THE POTENTIAL OF VYGOTSKY’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP AS A PROCEESS OF DEVELOPMENT IN ADULT VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

University of Regina

Abstract

The work of Vygotsky has steadily grown in influence in North America since the 1980s. As one of the leading figures that have influenced modern constructivist thought, Vygotsky’s work has had increasing influence, not only on modern psychological and sociological thought, but also on education. An important concept in his theory is the idea that the potential for cognitive development is limited to a certain time span, which he calls the Zone of Proximal Development [ZPD]. This article analyzes Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, and it links his work on the ZPD to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) views on situated learning and communities of practice, and constructivist theory in general. From the review and analyses of these distinct but not separate approaches to training and development, the article explores the potential implications of the ZPD concept for our understanding of cognitive apprenticeship as a process of development in adult vocational and technical education. Lave and Wenger’s labels for roles and status of apprentice development, underpinned by four ZPD figures, are offered as useful representations of Vygotsky’s work. The article concludes the ZPD concept has implications for the theory and practice of vocational and technical education.

INTRODUCTION

As instructors of vocational and technical education programs, our view of training and development is shaped by the conceptual tools we have available to construct a learning experience for our students and ourselves. In a review of the contribution of cognitive science to training and development, Quinlan and Song (1998) offered the view that apprenticeship has been seen largely as a tool for the development of motor skills, with little to no attention being paid to the ways in which apprentices develop the requisite competence or knowledge base to become members of a community of practice. The authors constructed an argument that vocational educators need to better understand the nature of cognitive apprenticeship and the linkages among education, training, learning and knowledge production if they are to, in turn, better understand the development of competence and their role in the process. As Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) describe it, “cognitive apprenticeship methods try to enculturate [learners] into authentic practices through activity and social interaction in a way similar to that evident…in craft apprenticeship” (p.37). The authors argue that conventional approaches to education and training do not provide authentic activities and, therefore, are not fully productive for useful learning to occur. Cognitive apprenticeship is thus proposed as an alternative to conventional approaches to education and training (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 1997).

By understanding the nature and contribution of cognitive apprenticeship to the development of competence in skills apprenticeships, educators and trainers can create education and training activities that come as close as possible to real work activities where problems do emerge, to be solved by the learner. As Quinlan and Song (1998) explained, the central issue in cognitive apprenticeships is to produce graduates with equal thinking and performance capabilities. Given equal focus to skills development in traditional trades-based apprenticeships, cognitive apprenticeship encourages learners to form their own ideas and help them become conscious and reactive in their engagement in education and training activities (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). By its very nature then, cognitive apprenticeships attempt to make learning take place within the links of a community’s activities, knowledge and culture (Brown & Duguid, 1991).

According to Merriam and Cafarella (1999) some of the key aspects involved in the implementation of successful cognitive apprenticeships relate to the selection of appropriate real-world situations or tasks that are grounded in learner needs, finding the right scaffold builder to do the modeling, and facilitating the development process. Brandt, Farmer, and Buckmaster suggest that successful cognitive apprenticeship instructional models must assist learners to “…express the essence of their thoughts, which may otherwise be unspoken, while they demonstrate how to do a particular aspect of the task” or solve a specific problem (as cited in Merriam & Cafarrella, 1999, p. 245). Merriam and Cafarrella relate that coaching and guiding students as they work through the situations or tasks is also a helpful facilitating process, as well as regulating the task difficulty and providing the necessary support. The authors suggest the outcomes of cognitive apprenticeship are twofold. First, learners internalize what they have learned to enable them to do the task or solve the problem on their own. Second, learners are able to generalize what they have learned to help them to apply their learning to identical contexts and to serve as a starting point for further learning.

In their review of learning in the workplace, Marsick and Volpe (1999, 1997, 1990) note our traditional approaches to training and education are seen as insufficient in that they focus too much on the role of formal and non-formal approaches and undervalue the potential of informal learning. What we need, say Marsick and Volpe, is for organizations to pay more attention to, and foster informal learning in today’s workplaces. Marsick and Volpe (1999) note that organizations are beginning to regard formal training programs as only one learning tool. These organizations are acknowledging that informal learning has always been the most pervasive type of learning in the workplace. Informal learning occurs in all settings of human life, for both individuals and collectives. Indeed, the idea that “unplanned, unorganized learning experiences represent the majority of all adult learning” (Rossing, 1991, p. 45) has wide support. Bruce, Aring, and Brand (1998) have cited evidence that skills for worker and company productivity, acquired by informal learning, comprise as much as 70 percent of all workplace learning. As Wenger (1998) illustrates in his development of a social theory of learning, informal learning underpins all forms of vocational and technical education and training, including cognitive apprenticeships.

To assist us to better understand the role of informal learning in vocational and technical education and training, especially apprenticeship training, this article focuses on the untapped wealth available in the conceptual tools developed by Vygotsky and Lave and Wenger (Little & Quinlan, 1998). Vygotsky created the concept of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as a way for psychologists and educators to think about children’s development and how they learn and develop the problem-solving abilities required to perform a range of developmentallyrelated tasks (Ormrod, 1995). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development connects a general psychological perspective on child development with a pedagogical perspective on instruction. The underlying assumption behind the concept is that psychological development and instruction are socially embedded; to understand them one must analyze the surrounding society and its social relations. While some reviews of Vygotsky’s work on children’s development have been carried out (e.g. Wertsch, 2000, 1991, 1985; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994, 1991; Woolfolk, 1998), little analyses has been conducted on the ZPD and its utility in vocational and technical education and training. Such analyses may help us to understand how adults learn, develop, and maintain the competence to perform the tasks required in their communities of practice.

This article explores the ways in which Vygotsky’s ZPD concept might provide the basis for learning and instruction in adult vocational and technical education and training (Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994, 1991). The focus of the article is Vygotsky’s potential contribution to our understanding of cognitive apprenticeship as a process of development in adult informal vocational and technical education. The work starts with an overview of literature on the ZPD and its potential relationship to Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work on situated learning, and constructivism in general. Lave and Wenger argue that learning, especially learning through apprenticeships is primarily a social activity, rather than an individual phenomenon, and that knowledge is a matter of practical competence gained through participation and engagement in the social enterprises of particular communities of practice. Through the learning process, newcomers or learners gradually move toward full participation in a community of practice, and eventually become part of their community of practice.

The article cites the labels by Lave and Wenger (1991) to represent the levels of development or roles that status apprentices are ascribed in the instructional and learning process. These labels and accompanying figures created by the author are intended to help us start to think about what Vygotsky might have said and drawn if he were asked to describe or depict his Zone of Proximal Development. In particular, the labels and figures speak to the ways Vygotsky’s work may relate to the learning and instructional process in adult vocational and technical education and training, especially in learning in cognitive apprenticeship programs. The article concludes that the ZPD concept has implications for the theory and practice of vocational education and training.

In this article, the terms vocational and technical education and training as well as apprenticeships are used interchangeably to depict all forms of education, training and development where competent practitioners lead the development of learners. While Zone of Proximal Development represents Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, the term range of development is used to depict Lave and Wenger’s concept of status and labels that learners or apprentices acquire in the process of becoming experts in their communities of practice.
LITERATURE REVIEW

The value of Vygotsky’s theory is that he sought to find alternate views to other psychologists like Piaget who said that human development occurred in stages and that learners did not or could not see the world through the eyes of others (Woolfolk, 1998; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1994). According to Zebroski (1994), “…Vygotsky argues that Piaget overemphasizes the intellectual, the biological, the evenness and universality of developmental stages, the evolutionary character of development, the centrality of the individual, and the essential independence of thought and language” (p.195). Vygotsky argued that development was not a cognitive process that occurred inside a person’s head and was separate from the external world in which people lived. Rather he saw development as a continuous learning process that linked one’s current mental networks of association with new experiences gained through contact in, observations about, and reflections on the activities of everyday life. To Vygotsky, teaching and learning were an integrated process in human development. During the teaching and learning process students are expected to actively participate in their own learning through the use of language and interactions with their colleagues and instructors. In describing the Vygotskian concept of the teaching and learning process, Wells (2000, 1999, 1994) states that learning takes place in the context of a purposeful and meaningful activity as learners and teachers work together to create a product that has its own intrinsic value. This purposeful and meaningful activity is viewed as a social process, with the students bringing to the process their own lived experiences as grounded in their own socio-cultural contexts.

