Gender Preferences in Technology Student Association Competitions

Charles R. Mitts

Background

Philosophical Basis of Male Gender Bias

Impacts of Male Bias on Female Social Status

Impact of Male Bias on Technology Education

Achieving Gender Equity in Technology Education

Strategies for Recruiting Females to Science and Technology Fields

• small classes and schools
• equitable instructional practices
• focused academic curriculum

1. Use a software-editing program to edit a music video.
2. Use a computer software program to design a CD cover.
3. Design a model of an amusement park.
4. Design a school mascot image to print on t-shirts.
5. Design a “theme” restaurant in an existing building.

1. Build a rocket
2. Construct an electric vehicle that moves on a magnetic track
3. Perform simple car maintenance tasks on a car engine
4. Program a robotic arm
5. Design a model airplane that will glide the greatest distance

Method

Gender Preferences among TSA Competitive Events

1. Architectural Model
2. Chapter Team
3. Computer-Aided Design 2D Architectural
4. Computer-Aided Design Animation, Architectural
5. Cyberspace Pursuit
6. Extemporaneous Presentation
7. Film Technology
8. Imaging Technology
9. Prepared Presentation
10. Medical Technology
11. Promotional Graphics
12. Technical Sketching and Application
13. Technological Systems
14. Technology Bowl

