. It is important, the public cried, that our children be trained for vocational life. Industry
also required, even demanded from the educational system students that had higher abilities suited for
vocational life in industry upon leaving school. “It is an assured fact that our boys and girls do not enter
industrial life with the same confidence that they exhibit in other fields for which their academic training
has fitted them. They see no fascination in industrial activity and they have no basis of judgment for
choosing any particular career” (Russell, 1909).
Before Industrial Arts
Before Industrial Arts, the current courses of study for students was Sloyd, Russian system, Arts
and Crafts, Manual Training, and Manual Arts. This enabled students with the possibility of developing
some skills required in the industrial world, enabling them to become semi-productive in the expanding
work force. The training did not fulfill all the demands of industry; it did little more then educate students
with some wood and metal skills, the knowledge to build some usable projects, gave them some design
concepts, general agriculture abilities, and drawing concepts. What industry wanted and needed in the
workforce were students with broader knowledge of industrial activities. Some philosophers like C. Bennett
from Columbia University felt that students gained a deeper knowledge of subject matter through Manual
Arts. This might have been true, but the demands of industry and the cries of parents forced the hand of the
school system to look deeper for an answer. Educators would provide the future needs of industry’s
requirements and ease fears of concerned parents.
2
The Manual Arts Movement started around 1890. It seems to be on three different but distinct
paths. All three movements or philosophies seemed to have started at about the same time. Late in the
Nineteenth Century the three different but unique concepts of manual training appeared as a possible
answer to the need for students to gain a deeper breadth of industrial subject matter. First there appeared
“object learning” founded by Pestalozzi and later used by Sheldon. Second, programs of tool instruction
that offered by Runkle, Woodward, and Alder. “Finally, cultural industrial education, of which modern
American technology education is professedly based…” (Foster, 1995).
Professor Charles R. Richards was a man of vision who could see the needs of society. In 1906, he
led the charge for the National Society for the Promotion of Industrial Education. He hoped to awaken the
public interest as well as raise money for Industrial Education. Though he did not succeed his efforts were
not fruitless. Because of his direct involvement of trying to show the worth of Industrial Education, federal
money was gained for vocational education after World War I.
Pestalozzi
Johann Pestalozzi (1746-1827) is credited as a force in the Industrial Arts Education movement
though he lived in the era of progressive thought. His educational philosophy focused on the most efficient
ways to arouse students’ ability to problem-solve and process information. With this formed ability to
process information young students could comprehend the changing world in which they live in. He
believed that careful observation and experiencing the senses of seeing, tasting, touching, smelling, and
hearing objects and items in the physical world would provide a base for a clear understanding of the
development of the nature of objects. The senses would also provide a meaning to the object. He had a
three-step system that he felt should be used in the classroom.
“It is important to note here then Pestalozzi had the students focus on objects in their
natural environment such as local plants, minerals, animals life, and so on. In using the
term forms, he focused on the manipulation of five sense perceptions, which led to the
accurate expression of a clear idea in terms of its size and proportion in the form of
verbal communication. Finally, names involved an exercise in using language to
promote reflection and familiarization with the words and names that described the
object or idea” (Jacobsen, 1999, p. 198).
Pestalozzi thought that through his process students would naturally learn by themselves.
3
Pestalozzi theorized that children are born gifted with not only the ability of receiving
impressions, but also of responding to them. He called it the Doctrine of Self-Activity. Pestalozzi’s
dedication to youth stimulated in them a craving to learn. He believed that learning has value, interest, and
enjoyment. “There can be little that the philosophical views of Rousseau and Froebel (who established the
foundation for kindergarten education) provided a springboard for John Dewey and others…” (Jacobsen,
1999 p. 198).
Pestalozzi’s object learning theory in a nutshell is as follows: education needs to be student
centered and based on sensory experience. When assessing readiness of a student to learn, first consider the
individuality of each child. Maximum potential is the goal of each student’s development. The emotion of
love is emphasized as important in the learning process. “Instruction should begin with the concrete and
proceed to the abstract” (Webb, 2000, p. 151). Edward Sheldon believed that one of the best ways for a
student to learn was Pestalozzi’s object learning theory.
Rousseau
Rousseau is valued for his classroom applications. He believed education should be established on
an individual examination of nature, other people, and artifacts. “He believed that knowledge was derived
from nature, that reality was determined by collecting information through the senses and validated by
constructing relationships, and that human beings learn gradually and constantly throughout their lives,” or
“learning by doing” (Jacobsen, 1999 p. 143).