According to Wink and Putney (2001), Vygotsky conceptualized the zone of proximal development as a way of viewing what children are coming to know. He noted that children were able to solve problems beyond their actual development level if they were given guidance in the form of prompts or leading questions from someone more advanced. This person, the more capable peer, could be another student, a parent, a mentor, a coach, a guide or a teacher. Vygotsky defined the ZPD as:

The distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (as cited in Wink & Putney, p.86).

As Wink and Putney relate, when students receive instructional support from a more capable peer who happens to be more capable in that particular context, they internalize the new information and will be more able to perform independently in the next similar problem-solving situation. The authors suggest this notion takes into account individual differences among students, and focuses on the communicative nature of learning in which the students come to an understanding of the operations they are performing.

Vygotsky believed that cognitive structures “originate in social activity and, as they develop, are inextricably linked with language, which is itself a social construct. It is through social interactions…that children learn the cognitive and communicative tools and skills of their culture” (as cited in Hodson & Hodson, 1998, p.36). In addition, he understood learning to be a lifelong process within which learners are constantly constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing their knowledge base and skills required to function in the world. Vygotsky believed that teachers should focus on teaching students within the ZPD as the best learning is that which is in advance of the development (Hodson & Hodson, 1998). According to Wertsch, (2000, 1991), Vygotsky argued that development is enhanced by instruction as instruction creates the zone of proximal development.

Like Vygotsky, Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that learning is a function of the activity, context and culture in which it occurs (i.e. it is situated), rather than something that occurs within the minds of individuals as cognitive psychologists have traditionally argued. Learners become involved in a community of practice, which is viewed as a broad characterization encompassing all social relations contained within a community of workers who share similar activities and identities (Wenger, 1998), and who get things accomplished when they come together around mutual engagement in an endeavour (Little & Quinlan, 1998). The term serves as a conceptual tool for understanding learning across different methods, historical periods, and in social and physical environments and, like Vygotsky’s ZPD concept, it plays a major role as experienced professionals or journeypersons go about their day-to-day work activities and newcomers observe and interact with them. On the situated learning view of development, the journeypersons’ task is to provide newcomers with a series of leading activities which, when carried out under their watchful eye, will take the newcomers just outside their current zone of development and cause them to re-think their current views and practices. Communities of practice include unions or other collectives of workers who share a common interest (e.g. industrial arts teachers in a high school, a baseball team, trade instructors in a college, and nurses in a hospital service area) to broader cultural communities (e.g. activists and street-wise youth). In each instance, a community of practice represents a negotiated “set of relations among persons, activity, and [the] world, over time and in relation to other tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 98).

In a community of practice, social relations are created around work, and knowledge and its production becomes part of individual identity and takes its place in the community. As opposed to being created to carry out a task, the shape and membership of a community of practice emerges in the process of activity as people work and learn collaboratively. The structures of communities implicitly and explicitly lay out the terms and conditions for the members’ legitimate participation, and define and set boundaries around their learning. Communities of practice provide an essential context for the social production of knowledge, as well as the interpretative frames necessary for engaging in problem solving and problem finding to make sense of the world. Within the process of developing the knowledge base to become full members of a community, learning is a student’s continuous negotiation with communities of practice, which ultimately gives direction to both the student and the practice. In a sense therefore, the ZPD could be perceived as a boundary for members who are at various levels of competence or learning in a community of practice.

Lave and Wenger (1991) used the term old-timer to represent journeypersons who are competent in their field; not the oldest members in the community of practice. The term is used to identify those with the most expertise in the issue at hand and, on occasion, these roles shift as the journeypersons become newcomers, and newcomers temporarily assume the role of journeypersons. An example of role shifting would be when a police department installs a new computerized communications system in patrol cars and the 25-year service Staff Sergeant is assigned responsibility for technology he or she knows little or nothing about. The Staff Sergeant might ask a young officer to come outside for a minute to discuss some issue. Once away from other journeypersons or professionals, the Staff Sergeant asks the newcomer, likely in an indirect way, to get in a car and explain how the new technology works. In this scenario, the new officer’s exposure to, and understanding of computer technology allows him/her to lead the development of the journeyperson who temporarily occupies the newcomer role.

In this scenario of development outlined in the paragraph above, the young officer serves as Vygotsky’s scaffold builder and provides instruction, advice and guidance to the Staff Sergeant as s/he acquires the requisite knowledge about and skills to use the technology. Upon completion of this role-shifting scenario, the young officer reverts to the newcomer role and continues to develop the competence required to become a full member of the police community of practice, and the Staff Sergeant resumes the control and command function of the rank. As noted previously, the young officer would have to be careful not to take his newcomer too far outside the zone of proximal development, as it would lead to failure on the part of the newcomer.

The works of Vygotsky and Lave and Wenger (1991) are linked to constructivism which, according to Abdal-Haqq (1999) is a theory of learning and meaning-making, not teaching, that offers an explanation of the nature of knowledge and how humans learn. A fundamental principle of constructivism is what we learn is associated with the interpretation of our experiences in relation to new information and how it connects to old information. Learning occurs as individuals construct their own new understandings or knowledge through interaction with and reflection on what they already know and believe, balanced against the ideas, events, people and activities they have contact with in their day-to-day activities. Abdal-Haqq notes constructivist approaches are regarded as producing greater internalization and deeper understanding than traditional methods, and the focus of this paper is on this social constructivism associated with Vygotsky, not psychological constructivism as articulated by Piaget.

As noted in the introduction, Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) have argued that conventional approaches to education and training do not provide authentic activities and, therefore, are not fully productive for useful learning to occur. Cognitive apprenticeship, whose techniques are based on putting learners into authentic practices through activities and social interactions, is proposed as an alternative to conventional approaches to education and training (Shambaugh & Magliaro, 1997). On this view of learning, memory is always under construction as a series of interactions and by assembling prior knowledge relative to the issue at hand. The focus of learning is on reflection and the use of cognitive tools that reflect the wisdom of culture and the insights and experiences of participants. Through interaction with others and by linking the internal and external worlds, humans create meaning themselves, and any interpretation or meaning is always under re-construction. Knowledge emerges in contexts in which it is relevant- the experience must be reflected on to understand what has been learned-and concepts continually evolve with each experience and new use of knowledge. For Shambaugh and Magliaro, learning involves the use of three crucial factors: activity (practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context), and it is facilitated by authentic tasks that are anchored in meaningful contexts such as workplace learning and on-the-job training. Accordingly cognitive apprenticeships are representative of both Shambaugh and Magliaro’s views of learning and the Vygotskian zone of proximal development in which tasks are slightly more difficult than students can manage independently, requiring the aid of their peers and instructor to succeed.