Research Design

Participants and Instruments

Data Analysis

Results

Middle School

Conclusions

Discussion

The Effects of 3-Dimensional CADD Modeling on the Development of the Spatial Ability of Technology Education Students
K. Lynn Basham and Joe W. Kotrlik
Research Framework
Spatial abilities are fundamental to human functioning in the physical world. Spatial reasoning allows people to use concepts of shape, features, and relationships in both concrete and abstract ways, to make and use things in the world, to navigate, and to communicate (Cohen, Hegarty, Keehner & Montello, 2003; Newcombe & Huttenlocher, 2000; Turos & Ervin, 2000). Visualizing intangible boundaries such as state and national borders helps organize, orient, and compartmentalize knowledge of the world. In a similar way, this ability is used to envision new things, and establish relationships of concepts in the mind (Jones & Bills, 1998). One source estimates that 80% of jobs primarily depend on spatial ability, not on verbal ability (Bannatyne, 2003). Surgeons, pilots, architects, engineers, mechanics, builders, farmers, trades people, and computer programmers all rely on spatial intelligence (Bannatyne, 2003). Newcomer, Raudebauch, McKell and Kelly (1999) reported that people who lack spatial ability are not good at interpreting graphic representations, have difficulty with directions and location of things, or are poor at estimating size or visualizing things and their relationships to one another. Yet, these people successfully function because they have more spatial ability than they realize. Spatial ability can be improved in children and adults (Potter & van der Merwe, 2001; Strong & Smith, 2001). A potential benefit of improving spatial abilities is the improvement of academic achievement in mathematics and science (Keller, Washburn-Moses & Hart, 2002; Mohler, 2001; Olkun, 2003; Robichaux, 2003; Shea, Lubinski & Benbow, 1992). Educators debate whether increased spatial aptitude improves performance in science and other subjects (LeClair, 2003). Minimal academic training in science focuses on spatial thinking and most assume the existence of necessary _____________________ K. Lynn Basham (lynn.basham@doe.virginia.gov) is the Technology Education Specialist with the Virginia Department of Education, Richmond. Joe Kotrlik (kotrlik@lsu.edu) is a Professor in Human Resource Education at Louisiana State University. -32-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
spatial skills (Schultz, Huebner, Main & Porhownik, 2003). It is suspected that spatial ability contributes additional validity to mathematical and verbal reasoning abilities. Gardner (1993) suggested skill in spatial ability determines how far one will progress in the sciences. There is no consensus as to the number of distinct spatial abilities that exist. The two most commonly agreed upon categories are mental rotation and visualization. A third category is usually perception, although some sources name orientation as the third category (Hegarty & Waller, 2004; Kaufmann, Steinbugl, Dunser & Glueck, 2003). Bodner and Guay (1997) portray orientation and visualization as the two major categories as the result of factor analysis of various tests used to measure spatial ability.
Spatial Ability Development
Several studies indicate that spatial ability can be improved if training with appropriate materials is provided (Cohen et al., 2003; Kinsey, 2003; Newcomer et al., 1999; Potter & van der Merwe, 2001). Kinsey (2003) found that when university freshmen identified as at risk participated in a session on strategies to improve spatial ability skills, gender differences on the pretest were eliminated as a consequence of the instruction on spatial strategy (Kinsey, 2003). Cohen et al. (2003) found that it is possible to train participants to use mental rotation and perspective by modeling these spatial strategies with animation (Steinke, Huk & Floto, 2003). In another study, students with low spatial ability spent significantly more time viewing high quality videos and 3-D animations than did students who had high spatial ability (Steinke et al., 2003).
Not all studies indicate that the use of computer software is a significant factor in improving spatial abilities. In a study using 2-D and section models, no difference was found between active and passive controls. Shavalier (2004) investigated whether CADD-like software called Virtus Walk Through Pro could be used to enhance spatial abilities of middle school students. No significant difference was found between the control and treatment groups, and no treatment effects were found in measures related to gender or spatial ability levels.
Relationship of Spatial Ability to Mathematical Ability
Mathematical concepts and relationships are often intangible and are therefore difficult to teach. A relationship has been shown between spatial and mathematical ability, and some indicators suggest spatial ability is important for achievement in science and problem solving (Grandin, Peterson & Shaw, 1998; Keller et al., 2002). Yet, there is little emphasis in the educational system on the development of spatial abilities, perhaps because such abilities are taken for granted or believed to be innate.
Relationship of Spatial Ability to Gender and Ethnicity
Previous studies indicate a possible relationship between gender and spatial visualization ability (Alias, Black & Gray, 2002). Some studies indicate that males perform better on spatial rotation tests, but not necessarily on other aspects of
-33-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
spatial ability (Grandin et al., 1998; Santacreu, 2004). Bodner and Guay (1997) stated that gender differences often account for only negligible fractions of the variance in spatial ability (Bodner & Guay, 1997). Although the largest difference was in mental rotation, tests of visualization factors show differences between genders are small or null (Burin, Delgado & Prieto, 2000). Indeed, meta-analyses reveal that biological factors account for no more than five percent of the variability in spatial performance (Schultz et al., 2003). Several studies found that gender was not related to various aspects of spatial ability (Postma, Izendoorn & De Haan, 1998; Voyer, 1998) while Hubona and Shirah (2004) found relationships between gender and various aspects of spatial ability.
Ritz (2004) found that disparities exist from ethnicity and socioeconomic factors. The largest disparity between African Americans and white students in grade eight is measurement. The gap increased from 40 points in 1990 to 58 points in 2000. A similar gap exists when comparing whites and Latinos (Ritz, 2004).
Background and Significance
Most ninth grade students in Mississippi take a modular Technology Discovery course that includes a computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) module. A characteristic of 3-D CADD modeling is the manipulation of geometric shapes using spatial ability. In order to implement 3-dimensional software in curricula statewide, Pro/Desktop® (2003) was made available through the Design and Technology in Schools Program sponsored by the Parametric Technology Corporation. Evidence did not exist about the effectiveness of using 3- dimensional CADD programs to develop spatial ability. This study investigated whether selected instructional methods using 3-dimensional CADD software had an effect on the development of spatial abilities of ninth grade Technology Discovery students.
Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a difference in the development of the spatial abilities of Mississippi ninth grade Technology Discovery students by instructional treatment as measured by the Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test (PVRT) (Bodner & Guay, 1997). The research questions were:
1. What are selected characteristics of Technology Discovery students?
The characteristics included were gender, ethnicity, co-registration in
art, and co-registration in geometry.
2. Do differences exist in the spatial ability development of Technology
Discovery students when they are taught using various methods
(treatments), when the spatial ability pretest scores are controlled?
3. Do differences exist in the spatial ability development of Technology
Discovery students when they are taught using various methods
(treatments), when the spatial ability pretest scores, gender, ethnicity,
co-registration in art, and co-registration in geometry are controlled? -34-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Method
A quasi-experimental design was used for this study. Intact ninth grade Technology Discovery classes were used, with teachers using Pro/Desktop® 3-D CADD software in a modular setting. The dependent variable was spatial ability as measured by the PVRT. The experimental treatments were as follows:
Teacher and Module (Experimental). This group was taught by the teacher using researcher-developed lesson plans and 3-D CADD modeling software during the design unit, followed by module rotations in which pairs of students used researcher developed, student-directed material to learn more about the 3-D CADD modeling software. Both teacher-directed and student- directed lessons used 3-D physical models as an aid to instruction. Module Only (Experimental). This group was taught spatial ability using 3-D CADD modeling software without teacher-directed lessons. Instruction occurred only during module rotations in which pairs of students used researcher developed, student-directed curriculum material in conjunction with 3-D CADD modeling software to develop spatial ability. The lessons utilized 3-D physical models as an aid to instruction. Existing Material (Experimental). This group was taught spatial ability using 3-dimensional CADD modeling software during module rotations in which pairs of students used the methods and materials that had previously been used by that teacher, with no interventions or changes. It should be noted that a wide variety of materials existed.
No CADD Instruction (Control). This group was not enrolled in Technology Discovery classes and the schools did not offer CADD.
Population and Sample
