JTE v2n1 - CTTE/ITEA NCATE
Volume 2, Number 1
Fall 1990
RESEARCH DIGEST
CTTE/ITEA NCATE
A. Emerson Wiens
The technology teacher education profes-
sion has entered a new era not only because
of the switch to technology as the knowledge
base, but also because of the adoption of the
CTTE/ITEA Guidelines by NCATE as the official
standards against which all technology
teacher education programs seeking NCATE ap-
proval will be evaluated. Although the
Guidelines are presumed to have a positive
influence in shaping these programs, one re-
cognizes that other factors and other groups
have, perhaps, an even stronger shaping in-
fluence. These would include internal admin-
istration and faculty, other accrediting
associations such as NAIT, public school
teacher demand, and last, but not least, the
state certification requirements and
entitlement program. The question being ad-
dressed by this study is: To what extent are
state plans and certification requirements
complementing the CTTE/ITEA Guidelines, and
to what extent are the states causing devi-
ation from the Guidelines?
In consideration of the impact that the
state has on teacher education programs, a
survey instrument was sent to the 50 state
supervisors of technology/industrial
technology/industrial arts education in Sep-
tember, 1989. Information was sought regard-
ing (1) the state plan name, (2) curriculum
design, (3) the degree to which the state
schools have adopted the state plan
organizers, and (4) state requirements re-
garding two technology related academic con-
tent areas that are included in the CTTE/ITEA
Guidelines. Thirty usable responses were re-
ceived for a 60 percent return.
Figure 1 lists the various names used by
the states. Five states still use Industrial
Arts in the title while ten states (32 per-
cent) use the ITEA/CTTE preferred term "Tech-
nology Education." The name chosen by the
largest number of states is "Industrial Tech-
nology."
FIGURE 1. Name of program (n=30).
The organizers used in designing the
curricula in the responding states as identi-
fied in Figure 2, show a dominant technology
education bias with considerable variation.
Only one state still uses the more tradi-
tional industrial arts subject matter desig-
nators exclusively, while three others use
these in addition to some set of technology
organizers. But only 40 percent use the
ITEA/CTTE preferred list of four organizers.
Teacher preparation programs in all of the
other states, if they complied with the state
organizers, would be expected to explain
their deviation, however slight (which most
are), from the ITEA/CTTE Guidelines. Perhaps
the most interesting set of organizers re-
ported in this study is being developed by
Arizona. In addition to transportation and
communication are categories such as "mech-
anisms, controls, structures, etc."
FIGURE 2. Organizers used by states (n=30).
In response to the question regarding
the date of the organizer change, 23 of the
30 respondents--a significant majority--
stated that their states had changed since
1980 with the dates indicated in Figure 3.
Nearly 75 percent (17 of 23) had undergone
the change since 1985. This is perhaps the
greatest amount of change in the shortest pe-
riod of time in the history of state super-
vision of industrial arts/technology
education.
FIGURE 3. Year organizers were changed
(n=22).
With this much change in the last five
years at the state level, one would expect
the public schools to be lagging. The cold
reality is that the market still dictates
which teachers get jobs, i.e., those prepared
to teach more traditional programs or those
prepared to teach technology education. In
an attempt to determine the degree to which
the public schools are in step with their re-
spective state curricula, the respondents
were asked how many schools in their states
complied with the new organizers. Those re-
sponses, shown in Figure 4, ranged from 25
percent to 100 percent. Several supervisors
responded somewhat cynically with, "Depends
on whom you ask," "Who knows?" and, "Saying
it doesn't make it happen."
Finally, an attempt was made to ascer-
tain the degree to which states were requir-
ing prospective teachers to take coursework
in global studies and the socio/environmental
impact of technology. The ITEA/CTTE Guide-
lines call for content in both of these areas
in the competencies section. As shown in
Figure 5, over half (15 of 26) of the re-
spondents to this question require neither
area while only 3 require both.
Socio/environmental impacts studies were more
likely to be required (35 percent - Figure 6)
than were global studies (15 percent - Figure
7).
FIGURE 4. Percent of schools following new
organizers (n=22).
FIGURE 5. States requiring related
coursework in international/global dimensions
and social/environmental impacts (n=24).
These data clearly show that the
ITEA/CTTE NCATE Guidelines are not fully sup-
ported by state certification requirements
although considerable progress has been made
in the last five years. The ITEA/CTTE Guide-
lines themselves were developed in the last
five years, but by a more homogeneous group
of educators than is represented by the state
supervisors and the state programs. How are
NCATE folio reviewers to respond to such var-
iations among states? Certainly, in many ac-
ademic areas the state does not dictate the
teacher preparation program. For example,
just because the state does not require
international/global studies and
socio/environmental impacts as part of the
certification requirements, does not prevent
a teacher preparation program in that state
from requiring them unilaterally. On the
other hand, for an institution to serve the
state and the schools within that state, the
program must include the state-approved
organizers in order to certify students.
FIGURE 6. States requiring a course on
socio/environmental impacts of technology.
FIGURE 7. States requiring a course on
international/global dimensions of technol-
ogy.
Our discipline is currently in a state
of flux, although by far the majority of
movement is in one direction: technology ed-
ucation with the four organizers - communi-
cation, transportation, construction, and
manufacturing. States have been slower to
recognize the need for course work in the
international/global dimensions and impacts
of technology. Considering the relative sta-
tus of state plans and the necessity for
teacher education programs to comply with
state requirements, the rigid application of
CTTE/ITEA Guidelines by the folio
reader/evaluators may be three to five years
premature.
----------------
Emerson Wiens is Associate Professor, Depart-
ment of Industrial Technology, Illinois State
University, Normal, Illinois.
Permission is given to copy any
article or graphic provided credit is given and
the copies are not intended for sale.
Journal of Technology Education Volume 2, Number 1 Fall 1990