While cognitive scientists were focusing on metacognitive knowledge, which is an individual’s knowledge about her or his own knowledge, skills and abilities, and the processes associated with their development (Brown, 1987), could it be that Vygotsky was focusing on metadevelopment? Metadevelopment may be seen as the development of individuals’ cognitive structures and processes so they understand how they develop their own way of thinking, problem solving, and other higher order cognitive processes. As noted earlier, a central tenet of Vygotsky’s ZPD is that development is preceded by a set of leading activities in which experienced adults or capable peers guide students along a pathway from incompetence to competence (Little & Quinlan, 1998; Werstch, 2000, 1985). In addition, Wink and Putney (2001) report Vygotsky defined the ZPD as the distance between a child’s level of actual development as determined by their ability to independently solve problems, and the higher level of potential development as determined through problem-solving skills developed under the guidance of competent adults or with capable peers. This instruction, however, is good only when it precedes development as it awakens and arouses an entire set of functions or observations which are maturing and which lie in the ZPD (Werstch, 2000, 1985). Ormrod (1995) uses the term competent individual, rather than adult or peer, while Van der Veer and Valsiner (1994) say Vygotsky used the term social other. The role of the adult or capable peer is to build scaffolds, or provide a series of leading activities, which guide the learner’s development process from where he is to, as Wertsch (1985) describes it, “what he not yet is” (p. 67). Vygotsky proposed that “children’s early efforts on difficult tasks (those within the zone of proximal development) are more likely to be successful when they are scaffolded - that is, when those efforts are guided and supported by a more competent individual” (as cited in Ormrod, 1995, p. 368) through the learning and development process. According to Woolfolk (1998), Jerome Bruner coined the term scaffolding to describe the function Vygotsky saw for adults or capable peers in the development of children’s thinking and problem solving skills. ‘Scaffold builders’ must be careful, however, to not take the learners too far outside their zone of proximal development because that will create too much tension, the learners will not be able to make sense of things, and they will likely fail. Alternatively, too little tension can lead to boredom and, again, no development occurs. Bruner described the use of scaffolding this way:

Where before there was a spectator, let there now be a participant. One sets the game, provides a scaffold to ensure that the child’s ineptitudes can be rescued by appropriate intervention, and then removes the scaffold part by part, as the reciprocal structure can stand on its own (as cited in Hodson & Hodson, 1998, p.37).

Clearly then, constructivism serves to bridge Vygotsky’s ZPD and the practice of apprenticeship as revealed by Lave and Wenger (1991). In apprenticeship, the journeyperson, as the experienced adult, conveys the necessary new knowledge to the apprentice, and shows him/her how things are done. Over time, the apprentice develops the problem-solving and problem-finding skills required of a journeyperson through the enactment of a series of roles, and they construct meaning for themselves as they move toward being seen as competent in the trade (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The learning process moves from passive to active and the development of knowledge may be seen as moving along a continuum from knowing how, to knowing what, to knowing when, and knowing why. Said another way, the apprentice uses their declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge and, in the process, s/he develops the contextual or conditional knowledge (Woolfolk, 1998) required of a journeyperson.

McGilly (1994) defines declarative knowledge as knowledge about the world and its properties, while procedural refers to knowledge of how to do things. The third form, contextual or conditional knowledge, is knowledge experts have about context that apprentices do not yet have. In other words, contextual knowledge involves knowing when and where to use declarative and procedural knowledge (Woolfolk, 1998). When we combine these three forms in the expert role, we have the journeyperson moving the apprentice along a continuum from knowingwhat, to knowing-how, to knowing when, where and why activities are performed. Understanding these types of knowledge, and how they fit with the ZPD concept, is important for vocational and technical educators because it is the expert’s ability to lead the apprentice’s development that will shape the learning experience and help determine the learner’s rate of development and range of occupational competence. Obviously, a more effective way of gaining knowledge requires that the acquisition of declarative, procedural and contextual or conditional knowledge should not be separated, and the acquisition of one type of knowledge is interwoven with the others.

Using a situated learning approach to development and the concept of a community of practice, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) research on apprenticeship offers one view on how the ZPD can help us construct or re-construct our view of development and the function of educators in the development process. With apprenticeship as their focus, Lave and Wenger set out to better understand situated learning theory as a conceptual tool for education and instruction. They were interested in how competence is developed in communities of practice as journeypersons provide newcomers with leading activities situated in real time and in real settings. Contrasted with official instruction, which is based on preplanned activities that occur in classrooms and training rooms in contrived time, this organic approach to instruction is based on day-to-day work activities that occur in the workplace in real time (Little & Quinlan, 1998). The key to organic instruction is that we do not want the journeypersons to stop working and start instructing newcomers because the organic approach promotes informal or accidental learning in it purest form. The journeyperson’s primary function is to provide a series of leading activities designed to bring the newcomer’s level of understanding and performance beyond their current level, and the focus of learning is on the newcomer, rather than the focus of instruction being on the journeyperson.

Although Vygotsky never created a graphic of the ZPD, following are four graphics intended to get us thinking about the implications of the Zone for instruction in vocational and technical education and training. The focus of the discussion in the four graphics is cognitive apprenticeship as an instructional process in apprentice development. Using Lave and Wenger’s (1991) framework of roles and status ascribed apprentices as they move from novice to expert in their occupation, the figures are labeled Status Subordinate, Learning Practitioner, Sole Responsible Agent for a ‘Minor’ Part in the Performance, and Aspiring Expert. Lave and Wenger used the terms old-timer and newcomer to depict the master-apprentice or expert-novice relationship, and to differentiate between the journeyperson who provides the leading activities and the apprentice who is operating in her or his zone of proximal development.
VYGOTSKY’S ZPD AS A CONCEPTUAL TOOL FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF COGNITIVE APPRENTICESHIP

The four figures presented in the succeeding pages of this article are graphic representations of Vygotsky’s ZPD. The angle lines in each of the figures are intended to serve a purpose similar to the border crossings Wenger (1998) uses to denote the crossing points of communities of practice. The lines are not used to suggest each individual fits into the particular range. The dark shading is used to depict the idea that an individual’s current ZPD is comprised of a solid base of current knowledge and skills, while the fading-away area serves to indicate individuals are moving outside their ZPD; if taken too far across the border crossing they may become incompetent.

Figure 1 represents the initial range of development Vygotsky might have been thinking about in developing the ZPD concept. In apprenticeship, Lave and Wenger (1991) labeled this range of development as Status Subordinate to portray the role and status apprentices hold in the training process. The status subordinate role both requires and allows newcomers to step back and observe the journeypersons in action without being burdened with assignments they are yet unable to fulfill, and the newcomers are not held responsible for any part of the community’s operational activities. In this role, the apprentices may begin what Vygotsky coined as self-talk and inner speech (as cited in Ormrod, 1995) to help guide and direct their own behaviors through difficult tasks and complex maneuvers in much the same way as their journeypersons have guided them. To rephrase Ormrod’s (1995) statement, ‘Do they begin to build their own scaffolding?’
Status Subordinate
Figure 1. Status Subordinate

If, say, an outsider were to observe journeypersons going about their day-to-day routines they might seem to be neglecting the newcomers. This benign neglect, however, is a recognition of the newcomer’s ZPD and it allows the newcomer to observe the journeypersons in action and participate peripherally in the community of practice without the threat and anxiety of being asked to take on prematurely assigned tasks and responsibilities. At this early point in their development, status subordinates are expected to gain an understanding of community culture, to begin taking on the identity of the community, and to develop the sense of knowing where and when not to interrupt the work and ask questions. The newcomer’s function at this point in time is to note puzzling aspects of the practice as the journeyperson goes about the work and bring them up later at an appropriate time and space. It is in this initial ZPD that emerging members begin to identify with the community of practice.

In police service organizations, for example, newcomers or new employees may start to take on the language, dress, body stance, and actions that typify a full member, and then begin to internalize the values that commit one to engage in the practice. The duties assigned new officers may appear to be menial at first glance, but they place them in contact with experienced officers and in situations where they become privy to an unending stream of stories about the community and its practice. The benefit of this approach is it allows the experienced professionals to go about a detachment’s operational activities in an uninterrupted way that serves as a natural observation model for new officers who are interested in developing the identity and knowledge base and to engage competently in policing activities.