Schools that operated on a 4x4 block schedule and offered Technology Discovery were included in the 3 treatment groups. Students in these schools completed the Technology Discovery course during one semester, with class periods of at least 94 minutes per day. Participating schools with intact classes provided cluster samples. Block schedule schools typically operated three classes per day. Technology Discovery was designed for a maximum class size of 24 students. Each teacher assigned student pairs to instructional module rotations at the beginning of the school year. Each class had the potential of having 12 rotations with two students per rotation.
To avoid researcher bias, schools (with their teachers and students) were randomly assigned to one of three experimental treatments (instructional methods). Teachers located in the same schools were assigned to the same instructional method. The design used a control group from schools not offering CADD. To facilitate consistency, teachers participating in the study received oral and written instructions about study procedures. They were contacted at least two times by telephone and email prior to beginning the study. Instructional
-35-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
materials, tests, information forms, instructions for test administration, and return envelopes were mailed. Standard consent forms were used to obtain consent from parents or guardians for the students to participate in the study. Table 1 summarizes the instructions provided to each teacher. Usable data were obtained from 464 students by instructional method, as follows: Teacher Instruction with Module – 101 (21.8%), Module Alone - 164 (35.3%), Existing Materials – 116 (25.0%), and No CADD Instruction (Control Group) – 83 (17.9%).
Table 1 Instructions provided to technology discovery teachers participating in the
study.
Instructions Provided to Teachers
Test admini- stration, submission of data
3-D student module material, use of physical models
Teacher centered instruction
Treatment
1 - Teacher with module
Yes
Yes
Yes
2 - Module alone
Yes
Yes
No
3 - Existing materials
Yes
No
No
4 - No CADD
Yes
No
No
Note. Verbal and written instructions were provided to each teacher.
Treatment Development
Lesson plans and instructional material were developed by the researcher. The researcher is a certified Pro/Desktop® trainer and highly qualified to develop material for the software. Instructional sessions were developed using PowerPoint. An existing instructional tutorial for Pro/Desktop® CADD software was utilized in the final lesson. The instructional materials incorporated the recommendations by Kinsey (2003) regarding the need to provide a combination of methods, including 3-D physical models, observation, and hands-on computer use while learning to use CADD software. The design also incorporated the recommendations by Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, and Means (2001) who stated computer technologies should enhance student learning when the four factors of active engagement, participation in groups, frequent interaction and feedback, and connections to real-world contexts are kept in mind while designing instruction. Lesson plans for 160 minutes of teacher-directed instruction supported by physical models were designed. The physical models were then located at the CADD workstation for student use with the instructional module. Module materials for learning the CADD software and physical models were prepared to support instruction for both the Teacher and Module and Module Alone instructional methods (1 and 2). Student material included rotation of the objects being modeled on the computer. The connection between geometry and engineering drawing (Keller et al., 2002; Lowrie, 1994; Smith, 2001) led to the inclusion of a review of basic geometric shapes and terms in the modular
-36-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
instructional materials. The student-directed modular instructional material was developed for approximately 450 minutes of modular instructional time. Both instructional methods 1 and 2 used this material.
Five teachers who were certified as Pro/Desktop® trainers reviewed the material for face validity. These teachers suggested improvements to the physical models and revisions to the PowerPoint presentation, including wording and the order of the module sessions. These revisions were made prior to dissemination of the materials. The Existing Materials treatment group (3) was instructed to continue to use materials that were in use during the 2004-2005 school year. These consisted of tutorials utilized in the training of teachers. The No CADD Instruction treatment group (4) used no software and did not study CADD.
Data Collection and Analysis
Teachers administered the PVRT as a pretest to all Technology Discovery students in their classes near the beginning of the semester, along with a student information sheet that gathered data on gender, ethnicity, and whether they were currently enrolled in art or geometry. The posttest was given 5-7 school days after each student completed the CADD module rotation. The time between module and posttest was chosen to measure student achievement at a consistent amount of time after instruction.
The PVRT was used for both the pretest and posttest. It is appropriate for use with adolescents and may be administered either in groups or individually. This test is among the spatial tests least likely to be confounded by analytic processing strategies (Bodner & Guay, 1997). The test measured the ability to visualize the rotation of 3-dimensional objects. The instrument was chosen because of its high correlation with similar instruments measuring visualization that were not cost effective to use. The PVRT instrument included 30 questions in which an object was pictured in one position, and then it was shown in a second image, rotated to a different position. Participants were shown a second object and given five choices, one of which matched the rotation of the example object. They were asked to select the object that showed the same rotation as the example for that question. Students had 15 minutes to complete the timed test. Reliability for the PVRT reported by Bodner and Guay (1997) using KR-20 and split half reliability coefficients ranged from .78 to .85 in nine studies that involved samples sizes ranging from 127 to 1,648.
Teachers assigned students to rotation schedules at the beginning of the semester, using methods prescribed during teacher training for Technology Discovery. They were asked to adjust the rotations to ensure that no other CADD or Spatial Information Technology module was completed prior to the module under investigation, nor in the week prior to the posttest. Other than the adjustment stated above, their usual assignment procedures for rotations were applied.
Students in the control group (No CADD group) took the PVRT test with a five-week interval between pretest and posttest. Schools in the control group administered the test in ninth grade English I classes in order to provide the
-37-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
-38-
module under investigation, nor in the week prior to the posttest. Other than the adjustment stated above, their usual assignment procedures for rotations were applied. Students in the control group (No CADD group) took the PVRT test with a five-week interval between pretest and posttest. Schools in the control group administered the test in ninth grade English I classes in order to provide the appropriate equivalent sample population. English I classes were used because the course was required of all ninth grade students.
The alpha level was set a priori at .05. Descriptive statistics including values and percentages were used to analyze the data for Research Question 1. Analysis of covariance was used for Research Questions 2 and 3. The number of schools in the sample was 14, including 10 schools that offered Technology Discovery and 4 that did not.
Results
Characteristics of Population
Most of the students in the study were female and white. A higher number of female students were in each of the treatment groups. There were more black male and female students in the No CADD instruction treatment (control) group, and more white male and female students in the other three treatment groups (see Table 2).
Table 2 Ethnic background and gender reported by treatment group
Ethnicity
Black
White
Hispanic
Asian
Other
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Teacher Instruction & Module n = 101
F
16
29.2
35
63.6
1
1.8
2
3.6
1
1.8
M
4
7.9
41
89.1
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
2.2
Module Alone n = 164
F
25
27.8
62
68.9
1
1.1
0
0.0
2
2.2
M
19
25.7
52
70.3
2
2.7
0
0.0
1
1.3
Existing Materials n = 116
F
20
31.7
43
68.3
18
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
M
21
39.6
30
56.6
14
1.9
0
0.0
1
1.9
No CADD Instruction (Control) n = 83
F
26
56.5
18
39.1
0
0.0
1
2.2
1
2.2
M
18
48.7
14
37.8
1
2.7
2
5.4
2
5.4
Total
149
32.1
295
63.6
6
1.3
5
1.1
9
1.9
There were 61 (13.1%) students enrolled in art, 48 (10.3%) enrolled in geometry, and 17 (3.4%) students enrolled in both art and geometry. The
Courses
Treatment Group
Totals % (N)
Teacher Instruction and Module % (n)
Module Alone % (n)
Existing Materials % (n)
No CADD Instruction % (n)
No Art or Geometry
Art
Geometry
Both Art & Geom.
Total
52.5 (53)
16.8 (17)
23.8 (24)
6.9 (7)
100.0 (101)
81.2 (133)
14.6 (24)
2.4 (4)
1.8 (3)
100.0 (164)
81.0 (94)
12.1 (14)
6.0 (7)
0.9 (1)
100.0 (116)
71.1 (59)
7.2 (6)
15.7 (13)
6.0 (5)
100.0 (83)
73.0 (339)
13.2 (61)
10.3 (48)
3.5 (16)
100.0 (464) Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Table 3 Participants co-enrolled in art and/or geometry by treatment group
Differences in Spatial Ability Posttest Achievement with Pretest Covariate