Froebel
Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852) is recognized for establishing (in theory) the first kindergarten in
1837 and for providing the foundation for early childhood needs in with education. “Froebel…suggested
that ‘showing’ is better then ‘telling,’ which would be difficult to argue if telling was the be-all, end-all of
the pedagogical approach” (Jacobsen, 2003, p 210). He was very concerned with activities or the “activity
curriculum” which he felt would develop creativity in children. John Dewey adopted many of Froedbel’s
ideologies and used them in the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago.
4
Sheldon
Dr. Edward Sheldon founded Oswego Normal School in 1861. This school was established to
train teachers. Dr. Sheldon believed that the required fundamentals should be taught through objects.
“Object teaching is of particular interest in our discussion because by its very nature, it could but lead to
some development like…industrial arts…” Sheldon wanted the students to build things that would be of
use to them in the classroom as they learned lessons. In 1886 Oswego had a form of manual training as a
class under the supervision of the school’s janitor. “Oswego became,…the first teacher training institution
in the United States to prepare teachers in the field of manual training” (Park, 1936). Today SUNY
Oswego is the leading university in the country, preparing students to become technology teachers.
Dewey
John Dewey (1859 –1952) believed that students should “do” to develop thinking and then think
about what was done; this doing then thinking would stimulate learning. “His focus was upon a
methodology which began with identifying difficulties or problems and ended with synthesizing and coordinating knowledge and desire, resulting in the controlling and remaking of the external world” (Durant,
1953, p.393). To this writer, the past quote could have been the vision statement of the Industrial Arts
movement. Dewey had a concern for Manual training, or using tools to produce an object. He believed that
if students are doing to “do” and not problem solving, thinking will cease and boredom will develop.
At the turn of the Twentieth Century, when industry was demanding that workers have the desired
knowledge of technology to succeed in the industrial work force, the “Douglas Commission in 1906, under
Massachusetts Governor William L. Douglas, found a need for the public industrial education of trades.
This provided a significant boost for the forces advocating trade training in industrial education” (Davis,
2003 p. 5). This was an answer to the battle cry of industry. During this time of educational change, John
Dewey defended the concept of manual activities as a foundation for educational objectives; he stressed the
recognition of a pupil’s right to value the nature of their projects. Shortly after Dewey exposed his theory,
Oswego Teachers’ College was on the move in step with the beat of the industrial drum. Oswego took their
place in national leadership. “This leadership was recognized by the State (of New York) Educational
5
Department in 1911 when a special course for the training of industrial arts teachers was established…”
(Park, 1936).
Douglas
At the turn of the Twentieth Century, when industry was demanding that workers have the desired
knowledge of technology to succeed in the industrial work force, the “Douglas Commission in 1906, under
Massachusetts Governor William L. Douglas, found a need for the public industrial education of trades.
This provided a significant boost for the forces advocating trade training in industrial education” (Davis,
2003 p. 5). This to was an answer to the needs of industry. This was the era of change in attitude form
manual training movement toward the industrial arts education.
Bonser, Mossman, and Russell
It was not until 1923 that some faculty members at Columbia University, “Bonser, Mossman, and
Russell were formulating the industrial arts movement in reaction to the lack of social and cultural context
of manual training” (Foster, 1995). Fredrick Bonser truly valued the cultural importance of manual
training. Manual training is the “real life stuff” from people that need and use it; it develops patience and
values that come directly from work. Today the educational ideas of Technology Education can claim
theoretical foundation precisely from the social industrial beginning as interpreted by Bonser and
Mossman.
The Vision
Some leaders in the field of Manual training, like Charles Richards, felt that the Manual Training
Movement needed to change to encompass a wider vision of the educational ideology to align with
industry. “Now that we are beginning to see the scope of this work is nothing short of the elements of the
industries fundamental to modern civilization, such a term (manual training) becomes at once a stumbling
block and source of weakness.” (1904). In 1904 the Industrial Arts Movement was born. Iindustrial arts is
useful for everyone. The breadth of the Industrial Arts mission was to allow students an understanding of
its extreme complexity. It brings light to the organizations, products, processes, and occupations required in
6
a healthy industry. It is the mission of schools to give every student an appreciation and understanding of
our industrial civilization as an essential part of the American way of life, or “the American dream.”
The American Industrial Arts Association was established in 1939 to help bring to focus the mission of the
Industrial Arts movement in schools. In 1966 the American Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education
was established.
The Curriculum
Industrial Arts’ major innovation was in the form of curriculum. It still taught manipulative skills,
but it required its students to ask questions and problem solve and to investigate matters of industrial
business. Industry helped solidify the new concept with its demands. Students needed to have knowledge in
the new technology of that era. The major change in curriculum was that it offered social involvement. As
the nation grew, so must the student understand what was fueling that growth so that they have the ability
to contribute to the source of revenue. The vehicle used to complete this requirement was through an
expanding education for the students. This included such topics as, but not limited to, Electricity,
Transportation, Plastics, Textiles, and Construction. The collective effort of Agriculture, Industry, and
Education helped build the foundation for what we knew as “Industrial Arts”. In other words, the student
needed skills that made them marketable. Consequently, the student needs to understand that social
technology is ever changing. Industrial Arts curriculum could be summed up by the following quote
credited to Mossman and Bonser in 1923, “Industrial Arts is a study of the changes made by man in the
form of materials to increase their value, and of the problems of life related to these changes.”