As Status Subordinates in communities of practice, newcomers develop the ability to act appropriately by paying their dues and by being willing to abide by commonly accepted rules and customs of how members are supposed to act within the community. When members join a fire department, for example, they take on its trappings in order to participate and make sense of things; however, once these new members have the lay of the land they begin to put their own brand on things (Little & Quinlan, 1998). This approach to development reflects current demands for training and development to focus on situating activities in real world contexts and promoting informal learning through coaching and mentoring, using multiple perspectives and collaborative approaches, and promoting social negotiation and reflection. There is also an emphasis on recognizing the learner’s knowledge and competence to manipulate and apply information, and on the need for information to be presented in different ways and at different times relative to purpose, process and readiness of learner (Quinlan & Song, 1998). Are these not tenets of the ZPD concept? In line with the constructivist approach, the emphasis is on learning processes which use and promote the development of problem finding and problem solving skills, and which advance the view that knowledge resides within a community of practice and not in any one individual’s head.

Having met the journeyperson’s requirements for the Status Subordinate role, the apprentice is invited into the next range of development, Learning Practitioner. The moving into this next range of development serves as an indicator that the newcomer’s ZPD has expanded and s/he will gain closer contact with the journeypersons as they go about their day-to-day activities.

Figure 2 represents the second or succeeding range of development Vygotsky might have been thinking about in developing the ZPD concept. Lave and Wenger (1991) labeled the role and status ascribed to the apprentice in this range as Learning Practitioner. The transition into the learning practitioner role makes it possible for newcomers, after their initial period of simply observing the journeypersons in action as Status Subordinates, to perform routine tasks in concert with them. To occupy the newcomers’ time and mind, and to give structure to their experience and development, the journeypersons assign these seemingly insignificant tasks that can be performed without any prerequisite capabilities, other than having previously observed the journeypersons performance of the same or a similar task.
Learning Practitioner
Figure 2. Learning Practitioner

This initiation into practice enhances the newcomer’s capacity to more closely observe the community’s practices and creates other opportunities for informal participation in productive activities. By helping with certain minimal aspects of the work, newcomers gain a more intimate understanding of organizational practice, and the direct engagement serves to further develop the newcomers’ identity with the community as they use the tools, wear the artifacts, and develop the social and occupational norms associated with the practice. As a learning practitioner, the apprentice may advance in the use of self-talk and inner speech as they actually engage in parts of the duties and are being guided toward participation in more difficult tasks and complex maneuvers.

The benign neglect that was observed in the status subordinate role is less evident in this range of development as journeypersons, while going about their day-to-day activities and engaging the newcomers in them, are able to unobtrusively assess the newcomer’s potential for taking on more responsible tasks. This focus on potential dovetails with Vygotsky’s view that “it is just as crucial, if not more so, to measure the level of potential development as it is to measure the level of actual development” (as cited in Wertsch, 1985, p. 68). Although not being solely responsible for the completion of essential tasks in this stage, the learning practitioner gets to assist in performing them and, in so doing, expands their zone of proximal development. By virtue of being involved in some of the work, the newcomer is better positioned to make sense of the lunchroom stories and to, on occasion, add a minor note or explanation to them. This engagement can serve to build on the newcomers’ understanding of organizational culture and their knowledge base about the community and nature of work, while expanding the zone of proximal development.

Two questions arise here for us to think about in terms of our view of development:

1. Do we see development as a verb? Is it the journeyperson who expands the newcomer’s ZPD?
2. Alternatively, do we see development as a noun? Is the expanded ZPD a result of the newcomer’s growing ability to use and further develop problem solving and problem finding skills as an outcome of being directly engaged in work activities?

Like status subordinates, learning practitioners continue to observe and note aspects of the practice and bring them up for questioning and examination at a later and appropriate time and place. By this point in time the apprentice has gained some insight into the hands-on aspects of the practice and has been involved peripherally in the problem-solving processes associated with work. Reflection on practice is an ongoing aspect of work by now as the apprentices engage in discussions with journeypersons and further develop their cognitive capacities through the use of self-talk and inner speech as tools for development. As the apprentice’s ZPD expands into a third and next range of development, that of Sole Responsible Agent for a ‘Minor’ Part in the Performance, the journeyperson has to decide if and when to give the newcomer a knowing wink and nod. This very significant signal serves as an indicator of the journeyperson’s informed judgement about the newcomer’s apparent readiness to make the transition and to more fully engage in the activities of the community of practice.

Figure 3 represents the third and continuous range of development Vygotsky might have been thinking about in his ZPD concept. Lave and Wenger (1991) labeled this range as Sole Responsible Agent for a ‘Minor’ part in the Performance to portray the role and status of apprentices as their ZPD expands and their competence advances to a new level. As Little and Quinlan (1998) found in their research into the development of competence in fire departments, the sole responsible agent for a ‘minor’ part in the performance role unfolds when the journeyperson decides the newcomer has the basic level of competence to be assigned responsibility for a minor part of the work. The transition from the learning practitioner into the sole responsible agent role means that the journeyperson has deemed the newcomer competent enough to be assigned some responsibility for the sole performance of certain aspects of the work. By this point in time, the newcomer has acquired this capacity largely by standing back and watching the journeyperson going aboutthe work and thinking about how they might do it - self-talk and inner speech working again! Eventually, by being assigned and successfully completing small tasks associated with a major activity (e.g. washing and placing pistons in the cylinders of an engine the mechanic is rebuilding), and demonstrating the right mix of thinking and acting skills at the appropriate time, the newcomer is invited to perform a task alone and can do so to the required standard (e.g. install the engine’s crankshaft and connect the pistons with minor supervision). From the ZPD perspective, the journeyperson, after extensive interaction with newcomers in the task and social contexts of work, is able to use this third range of development as a basis for constructing or assigning the tasks that will lead to the newcomers’ development within their current ZPD.
Sole Responsible Agent
Figure 3. Sole Responsible Agent for a ‘Minor’ part in the Performance

As Figure 3 depicts, by using Vygotsky’s notion of scaffold building, and gradually assigning an increasing number of minor parts in the performance of work activities, the journeypersons continue to nourish the newcomers’ understanding and internalization of the community and its culture and identity. The journeypersons also continue to promote the development of higher order problem solving and problem finding skills by now engaging newcomers in juryrigging and bootstrapping operations (Little & Quinlan, 1998). The introduction to juryrigging and bootstrapping at this point in their development places a whole new set of performance expectations on the apprentice, and this demand for higher order thinking and development dovetails neatly into Vygotsky’s scheme of development.

Problem solving scenarios, or juryrigging incidents, emerge when journeypersons are faced with an immediate operational problem and the newcomers observe them as they draw on their current knowledge and competence to come up with a solution and take immediate action to resolve the problem. Development in the problem-finding mode, or bootstrapping situation, occurs as journeypersons gather in some time or location away from day-to-day activities and begin to talk and think about how work gets done and how they resolved the latest problem in action. By drawing on ideas gained through these discussions, and through knowledge gained from memberships in other communities of practice, the journeypersons find problems they never knew existed and devise new ways to perform the work or to deal with old problems (Little & Quinlan, 1998). As the newcomers observe, listen to, and make minor contributions to these various activities and discussions, they develop an increasing level of competence and continue to develop and expand their problem solving and problem finding skills, structures and processes. As the ZPD expands, the sole responsible agents begin their transition into the fourth and next role and status, that of the Aspiring Expert. Having assigned newcomers responsibility for the sole performance of certain activities and engaging them in helping to resolve immediate problems as they arise, the journeyperson has encouraged the acquisition and development of the practical skills and higher order mental functions required in the aspiring expert role.