Research Question 2 asked if differences existed in spatial ability test scores of Technology Discovery students as measured by the PVRT, when the pretest scores were controlled, and students were instructed using differing treatments (instructional methods). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if there was a difference in student achievement among the instructional methods. The independent variable of instructional treatment included the four levels described in the research question. The dependent variable was the posttest, the covariate was the pretest, and the fixed factor for the analysis was the instructional method. The preliminary analysis using Levene’s Test revealed that the variances in the posttest scores did not differ among the treatments (F(3, 460)=.71; p=.548). Therefore, equal variance across treatment groups was assumed. In addition, a model lack-of-fit test was conducted to determine if there was evidence that the effects of the treatments were nonlinear. The non-significant results of the lack- of-fit test (F(88, 368) =1.25; p=.086) indicated that the effects were likely linear. In addition, the interaction between the method factor and the pretest covariate was not significant, (F (3, 456) =1.83, p>.05), indicating that the differences on the posttest among groups did not vary as a function of the covariate. Therefore, the pretest was an appropriate covariate in the analysis of covariance. Significant differences existed among the means by instructional method (F(3,459) =6.6, p<.001, partial eta2=.04) (see Table 4). According to Green and Salkind (2003) the partial eta2 level of .09 indicates a moderate relationship between posttest scores and teaching methods, with pretest scores as the covariate. Table 5 presents the unadjusted and adjusted means of posttest scores for each instructional method and the control group with the covariate
-39-
Table 4. ANCOVA test for differences among treatment means with pretest covariate
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
Partial eta2
Corrected Model
Intercept Instructional
Method
Pretest
Error
Total
Corrected Total
9317.53
76170.31
741.58
8575.95
7551.16
93039.00
16868.69
4
1
3
1
459
464
463
2329.38
76170.31
247.19
8575.95
16.45
141.59
4630.04
15.03
521.29
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.001
.55
.91
.09
.53
Note. R2 = .55 (Adjusted R2 = .55). Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
included. The adjusted mean for the Teacher Instruction and the Module groups
is larger than the adjusted means for the other instructional treatment groups and
the control group. The pairwise comparison conducted using the Bonferroni
procedure revealed that the test scores for the Teacher Instruction and Module
group were significantly higher than the other three groups.
Differences in Spatial Ability Posttest Achievement with Multiple Covariates
Research Question 3 asked if differences existed by treatment (instructional method) in the spatial ability of Technology Discovery students as measured using the PVRT when spatial ability pretest scores are controlled, and explanatory factors of gender, ethnicity, co-regis tration in either art and/or geometry are added to the model. Analysis of covariance with simple contrasts for the explanatory factors was conducted to analyze the data for this research question. The dependent variable was the posttest score; the covariate was the pretest score, and additional explanatory factors were gender, ethnicity, co- enrollment in art, and co-enrollment in geometry. The fixed factor was the instructional treatment method. Gender was not significantly correlated to the dependent variable posttest scores; therefore, gender was not included in the analysis. -40-
Table 5 Posttest unadjusted and adjusted mean student scores by instructional method
with pretest covariate
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Instructional Method
n
M
SD
M
SD
Teacher Instruction and Module
Module Alone
Existing Materials
No CADD Instruction
101
164
116
83
15.01
12.56
11.37
12.66
5.97
5.41
5.87
6.83
14.38a
12.59 a
12.30 a
11.97a
.41
.32
.39
.45
Totals
464
aCovariate in the model is evaluated with pretest value of 11.49. Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
An analysis was conducted to determine if the variances in the posttest scores were equal among the treatment groups when the fixed factors were included. The non-significant Levene’s Test (F(3, 460) =1.11; p=.344) suggests that the variance of the posttest scores was approximately equal for the four treatment groups, and equal variance across treatment groups was assumed. A model lack of fit analysis was conducted and it was not significant (F(212, 288) =1.02; p=.433). An initial ANCOVA tested for the interaction effects. The interaction between the dependent variable posttest and covariate pretest was not significant. Interaction between the dependent variable posttest and ethnicity was not significant, nor was interaction between posttest and co-enrollment in either art or geometry. Since no significant interactions existed, the interaction effects were removed from the ANCOVA prior to conducting the final analysis. Table 6 reports the final analysis of covariance. This analysis resulted in a significant outcome for instructional method (F (3,455) =15.02, p < .001). The strength of the differences between the fixed factor instructional method and the dependent variable posttest was moderate as indicated by a partial eta2 of .09 (Green & Salkind, 2003). It is interesting to note that the partial eta2 in this analysis was the same as the result presented for research question 2. Table 7 presents the unadjusted and adjusted means of posttest scores for each instructional treatment and the control group. The adjusted mean for the Teacher Instruction and Module group is larger than the adjusted means for each of the other instructional treatment groups and also larger than the control group. In order to determine whether the difference in means was statistically significant, further analysis using the Bonferroni post hoc procedure was conducted which confirmed that the mean scores for students in the Teacher Instruction and Module group were significantly higher than the other three groups. -41-
Table 6. Analysis of Covariance for Differences among Posttests by Instructional Method Groups with Pretest Covariate and Explanatory Factors
Source
SS
df
MS
F
p
eta2
'
Pretest '
Method '
Ethnicity-white '
Ethnicity-black
Co-enrollmentin Art '
Co-enrollmentin Geometry '
'
Error '
Total
8575.95
741.58
27.07
8.83
13.91
3.25
7488.11
93039.00
1
3
1
1
1
1
455
464
8575.95
247.19
27.07
8.83
13.91
13.25
16.46
521.10
15.02
1.65
.54
.85
.81
<.001
<.001
.200
.464
.358
.370
.53 '
.09 '
<.01 '
<.01 '
<.01 '
<.01 '
'
'
R2 = .56 (Adjusted R2 =.55).
Table 7 Posttest Unadjusted and Adjusted Mean Scores of Students by Instructional Method
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Instructional Method
n
M
SD
M
SE
Teacher Instruction & Module
101
15.01
5.97
14.19a
.42
Module Alone
164
12.55
5.41
12.61a
.32
Existing Materials
116
11.37
5.87
12.34a
.38
No CADD Instruction
83
12.66
6.83
12.20a
.46
Totals
464
12.81
6.04
aCovariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: pretest = 11.49, Ethnicity-White = .64, Ethnicity-Black = .32, Geometry Class = .14, Art Class = .17. Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Conclusions and Discussion In this sample, less than 30% of Technology Discovery students are black; fewer than 5% are Hispanic, Asian, or other ethnic backgrounds; and nearly 70%, are white. Since Mississippi public schools average slightly more than 50% black students enrolled statewide, the fact that less than 30% of the students in the classes were black is unusual. Over half of the Technology Discovery students are female. Both black and white females outnumber black and white males in the classes. Few Technology Discovery students enrolled in art or geometry. -42-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
A difference exists in spatial ability based on the method used to instruct students using 3-D CADD modeling software, with the instructional method of Teacher with Module being more effective than either the Module Alone or the Existing Materials method in improving spatial ability achievement scores. This occurred both in the analysis for Research Question 2, where the only covariate was the pretest, and in Research Question 3, where gender, ethnicity, co- enrollment in art and co-enrollment in geometry were included as covariates. It can be concluded that the use of 3-dimensional CADD modeling software affects student spatial ability development when a combination of teacher-lead and student-directed instruction is used with 3-dimensional physical models.
The teacher-led lesson was the likely factor explaining the Teacher with Module group’s gain in spatial ability. Roschelle et al. (2001) stated that social contexts such as teacher-directed group lessons give students the opportunity to successfully perform more complex skills than they could manage alone. Working on a task with others not only provides opportunities to replicate what others are doing, but also to discuss the task and ideas involved.
No difference was found among the spatial ability of students who studied CADD using the Module Alone method, the Existing Materials method, and students who did not study CADD at all. This occurred both in the analysis for Research Question 2, where the only covariate was the pretest, and in Research Question 3, where gender, ethnicity, co-enrollment in art and co-enrollment in geometry were entered as covariates. The instructional methods Module Alone and Existing Materials were both based on self-directed student learning.
A cursory review of test scores indicated that some students appeared to gain in the ability to mentally rotate an object. Others showed little or no gain. There may be a connection between this and the study done by Battista (2002) which cited the theory of constructivism as a basis for instructional design for teaching mathematics. The theory proposes that to understand new ideas, students must personally construct meaning using their own knowledge and reasoning. Though student-directed modular learning is based on this theory, it was not supported by this study. Student use of modules was only effective in increasing the spatial ability to mentally rotate objects when the teacher established a common understanding of the views used in the software prior to modular instruction. Various factors may account for the lack of gain in the Module Alone and Existing Materials groups. Due to the typical teacher- centered learning environment with which students are familiar, they may not consider instruction that is student-directed to be as important as traditional instruction. Constructivist learning theory suggests that by reflecting on experiences, students construct their own understanding of the world. In order for students to learn in this manner, they must actively participate in the planned activities of a lesson. In a modular learning environment some students may not seriously concentrate on the lessons provided, considering themselves as passive learners responsible only for material that is presented by teachers for which they expect to be tested. Although multimedia has been relatively successful as a learning tool, it is not enough by itself to guarantee that students