The philosophy of Industrial Arts
The three major philosophies in the world of education are axiology, epistemology, and ontology,
or what are goodness, truth, and reality. “The standard philosophical inquiries concerning goodness, truth,
and reality are translated into questions concerning the source, medium, and form of learning in a school
environment” (Wiles, & Bondi, 2002. p. 64). In 1962, according to the U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, the philosophy of industrial art education is as follows, “…the function of
7
industrial arts is the development of meaning through application to the occupational and productive
activities of the society.” Mr. Ericson in his book, Teaching the Industrial Arts, is quoted as saying,
The successful industrial arts teacher is a person who, beyond being blessed
with native intellectual aptitude and manipulative ability, has received
preparation in the art and science of good teaching. He should have thought
through a philosophy of life, of education, and of industrial arts education, so
as to determine a system of values and attitudes toward the life in which he
finds himself. A philosophy or system of values dictates goals or objectives,
and goals necessitate a method for achieving them (Ericson, 1946. p. 6).
From the research this writer completed he found that the basic premise of the philosophy behind
Industrial Arts education is that it was a program of study for all students; though the objectives of the
gifted and slower learner would not be the same as for other students. Industrial Arts was beneficial in that
it prepared students for the work force. The courses were truthful in that the students learned skills that
could be translated into life. The subject matter was real or authentic in that it led students to logical
conclusion of real problems and the subject matter was proper in preparing students for life in the work
force.
Summary
Dr. Hendricks, in his book, “The Seven Laws of the Teacher”, put activity learning in the following light.
“Maximum learning is always the result of maximum involvement” (1954, p.78). In other words, if the
student is not involved in the project and the teacher is not involved with the student, what in the world is
the purpose of the thing the student is doing? Hendricks goes on to say that practice makes perfect,
experience is the best teacher, and we learn by doing. Activity learning was the cornerstone of Industrial
Arts. An ancient Chinese proverb says, “I hear, and I forget. I see, and I remember. I do and I understand”
(Hendricks, 1954). This proverb could have been the motto for the Industrial Arts movement. Industrial
Arts’ main objective was to prepare students for the work force by teaching them to do and to understand
why they were doing. It was the responsibility of schools to lead all students to understand the industrial
and technical world in which they lived in.
References
Bartlett, J. (1914). Familiar quotations: (13th ed.). Boston: Little Brown, and Company
Cope, B. (1959). Cope’s plastics book. Chicago: Goodheart-Willcox CO., Inc.
Davis, J. l., (2003). History of industrial/technical education. Retrieved
September 24, 2003, from http;//www.tomv-commerce.edu
Durant, W. (1953). The story of philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ericson, E. E., (1946). Teaching the industrial arts. Peoria, Illinois: Chas. A. Bennett Co., Inc.,
Foater, P. N., (1995). The founders of industrial arts in the US: Journal of
Technology Education. Vol. 7 (1) Retrieved September 22, 2003,
http;/scholar.lib.vt.edu
Foster, P. & Wright, M. D., (First quarter 1995). Selected leaders’ perceptions of approaches to
Technology Education. Digital library and archives, formerly the scholarly
communication project. Retrieved September 22, 2003, from
AnswersFrame.80/http://scholar….urnals/JTE/jet-v7n2/foster.html
Hendricks, H. G., (1954). The seven laws of the teacher: applied principles of learning. Portland,
OR: Multnomah Press
Jacobsen, D. A., (1999). Philosophy in classroom teaching. Columbus, Ohio
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Ornstein, A.C., & Lasley T. J., (220). Strategies for effective teaching. (3rd ed.). NY: Mc GrawHill.
Park, J., (1936). The contribution of Oswego State Teachers College to Industrial
Arts Teacher Collage: Department of Industrial Arts Oswego
Russell, J. E., (1907). Foundation of Industrial Arts; Educational Review
Richards, R. R., (1904). Editorial: Manual training magazine
Tustion, F. E., and Brown, A. G., (1930). Instructional Units in hand woodwork. NY: Bruce Pub.
Company
U.S. Department of Health, Educational and Welfare. (1962). What objectives should be
emphasized?
Webb, D, Metha, A, and Jordan K,. (2000). Foundations of American education
(3rd ed.). Ohio: Merrill.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (200). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (6th ed.). NJ: Person
education, Inc.,