The final figure in this article, Figure 4, represents the fourth in a continuum of development Vygotsky might have been thinking about in developing the ZPD concept, and Lave and Wenger saw as the final stage of apprenticeship. Lave and Wenger (1991) labeled this stage Aspiring Expert to communicate that an apprentice had achieved the community’s required level of competence as a journeyperson, expert practitioner, or professional, and is now recognized by other experience professionals or journeypersons as a peer holding similar roles and status. The transition into the aspiring expert role makes it possible for the former newcomer to lead the development of the newest newcomers and to operate side by side and on par with other journeypersons.
Aspiring Expert
Figure 4. Aspiring Expert

The rite of passage to aspiring expert status is typically the result of having successfully performed an assigned range of sole-performance tasks. The newcomer, with experience in performing work activities, and having been deemed competent by a journeyperson, is now able and accepted to converse about matters of practice, in both organic and official settings. On the ZPD view of development, these advanced-level discussions represent constructive critiques of the practice and lead to further development of problem solving and problem finding skills, structures and processes.

Lave and Wenger (1991) carefully chose the term Aspiring Expert to communicate that people never become expert. In the process of using our skills and knowledge to perform some aspect of work or everyday life, we discover both what we know and do not know. It is the aspiring to know what we do not know that provided Lave and Wenger the label to represent their view of journeyperson development. The unclosed graphic in Figure 4 depicts this view that, just as the journeypersons as experts think they have it figured out, they temporarily return, over and over, to the newcomer role and status as they continue their development of occupational competence. In this way, the aspiring experts’ zones of proximal development never close as they go about the business of acquiring new skills and sensitivities required in the performance of work. A final note to this view of development is that, by the fourth stage of development, the journeypersons have reproduced themselves in the newcomers and, in so doing; they reproduce the community of practice. The newly-confirmed journeypersons, in turn, take new members under their wing and the process of re-producing both the membership and the practice continues. The newly-confirmed journeyperson has also gained the privilege of contributing to the repertoire of stories by adding new ones and embellishing those that already comprise the community’s identity, culture, and legacy.
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE ZPD CONCEPT FOR THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

As a conceptual tool for understanding the education and training process in today’s institutions and workplaces, the article has explored the ways in which Vygotsky’s ZPD concept might provide the basis for instruction in adult vocational and technical education and training. The focus of the article was Vygotsky’s potential contribution to our understanding of cognitive apprenticeship as a process of development in adult informal vocational and technical education and training. Cognitive apprenticeship emphasizes teaching learners different ways of thinking about whatever they are learning, as well as any skills associated with the apprenticeship. Based on a study of different forms of cognitive apprenticeships, Brandt, Farmer, and Buckmaster (1993) have offered a clear description of cognitive apprenticeship as a process of instruction. A model developed by Farmer, Buckmaster and LeGrand suggests cognitive apprenticeship “starts with deliberate instruction by someone who acts as a model; it then proceeds to modelguided trials by practitioners who progressively assume more responsibility for their learning (as cited by Merriam & Cafarrella, 1999, p. 243). This view dovetails neatly with the ZPD concept, which suggests instructors and other scaffold builders should focus on teaching students within the ZPD as the best learning is that which occurs in advance of the student’s development. It is in the ZPD that scaffolding plays a key role as it enables the instructors to present new ideas in advance of the student’s development, and to create opportunities for students to use and take control of those ideas (Hodson & Hodson, 1998). The discussion of the four figures in the preceding pages indicate that Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development is potentially a useful and effective conceptual tool or model for instruction in cognitive apprenticeships in vocational education programs. Knowing about the ZPD’s untapped value in informal learning is essential if we are to maximize the development opportunities that exist on the factory floor of our communities of practice. Accordingly, a comprehensive analysis of the ZPD might reveal exciting ways for looking at the theory and practice of training and development in vocational and technical education.

In addition to cognitive apprenticeships in informal adult vocational education programs, the ZPD concept can be applied also to instruction in other forms of formal and non-formal vocational and technical education and training programs, including anchored instruction. Anchored instruction “provides a way to recreate some of the advantages of apprenticeship training in formal educational settings” (as cited by Merriam & Cafarella, 1999, p. 245). Merriam and Cafarella relate the purpose of anchored instruction is to create situations in which learners, through sustained experiences, can grapple with the problems and opportunities that experts or experienced professionals encounter in the workplace. The goal of anchored instruction is to have learners “experience what it is like to grow from novices who have only rudimentary knowledge…to relatively sophisticated experts who have explored an environment from multiple points of view” (as cited in Merriam and Cafarella, p. 245). Like in the ZPD concept, it is important that learners do not remain dependent on the scaffold of instructor assistance. In addition, it is critical that instructors are able to judge when learners are ready, and when they need to take control of some aspects of their learning. As Hodson and Hodson (1998) relate, this requires some sensitivity on the part of the instructor to each student’s current learning needs.

The ZPD concept is also applicable to on-the-job training (OJT) as well as cooperative education programs. Learning in OJT programs is guided by the view that knowledge emerges in contexts in which it is relevant and concepts continually evolve with each experience and new use of knowledge. According to Shambaugh and Magliaro (1997), learning in such programs involves the use of three crucial factors: activity (practice), concept (knowledge), and culture (context), and it is facilitated by authentic tasks that are anchored in the contexts. As well, the acquisition of declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge in OJT programs is not perceived as separated; rather the acquisition of one knowledge type is interwoven with the others for effective learning to take place. OJT can take several forms including apprenticeship training, coaching and mentoring. Coaching involves the provision of one-on-one guidance and instruction to improve the knowledge, skills, and work performance of employees. It is usually directed at employees with performance deficiencies, and it is the coach’s responsibility to successfully guide the deficient employee toward satisfactory performance (Blanchard & Thacker, 1998). Mentoring is widely perceived as an interpersonal relationship where “…a mentor is someone who helps someone else learn something that she would have learned less well, more slowly, or not at all if let alone” (Bell, 2000, p.53). All forms of mentoring relationships involve a senior person or trusted individual usually referred to as the mentor or scaffold builder, and a junior person known as the mentee, newcomer or learner. Like coaches, mentors or journeypersons usually have considerable professional and work experience and expertise in a particular area and it their responsibility to assist in the development of their mentees. Cooperative education programs seek to integrate classroom and workplace learning. Students are able to operationalize academic knowledge through relevant, paid, work experiences with discipline-specific employers. Using the ZPD concept, mentors, coaches, instructors and other individuals involved in different forms of OJT and cooperative education programs must be careful to not take the learners too far outside their comfort level in the development process. Their role is to act as scaffold builders by providing a series of learning activities to guide the learners and mentees in the development process.

A key underpinning of Vygotsky’ ZPD concept is for educators, instructors, mentors, and other scaffold builders to understand that all learners have levels of competence in their fields within a certain range, and one of the key purposes of training and development in vocational and technical education is to stretch them beyond that range so they gain increased levels of knowledge and further develop the competence to engage in the activities of a community of practice. At the same time, however, educators, instructors, mentors, and other scaffold builders in vocational and technical education and training programs must be careful to not take their learners too far outside their zone of proximal development because that will create too much tension and the learner will not be able to make sense of things and they will likely fail. Alternately, too little tension can lead to boredom and, again, no development and learning might occur. In the case of the status subordinate, for example, newcomers or learners in apprenticeship programs are seen as being competent only within their zone and the journeypersons serve as scaffold builders by providing instruction, advice and guidance as newcomers acquire the requisite skills and competence to become full members of a community of practice. Again, using the concept of zone means knowing that learning involves a degree of tension and uncertainty, and the journeypersons’, mentors’ and instructors’ role is to provide the right degree of tension so newcomers are not taken too far outside their ZPD where they feel and are seen as incompetent (Little & Quinlan, 1998). Educators in all forms of vocational and technical education and training programs must understand and use a variety of approaches to instruction and learning. They must also endeavour to understand the students within their socio-cultural contexts. According to Wink and Putney (2001), this notion suggests that educators and other scaffold builders should take into account individual differences among students, and the communicative nature of the learning process through which students learn and develop.