-43-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
will actually learn. The exclusive use of multimedia is intriguing, but it does not necessarily require the learner to be in active control of the learning process or necessarily thinking about what is being presented (Mohler, 2001). In addition, if two students are working at a learning station and only one computer is available, one of the pair may dominate the interaction with the software. The passive student may not take responsibility for her or his learning, allowing a partner to interact more with the software. When students are placed in the relatively passive role of receiving information, they often fail to develop sufficient understanding to be able to apply what they have learned to other situations (Roschelle et al, 2001).
Moreover, hands-on manipulations may divert the short-term memory resources of some students, reducing the possibility of comprehending the simultaneous manipulation of a larger number of mental elements (Smith, 2001). In addition, Steinke et al. (2003) found that some students required observation with no activity in order to process new concepts.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings of this study and the review of literature, one can conclude that little is known about how the use of Computer Aided Design and Drafting technology affects student spatial ability development. Continued research in this area is both vital and needed. Replication of this study in other states would contribute to the research and knowledge base for both CADD instruction and spatial ability improvement. Further research is needed to determine whether the conclusions reached in this study would be consistent with other similar studies and, specifically, whether or not a particular instructional method using 3-D CADD modeling is consistent in the improvement of the spatial ability of students. This would contribute to the goal of the National Research Council (2006) to include an emphasis on learning to think spatially in education systems.
Numerous studies indicate a high correlation between mathematics achievement and spatial ability. Other studies have found that spatial ability affects student achievement in science as well as other subjects. Therefore, research that specifically examines development of spatial ability when using 3-D modeling software should be continued. It is possible that the development of spatial visualization ability could be the most important contribution that technology education could make to learners. Consequently, it could be the most defensible reason for the inclusion of technology education for all students.
'
References '
Alias, M., Black, T. R., & Gray, D. E. (2002). Attitudes towards sketching and
drawing and the relationship with spatial visualization ability in engineering
students. International Education Journal, 3(3), 165-175. Bannatyne, A. (2003). Multiple intelligences. Bannatyne Reading Program.
Retrieved April 18, 2005, from
www.bannatynereadingprogram.com/BP12MULT.htm ¶ 2-3. -44-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Battista, M. T. (2002). Learning geometry in a dynamic computer environment. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(6), 333.
Bodner, G. M., & Guay, R. B. (1997). The Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test. The Chemical Educator, 2(4), 1-18.
Burin, D. I., Delgado, Y. G., & Prieto, A. R. (2000). Solution strategies and gender differences in spatial visualization tasks. Psicológica, 21, 275-286.
Cohen, C. A., Hegarty, M., Keehner, M., & Montello, D. R. (2003, July). Spatial ability in the representation of cross sections. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Conference, Boston, MA.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Group.
Grandin, T., Peterson, M., & Shaw, G. L. (1998). Spatial-temporal versus language-analytic reason. Arts Education Policy Review, 99(6), 11.
Green S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175-191.
Hubona, G. S., & Shirah, G. W. (2004). The gender factor: Performing visualization tasks on computer media. Proceedings, 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Jones, K., & Bills, C. (1998, June). Visualization, imagery and the development of geometrical reasoning. Geometry Working Group, Retrieved April 10, 2005, from www.soton.ac.uk/~dkj/bsrlmgeom/reports/K_Jones_et_al_June_1998.pdf
Kaufmann, H., Steinbügl ', K., Dünser', A., & Glück, J. (2003). Improving spatial abilities by geometry education in augmented reality - application and evaluation design. Vienna University of Technology. Retrieved July 25, 2005, from http://www.ims.tuwien.ac.at/publication_detail.php?ims_id=TR- 188-2-2005-01
Keller, B., Wasburn-Moses, J., & Hart, E. (2002). Improving students’ spatial visualization skills and teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge by using on-line curriculum-embedded applets: Overview of a research and development project. Retrieved May 23, 2005, from http://illuminations.nctm.org/reflections/http://illuminations.nctm.org/downl oads/IsoPaperV4.pdf
Kinsey, B. (2003). Design of a CAD integrated physical model rotator. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved April 10, 2005, from www.ni.com/academic/journal_asee.htm
LeClair, E. E. (2003). Alphatome--enhancing spatial reasoning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(1), 26-31.
Lowrie, T. (1994). Developing talented children's mathematical ability through visual and spatial learning tasks. Australian Association for Research in
-45-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Education. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.aare.edu.au/92pap/lowrt92487.txt
Mohler, J. L. (2001). Using interactive multimedia technologies to improve student understanding of spatially-dependent engineering concepts. Paper presented at the GraphiCon'2001, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. September 10- 15, 2001.
National Research Council. (2006). Learning to think spatially. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newcombe, N. S., & Huttenlocher, J. (2000). Making space: The development of spatial representation and reasoning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Newcomer, J. L., Raudebaugh, R. A., McKell, E. K., & Kelley, D. S. (1999). Visualization, freehand drawing, solid modeling, and design in introductory engineering graphics. Paper presented at the 29th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico. American Society for Engineering Education/Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Retrieved March 22, 2005, from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie99/papers/1006.pdf
Olkun, S. (2003, April 17). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering drawing activities. International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved March 18, 2005, from http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/default.htm
Postma, A., Izendoorn, R., & De Haan, E. H. F. (1998). Sex differences in object location memory. Brain and Cognition, 36, 334-345.
Potter, C., & van der Merwe, E. (2001). Spatial ability, visual imagery and academic performance in engineering graphics. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education, Oslo, Norway.
Pro/Desktop (Version 8) [Computer software]. Needham, MA: Parametric Technology Corporation.
Ritz, J. M. (2004, May/June). Technology education--a resource for teaching mathematics: Standards-based testing a major issue impacting public education. The Technology Teacher, 63(8), 20-24.
Robichaux, R. R. (2003). The improvement of spatial visualization: A case study. Journal of Integrative Psychology, 4(2). Retrieved May 23, 2005, from http://www.integrativepsychology.org/articles/vol2_article3.htm
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2001). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children, 10(2), 76-101.
Santacreu, J. (2004). Sex differences in verbal reasoning are mediated by sex differences in spatial ability. The Psychological Record, 54(3). Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3645/is_200407/ai_n9435821
Shavalier, M. (2004). The effects of CAD-like software on the spatial ability of middle school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 37-49. -46-
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 20 No. 1, Fall 2008
Schultz, K., Huebner, J., Main, K., & Porhownik, N. (2003). Spatial performance and women’s persistence and success in science. University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Retrieved 5-5-2005, from http://www.mun.ca/cwse/Schultz,Katherine.pdf
Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 603-614.
Smith, G. G. (2001). Interaction evokes reflection: Learning efficiency in spatial visualization. Interactive Multimedia: Electronic Journal of Computer- Enhanced Learning. Retrieved May 23, 2005, from http://imej.wfu.edu/articles/2001/2/05/index.asp
Steinke, M., Huk, T., & Floto, C. (2003). The use of high quality 3D animations and videos in hypermedia systems by learners with different cognitive abilities. Paper presented at the Proceedings of E-Learn. Retrieved March 8,2005, from http://projekte.13s.uni- hanover.de/pub/bscw.cgi/d28316/Huk_ELearn2003_Attitude.pdf
Strong, S., & Smith, R. (2001). Spatial visualization: Fundamentals and trends in engineering graphics. Journal of Industrial Technology, 18(1). Retrieved April 10, 2005, from http://www.nait.org/jit/Articles/strong122001.pdf
Turos, J. M., & Ervin, A. I. (2000). Training and gender differences on a web- based mental rotation task. The Penn State Behrend Psychology Journal, 4(2), 3-12.
Voyer, D. (1998). Mathematics, gender, spatial performance, and cerebral organization: A suppression effect in talented students. Roeper Review, 20(4). Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001378119&er=deny
-47-

