The Industrial Arts Paradigm : Adjustment , Replacement , or Extinction ?

Industrial arts/technology education (IA/TE) is in a crisis a crisis caused largely by the increasing changes that are occurring within society and technology. In the past five years, national, state, and local commissions, organizations, and educators have developed countless documents, curricula, and workshops on the subject of technology education (International Technology Education Association, 1985; Ferns, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; Hoopfer, Jost & Nelson, 1987; Hales & Snyder, 1981; Hull & Smink, 1988; Kadamus & Daggett, 1986; Maley, 1988; Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service (MDE/V-TES), 1988, 1989; Savage, 1989; Virginia Vocational Curriculum Resource Center, 1988). Through various means, thousands of administrators, educators, and ancillary staff members have been exposed to technology education. IA/TE educators in Michigan strongly agree that technology should be a part of their programming, and, in some cases, identify technology education as what they currently teach (Smith, 1989). Still, the unit shop remains the primary delivery method in the field (Ellis, 1989; Smith, 1989). This serves to accentuate the scope of the crisis, and the professional reaction (or lack thereof) to it. It appears that many efforts in the movement toward technology education have failed because changes have been made in name only, rather than in instructors' understanding of the underlying philosophical differences between industrial arts and technology education. Because of the recurrence of name-change-only programs, and the fact that industrial arts teachers often do not perceive differences between industrial arts and technology education, it may be beneficial to the profession to view industrial arts as a paradigm. In a 1985 position paper, Pratzner viewed vocational education as a paradigm while providing insightful views into the paradigm's configuration and possible metamorphosis to a new emerging paradigm of vocational education. Citing “significant technological changes, quality of work life developments, lagging productivity, quality and international competitiveness” (p. 6) as reasons for a possible paradigm shift, Pratzner presented a persuasive case for change. Key to Pratzner's paradigm development was an abstracted version of the six components Mohrman and Lawler (1981) believed to be essential to any paradigm: image of subject matter, beliefs in particular theories and models, values, methods and instruments, exemplars, and social matrices. Copa (1985) supported Pratzner's position that, in order to survive, vocational education must change to meet the needs of society and technology, and also used industrial arts as an example of an “old paradigm” (p. 28). Using Pratzner's conceptional framework and Copa's observation that industrial arts is surely an “old paradigm,” the possibility of an “emerging paradigm” technology education is investigated in this paper. An analogy may be drawn between Pratzner's view of the position of vocational education nationally and the state of IA/TE in Michigan schools. Ironically, Pratzner's perception of what vocational education should be (“developing, applying, and practicing basic skills and higher-order, transferable skills, judgements, and initiative [e.g., problem solving, decision making, planning] required of all learners”) constitutes the philosophical base for what industrial arts education was designed to be (p. 9). It is also ironic that many IA/TE teachers see their programs as prevocational, if not vocational, in scope. This view impedes their coexistence with vocational educators and widens the already existing gap between general education courses and IA/TE laboratories and classrooms. The situation is unfortunate, because IA/TE belongs, both philosophically and historically, within the cluster of courses deemed necessary for the general education of all children.