To use the ZPD as a conceptual tool or model for instruction, educators and other scaffold builders should be familiar with the principles underlying the concept, particularly with respect to both an individual’s current level of preparedness to engage in activities and the individual’s right to become involved in or withdraw from any situation. An educator’s understanding of the concept of zone will play a pivotal role in determining whether newcomers or learners are engaged or disengaged in the process of learning and development. In applying the ZPD concept as an instructional tool or model for all forms vocational and technical education programs including apprenticeships, mentorships, anchored instruction, cooperative education, and onthe- job training, educators and other scaffold builders can also view the students’ zone of proximal development as their zone of comfort or zone of competence around their current understanding and sense of knowledge and competence to perform the work.

A few questions are worthy of some further exploration. For example, is there a community of practice Zone of Proximal Development? If so, how does it differ from the individual ZPD, and what are its implications for corporate training and development in a world that increasingly depends on advanced levels of problem solving, problem finding, and knowledge creation? Likewise, does the ZPD have application in or across boundaries of what Wenger (1998) refers to as Constellations of Practice? Second, can Vygotsky’s notion of individual development be applied to community organizations? Do communities themselves have zones of proximal development? If so, how can community development and community education specialists use the ZPD in their practice? Third, in what ways can we maximize the benefits to be derived from workplace initiatives such as cooperative education, mentoring, coaching, and similar programs by using the ZPD as a conceptual tool?

Using the oilfield practice of delineation to explore the ZPD’s potential for development enables the various fields and disciplines of education and training to look for aspects that hold potential for improving their own practice, while coming back to Vygotsky’s central theme of development being a lifelong process. This article has suggested that the ZPD concept has tremendous potential for use as a basis of instruction in cognitive apprenticeship and other forms of formal and non-formal adult vocational and technical education and training programs such as anchored instruction, mentoring, and cooperative education programs. If elementary and secondary school vocational and technical educators, college and institute instructors, community health educators, police detachments, fire departments, seniors organizations, and other communities of practice were to pursue further analyses about the ZPD and its potential implications for training and development, we could continue the work Vygotsky began almost three-quarters of a century ago; discovering more about how we learn, develop, and maintain the competencies required for problem solving and finding; not only in today’s knowledge-producing and technologydriven organization, but also in everyday life.
REFERENCES

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1999). Constructivism in teacher education: Considerations for those who would link practice to theory. ERIC Digest, June 1999. Retrieved on November 20, 2001 from Wisiwgy://58/http://orders.edrs.com/members/sp.cfm.

Bell, P. (2000). The mentor as partner. Training and Development, 54(2), 52-56.

Blanchard, P. N. & Thacker, J. W. (1998). Effective training: systems, strategies and practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Brandt, B. L., Farmer, J. A., & Buckmaster, A. (1993). Cognitive apprenticeship approach to helping adults learn. In D. D. Flannery (Ed.), Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning (pp. 69-78). San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinart & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.

Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.

Bruce, L. Aring M. K., & Brand, B. (1998). Informal learning: The new frontier of employee and organizational development. Economic Development Review, 15(4), 12-18.

Hodson, D. & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: a Vygotskian perspective on teaching and learning science. School Science Review, 79, 33-40.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Little, D. & Quinlan, K. (1998). Growing Saskatchewan fire service competence. Regina. SK: Growcom Consulting.

Marsick, V. J. & Volpe, M. (1999). The nature of and need for informal learning: Advances in developing human resources. San Francisco, CA: The Academy of Human Resource Development and Berrett-Koehler Communications.

Marsick, V. J. & Volpe, M. (1997). Lessons from informal and incidental learning. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 295- 311). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marsick, V. J. & Volpe, M. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace. New York, NY: Routledge.

McGilly, K. (1994). Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Boston, MA: MIT.

Merriam S. B. & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Ormrod, J. E. (1995). Human learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Quinlan, K. & Song, Y. (1998). Cognitive theory: its implications for vocational education and training. Canadian Vocational Journal, 33(3), 5-8.

Rossing, B. E. (1991). Patterns of informal and incidental learning: Insights from community action. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 10(1), 45-60.

Shambaugh, R. N. & Magliaro, S. G. (1997). Mastering the possibilities: A process approach to instructional design. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1994). The Vygotsky reader. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 51-85). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (1994). Introduction: Teacher research and educational change. In G. Wells (Ed.), Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry (pp.1-35). Toronto, ON: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (2000). Vygotsky’s two minds on the nature of meaning. In C. D. Lee and P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp.19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wink, J. & Putney, L. G. (2001). A vision of Vygotsky. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

Woolfolk, A. E. (1998). Educational psychology. Toronto, ON: Allyn and Bacon.

Zebroski, J. T. (1994). Thinking through theory: Vygotskian perspectives on the teaching of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Posted by admin Posted in: ST&HV No Comments » July 2008

USING CASE-STUDY ANALYSIS IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION RESEARCH

Patrick N. Foster

Central Connecticut State University

Abstract

Case-study analysis is an appropriate choice for educational researchers who investigate a topic in depth. There are a number of recent examples of the application of case-study models in Canadian and European research of technology and industrial education, but far fewer from the U.S. This paper provides researchers with information useful in identifying problems suitable for case-study research, conducting methodological literature reviews, and employing the methodologies associated with case-study analysis. Two types of sources were consulted to identify the theory and application of casestudy analysis for technology education: the recent methodological literature, and recent ethnographic studies which used case-study models. Such models were found to be appropriate to answer unresolved questions in technology education research. The paper concludes with recommendations for the application of case-study models to such research questions.

INTRODUCTION

Case-study analysis is often an appropriate choice for technology and industrial-education researchers who seek to investigate a topic in depth. In addition, such models may be wellsuited to answering many questions recognized by the field as requiring further research.

The goal of this paper is to provide researchers with information useful in identifying problems suitable for case-study research, conducting methodological literature reviews, and employing the methodologies associated with case-study analysis. The paper concludes with recommendations for the application of case-study models to such research questions.
BACKGROUND

Case-study analysis is one means researchers have for testing research questions. In technology and industrial education, the most typical procedure is for the researcher to visit a site many times, conducting observations and interviews, which are recorded by hand or mechanically on audio- or videotape. The data from these visits are then analyzed and synthesized in response to the research questions. A straightforward example is Evanciew and Rojewski’s (1999) skill-andknowledge acquisition study.

Although they had several specific research questions, the overarching goal of Evanciew and Rojewski’s research was to “explore, examine, and describe…interactions that occurred between mentors and apprentices” in youth work programs (p. 26). The researchers selected a casestudy model because it allowed them to actually “see and understand the types of interactions…between mentors and apprentices in workplace settings” (p. 28).

Case-study research was an appropriate choice for Evanciew and Rojewski’s study-as well as for several other recent industrial-education studies-not only because these studies seek to investigate a topic in depth, but also because they investigate an area in which little prior research has been done; thus, they are exploratory. Case-study models are often appropriate in exploratory research because such research necessarily has ill-defined research questions.