The Problem in Technology Education
(A Definite Article)
Jim Flowers
As with any field, technology education and its close relatives have
numerous strengths and weaknesses. One of these weaknesses has too long been
overlooked, and it is the subject of this article. We might think of technology
education as empowering students, divergently fostering their own creativity. An
abundance of design briefs shows that this field seems to encourage students to
develop diverse and creative solutions to technological problems. It is ironic,
therefore, that dogmatism is prevalent in the curriculum, literature, and research
in technology education. In this sense, dogmatism refers to “a positive, arrogant
assertion of opinion” (Neufeldt, 1997, p. 404) (if you’ll pardon my arrogant
assertion of this claim.)
This article focuses not on larger, overt examples of dogmatism that can
easily be spotted, but on small and subtle ones, taking a very narrow approach to
attempt to identify some instances of dogmatism in technology education
literature by focusing on dogmatic uses of a single English word the to falsely
imply uniqueness. Illustrative examples are examined with the hope of beginning
recognition of this problem by our field. There was no intention to review the
corpus of literature in technology education according the classifications of
definite articles, though the classification systems can inform the analysis.
Linguistic Classifications of The
There are several approaches among linguists in classifying different usage
of definite articles. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985) mention a
generic use, as in “The tiger can be dangerous” (p. 265). They additionally
suggest the eight categories of non-generic usage of definite articles (pp. 266-
270) seen in Table 1. Chesterman’s (1991) approach includes the sporadic and
logical categories within a non-referential use category, eliminating the body
parts category and adding a category of unfamiliar, which seems to include
____________________
Jim Flowers (jcflowers1@bsu.edu) is a Professor and Director of Online Education in the
Department of Technology at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-11-
much of the cataphoric category. Epstein (2002) forwarded a framework,
suggesting that “familiarity, discourse prominence, role/value/status, and pointof-
view shifts” (p. 333) may be fruitful in understanding definite article function,
rather than looking at the categories previously mentioned.
Table 1
A definite article classification scheme for non-generic usage from Quirk,
Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik (1985, pp 266-270)
Category Description Example
Immediate situation the listener is in the same
context
“Have you fed the cat?”
[said to a housemate]
Larger situation a shared understanding of
context
“the last war” [said to a
compatriot]
Direct anaphoric
reference
previous reference had
been made
“John bought a TV and a
video recorder, but he
returned the video
recorder.”
Indirect anaphoric
reference
an association to a
previous reference
“John bought a bicycle,
but when he rode it one
of the wheels came off.”
Cataphoric reference later information provides
the meaning
“The president of
Mexico”
Sporadic reference reference to an “institution
of human society”
“My sister goes to the
theatre every month.”
“Logical” use of “the” a logical interpretation due
to uniqueness
“When is the first flight
to Chicago tomorrow?”
Use of “the” with
reference to body parts
“Everyone gave us a pat
on the back.”
Note: descriptions are paraphrased.
One sense of uniqueness is not that the referent is the only example, but that
it is the only important example. This is connected with an emphatic usage of the
noted by Christopherson (1930), where a long vowel sound is sometimes,
although not always, emphasized to provide contrast to indefinite article usage;
“it means not merely ‘the X you know,’ but ‘the only X worth knowing’” (p.
111). There are examples outside the field of technology education, such as the
name of The Ohio State University. Within technology education, emphatic
usage of the, possibly without the long vowel sound, is seen in the title and
subtitle for a journal of the International Technology Education Association, The
Technology Teacher: The Voice of Technology Education. Such usage seems
quite appropriate from a marketing stance where a money-making entity suggests
that whatever competition may be offered is not worthy of attention. Not far
behind was the crafting of the name, Project Lead The Way, which carries a
different connotation than would Project Lead One of Many Ways, Project Lead
Some Way, or Project Lead a Way. Were crafters of these titles aware of subtle
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-12-
implications in using the? One would suppose. As we move from marketing and
manipulating the consumer to instead focus on teaching and learning, we again
find instances of an emphatic the effectively and appropriately used by
MacDonald & Gustafson (2004), for example, when they state: “Smith (2001)
suggests that too much emphasis on representation, i.e., the perfect drawing,
could restrict opportunities for discovering new ideas” ( p. 56). It is ironic that
the title of their work was “The role of design drawing among children engaged
in a parachute building activity,” implying that there was only one role and their
research would uncover it. But this moves us from a discussion of an emphatic
usage to a notion of unique identifiability.
Some usage of the X connotes: There exists an X; this X is the one and only
X. The is used effectively and appropriately to convey uniqueness in statements
such as “The committee chair casts a vote only to break a tie.” Sometimes we
use the without conveying uniqueness: “Don’t mar your wood, Roberta; the
nailset is used to set a finish nail,” but of concern here are uses that do convey
uniqueness, but maybe should not. Richard Epstein (2002) suggested that
definite article usage is not a simple matter of reference, but instead that
“speakers/writers frequently manipulate the meanings of words like ‘the’ in order
to achieve all sorts of rhetorical effects” (personal communication, September
19, 2009), and that they “commonly construct discourse referents under distinct
conceptual guises for various communicative and rhetorical purposes – through,
amongst other things, their choices of articles – rather than introducing referents
into the discourse in a neutral, homogeneous fashion” (Epstein, 2002, p. 335).
Even though no attempt is made here to classify definite article usage in our
field according to any of these frameworks, since none seems to include the
particular usage of interest, these schemes do point to a critical factor concerning
definite article reference function; as with other issues in communication, the
cognitive framework of the speaker and that of the listener are of concern.
Without some degree of shared understanding or familiarity with the referent,
communication would be very difficult. Tied to this are the speaker’s
assumptions about the listener and the listener’s assumptions about the speaker,
as shared understanding can be impacted by the correctness of those
assumptions. The listener’s prior understanding of a referent might be assumed
by the speaker, correctly or incorrectly, in immediate situation and larger
situation usage, or the speaker not making such an assumption may take care to
provide the additional information to achieve shared understanding, as in the
anaphoric, cataphoric, and logical use examples.
Critical questions about the speaker’s understanding include:
 Does the speaker believe the referent is unique?
 Does the speaker believe the referent is non-unique?
 Does the speaker believe neither that the referent is unique nor nonunique?
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-13-
The speaker’s actions raise questions:
 Does the speaker state or imply uniqueness?
 Does the speaker state or imply non-uniqueness?
 Does the speaker state or imply neither uniqueness nor non-uniqueness?
Regardless of whether there was a conscious implication on the part of a speaker,
there may or may not have been corresponding inference made by the listener, so
we should ask:
 Does the listener infer uniqueness?
 Does the listener infer non-uniqueness?
 Does the listener infer neither uniqueness nor non-uniqueness?
Even if an inference is made, it might not alter the listener’s belief, so we might
finally ask after listening:
 Does the listener come to believe the referent is unique?
 Does the listener come to believe the referent is non-unique?
 Does the listener come to believe neither that the referent is unique nor
non-unique?
This listing allows for an intention from the speaker that may be
misinterpreted by the listener. That is, a teacher can believe there are many
forecasting methodologies, and not want to imply there is just one method, but
refer a particular method using the phrase, “the forecasting method assumes a
linear trend,” meaning, “the example shown in this week’s reading assumed a
linear trend;” but a student could understand the teacher to mean “This is the
only forecasting methodology, and whenever you forecast, you must assume a
linear trend.” The teacher’s reference was likely immediate situation and
anaphoric, whereas the mistaken listener believed the teacher to use a logical
function of the. The teacher had made an inaccurate assumption about the
listener in this situation. There are implications here for actions to prevent giving
precisely the wrong understanding by altering a choice to use a definite article. A
listener may have been primed for a cataphoric use, when the speaker instead
was using a larger situation use, although the listener was not aware of the
required background information to make sense of that use.
More serious is where the speaker purposefully uses language to imply the
reference is unique when in fact it is not. A common cause for this may be traced
to the speaker’s own education, where such a misunderstanding may have been
propagated. Implications for action here would be to seriously call into question
the possible inaccuracy of one’s content and schemes. It could be that a
descriptive model was inappropriately used prescriptively, or that one just never
bothered to question some basic assumptions.
Falsely Implying Uniqueness in Technology Education
Of interest here is where there is a false implication or inference of
uniqueness in technology education’s language conveyed by definite article
usage. While there may be examples where we could suspect the speaker’s or
writer’s motive, it seems likely that most such instances may occur where the
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-14-
speaker or writer is unaware their words convey a false sense of uniqueness. As
often happens, I noticed this problem in my own teaching and writing before
observing it in our field. I found myself teaching students about “the five
families of materials,” “the six types of material processing,” “the definition of
technology,” “the rules for brainstorming,” “the environmental impacts of our
obsession with lawns,” and “the way to cite a journal article.” But are there
exactly five families of materials, and are these five the five? In each of these
instances, I seemed to be attempting to convey to students that one particular
model, list, or procedure was the only (or the only important) model, list, or
procedure, and they had better learn it. But even if I did not intend to convey this
uniqueness, it is understandable for some listeners to have inferred it; after all, a
speaker could have chosen some alternative phrase to “the five families of
materials are,” such as: “One classification of materials uses the following five
families.” If I teach students “The definition of technology is…” it conveys
something different than had I said, “A definition for technology is…”
Technology education is not alone in receiving such criticism. Fendley
(2009) opened his critique (in science) with:
In a 2006 book that garnered much press for its silly attacks on string theory,
author and physicist Lee Smolin provides a list of "The Five Great Problems in
Theoretical Physics." There are many offensive things about this list, starting
with the use of the definite article in the title, which implies that people not
working on these problems (the majority of theoretical physicists) are working
on less-than-great problems. (p. 32)
Within technology education, a few key cases concerning questionable
implications of uniqueness in definite article usage are found not just in a single
author’s work, but in some phrases common to the field.
The Universal Systems Model
Based on an Industrial Arts Curriculum Symposium at Jackson’s Mill, West
Virginia, Snyder and Hales (1981) wrote, “To assist in understanding the
construct ‘system’, a universal model of a system is presented in Figure 4” (p.
10). After a graphic showing only four terms (input, process, output, and
feedback) with arrows and boxes, there was additional discussion of “the
universal systems model.” Article usage did not carry an assumption or
implication that this was the only model, since the initial mention used an
indefinite article, with the definite article used afterwards in anaphoric reference
to that which had been presented: “the [this] universal systems model.”
Since that time, others have used “the” seemingly to indicate that there
exists only one such model; a search on Google for “the universal systems
model” resulted in 21,800 hits (but fewer than 100 for “a universal systems
model.”) A typical hit is a sample from the ITEA 8th grade course on
technological systems (ITEA, 2006), where students “should look at the parts
that make up these systems, the intended purpose, and categorize the parts as
inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback, according to the universal systems
model” (p. 27). Georgia State Standard ENG-FET-3 states, “Students will
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-15-
explain the universal systems model” (Georgia Department of Education, 2007,
p. 1). These are not anaphoric references to that which was previously presented,
but instead seem to imply there is only one model. But even where an indefinite
article is used, a convergent and perhaps dogmatic approach can sometimes be
seen, as with one of the learning standards technology teachers in Massachusetts
use for Technology/Engineering in Grades 6-8: “2.6 Identify the five elements of
a universal systems model: goal, inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback” (MA
Dept of Ed, 2006. p. 87). Ironically, the model Snyder and Hales presented had
four elements, not five. McCarthy (2009) left out the article altogether, though
seemed to convey deference to “the universal systems model” when he shared
something titled “Universal cover sheet” that included input, process, output, and
feedback (p. 21). Could it be that as a profession, we have input a creative bit of
descriptive modeling, processed it by reinterpreting this to be the one and only
model for systems, which we then output to others in a way that asks them to
memorize, list, and apply rather than to critique and ideate? Would it not be
more intellectually stimulating to encourage our students to ask why this is a
systems model since it does not seem to model a solar system, a system of
language, a monetary system, or a number system, but instead only models
processes? The is a symptom of a larger problem that can emerge without the,
aided in this case by the word, universal: an attitude of dogmatic adherence
rather than inquiry. One of the participants at Jackson’s Mill recently suggested
our field question this model:
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Input-Process-Output Model for technological
systems was very popular in curriculum design. With the goals discussed
above, this model is probably not as appropriate as it once was. (Ritz, 2008, p.
62).
One could argue that our field has stipulated a definition for the universal
systems model and the reference is unique, regardless of the fact that this might
be neither universal nor a model of all systems, and regardless of the existence of
other types of systems models. Language could purposefully be misused in this
way, and there are precedents. Some say the Dow Jones Industrial Average is
neither industrial nor an average, just as we could suggest that the Technology
for All Americans Project (ITEA, 1996) did not mean technology but technology
education, did not mean all but K-12 public school students, and did not mean
Americans but resident citizens and legal resident aliens in the USA. An
argument could be made that technological literacy should refer to the abilities
to listen, read, speak, and write with understanding concerning technology, and
that possibly for reasons of persuasion, the term literacy was used to mean
something very different in technological literacy than it does in French literacy.
It is clear that language can be used to persuade people to act, or to ask them to
rally around a cause, as in Technology Education: The New Basic. But when we
are teaching and researching, clarity and accuracy ought to be more important
than persuasive or flowery rhetoric, especially if our teaching and research are to
have credibility.
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-16-
The Problem-Solving Process/Approach & The Design Process
How many approaches are there to solving problems? How many steps are
there in different problem solving processes? Parnes (1963) suggested an
approach to problem solving that had six steps, while Hutchinson and Karsnitz
(1994) described a nine-step approach. A problem of how to get your friend’s
attention can likely be solved in one step (such as “saying your friend’s name”)
but processes for solving environmental problems resulting from overpopulation
are complex, convoluted, and certainly not easy to solve with any single
prescribed method. It is true that one can take an inquiry approach to a problem,
as one can take a problem solving approach to a situation. However, just as with
the universal systems model, some in our field, I among them, have been guilty
of dogmatically forwarding statements that seem to imply there exists only one
problem solving process, or only one that is worth knowing.
As was mentioned, where a model or process was just introduced, we can
make an anaphoric reference back to that model as the model or the process
meaning the one I just mentioned. Too often, our literature discusses the model
or the process where there was no initial introduction of a model or a process, as
in the first sentence by Daugherty and Mentzer (2008): “This synthesis paper
discusses the research exploring analogical reasoning, the role of analogies in the
engineering design process…” (p. 7). This even emerges in the design of
research instruments (e.g., “Holistic scoring (points awarded for each stage of
the problem solving process)” (Boser, 1993, p. 19); “Steps that comprise the
problem solving approach are clearly defined and practiced in a microteaching