There are several good examples of the application of case-study models in Canadian and European research of technology and industrial education. Dhillon and Moreland (1996) investigated competency-based teacher in-servicing; Hansen (1998) studied the socialization experiences of two technology teachers; and Twyford and Järvinen (2000) studied how children form technological concepts (see also Järvinen & Hiltunen, 2000). In a rare example of a personal experience case-study, Braundy (2000) used first-person language to describe the struggles of a woman in a male-dominated field.

There are fewer examples from the U.S. (e.g., Evanciew & Rojewski, 1999; Foster & Wright, 2001), although the attitude of U.S. journal editors seems to be favorable to qualitative research in general (Lewis, 1999; Custer, 1997; Hoepfl, 1997) and despite their publication of case-study research from abroad. Only a few researchers have expressed concern that too little experimental research is reported in technology-education journals (Haynie, 1998; cf. Petrina, 1998).

APPROPRIATENESS OF CASE STUDIES IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

We in technology education must employ the paradigm that can best answer the questions we wish to have answered. If we stick to tried and true paradigms, the consequence is that certain key kinds of questions will not be asked or answered. (Lewis, 1999, p. 52).

Hoepfl (1997) cites reports by Karen Zuga and Scott Johnson, two of the best-known researchers in the field, calling for the increased use of qualitative methods. Several other influential writers in the field (e.g. Lewis, 1999; Petrina, 1998) have agreed with this assessment.

In proposing a research agenda for technology education, Foster (1996) noted that “rhetoric abounds, but what is needed now is hard data” (p. 33). An article by Jackson (1996), a firstgrade teacher, illustrates this point relative to technology education. From her own experience as a classroom teacher, she asserts that “the instructor does not have to be mechanically inclined to achieve success” in technology education (p. 11). Although this assertion falls on the “rhetoric” side of Foster’s rhetoric-hard-data dichotomy, it is nonetheless valuable information, as it relates the practical experience of a teacher. Yet it is not research-based data. As Zuga (1996) wrote, few claims made for technology education have been substantiated with structured research.

Krathwohl (1993) identified several types of educational problems appropriately addressed via qualitative methods. At the top of this list are problems where “research is lacking in an area and must emphasize discovery rather than validation or confirmation” (p. 352). Krathwohl also suggested these characteristics of problems suitable for qualitative analysis: a “well-grounded explanation of a phenomenon” is desired; “the focus of the study is on a process…more than on a product;” and “side effects or unexpected consequences may be important” (p. 352-353). See Hoepfl (1997) for a primer on qualitative methods in technology education research.

The implication of comments made by those who have observed trends in recent technology education literature is that (a) the field lacks foundational research in many areas (e.g., Foster, 1996), and that (b) much of the available research may be “methodologically flawed” (Johnson, 1993, p. 29). Custer (1997) has noted an increase in the use of non-quantitative methods in industrial education in general.

In fact, a reasonable argument could be made that given the dearth of foundational research in technology education, nearly all research in the field could be regarded as exploratory-and that therefore qualitative methods may be appropriate for many areas of technology education research.
THEORY OF CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

For the purposes of this paper, qualitative research methods yield data that cannot be manipulated mathematically; they are thus differentiated from quantitative methods. Ethnographic research attempts to explain the interrelationships of individuals, groups, and phenomena. It almost always relies on several methods, which are usually qualitative. Thus ethnography and qualitative methods are often treated simultaneously in the literature (e.g., Charles & Mertler, 2002; c.f. Badke, 2000, who devotes a chapter to case studies). Case-study research often uses ethnographic methods (Stake, 1994, 1998).

ETHNOGRAPHY AND QUALITATIVE METHODS

Regarding ethnographic research methods, Cole (1991) noted that “methods associated mainly with the field of anthropology are gaining in popularity and use in the educational research community” (p. 185). Despite this popularity, ethnographic methods in education “have not become the predominant mode of educational inquiry” (Goodson & Magan, 1991, p. 25). Some of the reasons for this are external, such as funding problems and the popularity of increasing complex quantitative designs. Another problem is that interpretations of ethnographic data are largely subjective (Peshkin, 2000).

In technology education, the argument for ethnography and other qualitative research has often been that quantitative or descriptive studies are insufficient for the questions the field needs to have answered (Zuga, 1997; Lewis, 1999; Petrina, 1998).

The purpose conducting a case study, Stake (1998) wrote, is to learn as much as possible from that case, not to generalize beyond that case. Mitchell (1984) defined case study analysis as “the detailed presentation of ethnographic data relating to some sequence of events from which the analyst seeks to make some theoretical significance” (p. 237); “As a form of research,” Stake suggested, “case study is defined by interest in individual cases, not by the methods of inquiry used” (p. 86).

Disadvantages of Case-Studies. While case study models can provide rich and meaningful data not easily yielded by other means, they bring with them several disadvantages. Except in unusual circumstances, findings from case studies are not generalizable to a larger population (Stake, 1998). Even when this is recognized, Stake noted, the power of a case study can be blunted if too much attention is placed on generalization or the generation of an overarching theory. Case-study analysis also is susceptible to the same reliability and validity pitfalls of all qualitative research.

ENSURING QUALITY

Most writers share a common concern with accuracy and so seek to gauge how close measures come to reflecting the true state of affairs. Yet different writers use terms like agreement, reliability, and validity and mean quite different things by them… (Bakeman, 2000, p. 149).

Notions of reliability and validity in case-study research are difficult to conceptualize, much less quantify. As Jansen and Peshkin (1992) put it, “those in qualitative research who have become comfortable with subjectivity…are reconciled to phenomena that they perceive, interpret, and construct and that they take as ambiguous, protean, and complex” (p. 717). When a methodological decision must be made in studying a case site, Stake (1994) said, “each researcher will make up his or her own mind” (p. 238)-unlike the experimental researcher whose decisions may be standardized.

Validity. In general research, “validity is the term most used to judge the quality or merit of a particular study” (Gliner & Morgan, 2000, p. 82). Before the 1980s, “valid research was distinguished from invalid research in terms of the extent to which the proper procedures were properly applied” (Smith, 1990, p. 168-169). This empirical view is slowly being replaced by a view that good methodology alone will not guarantee quality research. Guba and Lincoln (1998) have identified three prevailing conceptions of how the “goodness or quality” (p. 213) of a study should be evaluated: postpositivism, or the use of “conventional benchmarks of rigor;” constructivism, which focuses on “trustworthiness” and “authenticity;” and critical theory, which is to be judged by the “extent to which it provides a stimulus to action” (p. 213-214). Seale (1999) describes several perspectives on critical theory, all of which “argue that the quality of research should be judged in terms of its political effects” (p. 9). Given the technology education field’s goals of better positioning the study of technology in U.S. public education, critical theory research may be very appropriate for technology education.

Reliability. In some areas of ethnographic research, identification of reliability is straightforward. If answers to interview or questionnaire items may be termed “correct” or “incorrect,” for example, the Spearman-Brown Prophesy Formula may be employed to identify the reliability of the item set (Weller & Romney, 1988). But when the answers are not known ahead of time, substitutions may have to be made for such traditional methods of estimating reliability.
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

There are four general considerations in designing a study using a case-study model: case selection, the role of the researcher in the classroom, data collection, and data analysis and interpretation. The following sections discuss each of these in turn.

CASE SELECTION

It seems self-evident that selecting an appropriate case to study is essential to quality case-study analysis. Krathwohl (1993) developed this typology of cases: model cases, which are clear-cut, representative cases, but not necessarily exemplary ones; contrary cases, which are missing one or more defining characteristics, and are useful in identifying the boundaries of the research territory; borderline cases, which more precisely elucidate these boundaries, and which may or may not be useful to study; related cases, which are almost the same as the cases under study, but for some reason (other than simply missing a defining characteristic) are not representative; and invented cases, constructed by the researcher (p. 149; 150-153).