environment” (Boser, 1993, p. 21); and “Competency: Applying the engineering
design process” (Rogers, 2006, p. 73)). Sometimes, a single work switches
between an apparent implication of uniqueness and an apparent implication of
non-uniqueness. For example, Olowa (2009) studied “the effectiveness of the
problem solving approach…” in secondary school agricultural education (p. 37),
and employed the thusly in both the title and the statement of purpose for that
study; however, the article’s running head was “Effects of Problem Solving
Approaches,” which sends a different message regarding uniqueness. To be fair,
the title of the work included “the problem solving and subject matter
approaches” though the running head, for brevity, displays an alteration to the
implication concerning the number of problem solving approaches.
Hanson (1993) suggested that there are advantages to dogmatically
presenting students with a single process, though not in those words: “It is quite
a comfort for students to discover that the problem solving process has a set of
universal steps and that the process involves the development of knowledge
parallel to that developed through, for example, the scientific method” (p. 26). It
is likely a comfort for teachers and teacher educators to become attached to only
one of many approaches, as it protects us from having to question our
assumptions and our knowledge. Even though belief systems can provide
comfort, we are not there for student or teacher comfort. Our tendency toward
procedure-based instruction could shed some light here; an association of “steps”
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-17-
in teaching design and problem solving may be too strong in our field, as Lewis
(2005) suggested, and this association could be too dogmatic:
The problem for the field of technology education in the United States and
elsewhere is that the overt description of the stages of the design process,
observable when engineers do their work, has become the normative design
pedagogy. This stage approach runs the risk of overly simplifying what
underneath is a complex process. (p. 44)
When I was presenting a new course on technology assessment to
colleagues, one of them kept quizzing me, “But what is the technology
assessment methodology?” I shared with him that formal technology assessment
has made use of a variety of methodologies depending on the goals at hand and
the nature of the information, though I suspect this was an unsatisfying answer.
We crave to have a known list of procedures, and we classify that list as
curricular content. We may feel that unless we can recite a single sequence of
steps, we do not know a process, and therefore we do not have knowledge. Of
course, sometimes there is a single sequence of steps, and to suggest otherwise
would be inaccurate. But where there exists more than one viable list of steps
and we incorrectly imply in speaking or infer in listening that there exists only
one list, there is a problem. It is ironic that our educational mission seems to
embrace a divergent view of student learning and performance, but some items
of curricular content are inappropriately approached convergently, even by
experts in the field.
One alternative would be to forward a process. ITEA (2007) Standards
for Technological Literacy lists Benchmark 8H, which states that, “The design
process includes…” (p. 97), and then lists twelve separate processes, apparently
in order. This is only marginally better as it does not imply that other processes
are specifically excluded, though using the still conveys a belief that these twelve
are required in order for something to be classified as an example of the design
process. We are then told that “the design process is a systematic, iterative
approach to problem solving that promotes innovation and yields design
solutions” (pp. 97-98). But what if the very first design solution one attempted
happened to be optimal, and there was no need for iteration? Would that mean
that this was not an example of the design process, since iteration was not a
characteristic? As was seen earlier, definite article usage is not the entire issue
here, but instead there is an underlying dogmatic proposition refusing to
acknowledge alternatives, even though alternatives exist. So while we sometimes
use the without realizing that readers and listeners could incorrectly infer
uniqueness, at other times we use the or other linguistic devices to overtly imply
incorrect uniqueness.
Other
There are other examples from our field. Aside from uniqueness, definite
articles can be used to communicate number. When used with singular nouns,
the typically conveys singularity. When used with plural nouns, there may be an
implication of all. For example, Gray and Daugherty (2004) first state, “The
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-18-
purpose of this study was to identify effective recruitment techniques….” (p. 7),
seemingly implying one purpose and some techniques. But they then pose as a
research question, “What are the effective recruitment techniques…” (p. 7),
which suggests a task to uncover all of the techniques that are effective, in a
parallel to definite article usage in: “Have you memorized the state capitals?” A
classic form for experimental research is to look at the effect of x on y, but
maybe it should be to uncover critical effects, important effects, or whether any
effect could be found.
Conclusion and Recommendations
While it is not unique to technology education, this field has a the problem.
We sometimes inappropriately use the definite article to falsely imply
uniqueness. At other times, listeners or readers may incorrectly infer uniqueness
because we have used the even when we did not mean to imply uniqueness. At
first, definite article usage may seem a silly, petty, and empty concern: surely
there are bigger and more important issues for our attention. Actually,
inappropriately communicating uniqueness with the is better classified as a
symptom than a problem; an underlying problem here is our understanding. Our
language choices can communicate an inaccurately narrow connotation. Where
this is unintentional, greater awareness of language use specifically attending to
this problem may be a solution. Technology education seems to be a profession
that has embraced dogma. There is a creed stating “this we believe…” from a
premier association (ITEA, n.d.). Why is there such a need to believe? Why do
we have difficulty deferring judgment and admitting alternatives? Can we
overcome the appeal of comfort brought by satiating our need to believe?
One solution to the problems mentioned concerning definite article usage
and the bigger issue of dogma is to question our assumptions, even at the
expense of our comfort. A teacher or speaker who is about to state “The five
types are…” could first reflect, asking herself or himself if this classification
scheme has alternatives, then if these five types are mutually exclusive and
exhaustive. Questions such as “Might there exist a sixth type?” and “Could types
1 and 4 be the same?” should be entertained by the speaker prior to such an
assertion and encouraged in the listener. We should take advantage of instances
where the might be used to inappropriately imply uniqueness as beacons,
prompting us to ask questions about our assumptions and implications, and
asking us to consider the listener’s or reader’s understanding and what they infer
from our use of the.
There is a parallel with sexism in language. Decades ago, using man to refer
to humans and using masculine pronouns to refer to one of unknown sex were
acceptable and taught, though this was discouraged in our profession as early as
1985 (Boben). Those who were slow to adopt sex-fair language may have
thought sexist language to be a non-problem that was a silly, petty, and empty
concern of others. Using the word guys to refer to a mixed sex group is not
merely a problem of language usage, but instead reaches to our basic systems of
values and beliefs. We may not be conscious of our implication that this is a field
Journal of Technology Education Vol. 21 No. 2, Spring 2010
-19-
best fit for guys, but others could bring it to our attention that this is the message
they heard from our use of that word. Learning that offensive language is
determined by the listener rather than the speaker is a lesson that parallels
definite article usage and dogmatism, where we might not intentionally imply
false uniqueness, but our words might convey just that. Because language use
and belief systems are so ingrained in who we are, we should not expect to
eliminate sexist language or inappropriate, unique implications of the from our
field in a short time.
Perhaps when we make a conscious effort to reduce our own use of sexist
language, we become less sexist in our thinking and our belief systems, and in so
doing we encourage this in others. If we become aware of dogmatism coming
across in our language, and we then take steps to avoid that dogmatism, are we
becoming more open-minded and encouraging this in others? With careful
attention by a few, and assistance by them in spreading this attention to others,
we may be able to effect a systemic change in our field and beyond concerning
not merely definite article usage, but dogmatism and open-mindedness. It is
about how we think, not about our use of a little word. It is a question of
convergent or divergent thinking. It is an issue of accuracy, and the courage and
humility required to admit that there are alternatives to what we are claiming to
be knowledge.