The instance of a commercially commissioned study of the effectiveness of Synergistic modules in middle-school technology education may be illustrative. In addition to their primary focus site, Harnisch, Gierl, and Migotsky (1995a, 1995b) studied four other sites, constituting a design that implies that they sought to reduce error by increasing the number of cases. In experimental research, this would demand that random sampling be employed for case selection. It made sense for Harnisch and his associates to employ (nonscientific) sampling, however, because (a) the program being studied existed in hundreds of U.S. schools at the time, and (b) the program is somewhat standardized. But these are uncommon circumstances in studies appropriate for ethnographic research.

Searching for and studying what he called the “typical” case is often an attempt at the randomization or adequate sampling expectations in qualitative research. Mitchell (1984) suggested that finding and reporting a “telling” case can “serve to make previously obscure theoretical relationships suddenly apparent” (p. 239). The argument in favor of studying the exemplary case is compelling, but so is the notion that, since recommendations from many educational ethnographies will necessarily be made for the typical classroom, there is merit to the argument that the typical case be studied; indeed, in educational research, the typical classroom cannot be ignored.

ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER IN THE CLASSROOM

When a classroom is selected to be studied, an important decision to be made before datacollection strategies can be identified is the explanation-if any-the students will be given about the researcher’s presence. Fine and Sandstrom (1988) discussed this issue in detail, presenting three basic tactics the researcher can use: deep cover, shallow cover, and what may be termed no cover. Fine and Sandstrom acknowledged that entering the classroom with no pretenses is without ethical peer in the short term. But, they noted, this too has its drawbacks. Regardless of the stance taken, the researcher will always affect his or her research; this is an accepted consequence of ethnography. “The potential for ethical problems is exacerbated as a result of the development of nontraditional research methodologies” such as participant observation (Hammack, 1997, p. 247).

DATA COLLECTION

After deciding on a case to study and the role of the researcher in the classroom, the researcher should anticipate the range of data collection strategies to be used. While it is not essential to determine all of these in advance, as a researcher would in an experimental study, such planning will help ensure that the researcher has the necessary resources (e.g., tape recorders, interest inventories, etc.) in the field when they are needed (see Fontana & Frey, 1994; Hall, 1999).

To address their research questions, ethnographers typically use several research methods, which in turn yield several types of data (see Weller & Romney, 1988). The structured and overlapping employment of multiple research methods, multiple researchers, and/or multiple data sources is referred to as triangulation. In technology and industrial education research, the three most common forms of data collection are observation, interviews, and document analysis (Genzuk, 2001; e.g., Evanciew & Rojewski, 1999; Foster & Wright, 2001).

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

Data from observations vary from “written text that follows a free-association form” to highly structured inventories (Adler & Adler, 1994, p. 380). Notes should refer to “participants, interactions, routines, rituals, temporal elements, interpretations, and social organization” (p. 380). Adler and Adler echoed Goodson and Magan (1991), who noted that observations over time typically evolve from being unfocused, general, and descriptive to being more focused, selective, and in-depth.

Most educational researchers choose participant observation as a means of gathering observation data; essentially they become involved, however tangentially, in the teaching and learning they are observing. Participant observation has a number of drawbacks, most notably that due to its high level of subjectivity, it always requires additional techniques for triangulation. If a researcher decides to employ participant observation, then, additional methodologies must be selected as well. “Clearly, observation is not enough” (Pitman, 1991, p. 97).

INFORMANTS AND FOCUS GROUPS

“Ethnographers supplement what they learn through participant observation by interviewing people who can help them understand the setting or group they are researching” (Hall, 1999, n.p.). Interviewing has long been considered central to, and of equal importance to, observation in ethnographic study (Genzuk, 2001). In most of the ethnographic literature, interviewees are referred to as informants; interviews with multiple informants are often called focus groups (USAID, 1996).

Johnson (1990) discussed two basic criteria for the selection of informants. One was theoretical qualification; the second was innate abilities. This, he said, allowed informants to be selected via a planned procedure.

Procedural matters. In addition to the selection of informants, the researcher must decide the degree to which each interview will be structured. According to Fontana and Frey (1994), the possibilities range from highly structured interviews “in which an interviewer asks each respondent a series of preestablished questions with a limited set of response categories” (p. 363) to radically unstructured interviews. Hall (1999) recommends keeping the questions unrestricted. “Plan open-ended questions which require paragraph answers. If the informant goes off on a tangent…this often leads to very useful information that we didn’t know was needed!” (n.p.) Cohen (1984) also recommended open-ended questions because “were we simply to pursue a schedule [of interview questions] of our own devising, we would then be displaying the contrivances of our own minds, rather than discovering the minds of those we want to study” (p. 225). The highly structured question list is also problematic because it is necessarily constructed on the assumption it can apply to all informants (Fontana & Frey, 1994).

Other procedural decisions which need to be made will vary from informant to informant. Not all informants will provide the same quality and quantity of data, so the questions they are asked may vary, especially if time is limited. Also, environmental conditions may not permit the use of tape recording, so the interviewer may resort to manual notetaking, which often distracts the informants and the researcher.

DOCUMENTS AND OTHER DATA-COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS

“In addition to participant observation and interviews, ethnographers may also make use of various documents in answering guiding questions. When available, these documents can add additional insight or information to projects” (Genzuk, 2001, n.p.). Because the data collected via educational ethnography is qualitative and context-specific, it is difficult to construct multiplechoice data-collection documents for ethnography, as most of these instruments yield data which is neither rich nor descriptive (Delamount & Hamilton, 1976). But documents created, modified, or used by students and teachers being observed may generate additional data to either help triangulate information or to inform interview questions. A wide variety of documents may be considered, including

…budgets, advertisements, work descriptions, annual reports, memos, school records, correspondence, informational brochures, teaching materials, newsletters, websites, recruitment or orientation packets, contracts, records of court proceedings, posters, minutes of meetings, menus, and many other kinds of written items (Genzuk, 2001, n. p.).

Documents containing qualitative data may be analyzed quantitatively using sophisticated computer programs (Stemler, 2001; Rosenberg, Schnurr, & Oxman, 1990), but are usually analyzed visually by the researcher.

ANALYSIS OF CASE-STUDY DATA

The prescriptive literature in the ethnography field is replete with recommendations to continually review collected data throughout the data collection process. Regardless of whether data review occurs during or after its collection, most ethnographers recommend a schedule of analysis and interpretation with these general steps: case-study data must be analyzed; the analysis must be examined and reorganized; the reorganized data must be synthesized; and the synthesis must be interpreted (e.g., Hall, 1999).

Qualitative data garnered in case-study research is treated similarly to data from other types of ethnographic studies. Mitchell (1984) noted the usefulness of case studies in demonstrating “how general principles deriving from some theoretical orientation manifest themselves in some given set of particular circumstances” (p. 239). Stake (1994) concurred: “case study can be seen as a small step toward grand generalization” (p. 238).

Levstik and Barton (1996) and VanSledright (1995) both used case study models to investigate history education, focusing on chronological thinking and historical understanding respectively. Both extensively employed interview strategies. Levstik and Barton selected a subsample of the interview data and based their coding scheme on it. They reported examples from each of their dozens of categories, devoting comparably little space to synthesis and interpretation. VanSledright took a very different approach. He synthesized his data into three categories and reported these.

Data Reduction. As mentioned above, since analysis may begin during data collection, it is unlikely that any ethnographic study will have exclusive time periods of data collection and data analysis. Even more exactly, Erickson (1992) pointed out, “analysis actually begins while in the field. Choosing which events or persons to record involves making initial analytic decisions” (p. 216). Erickson (1992) suggested a five-stage procedure for the analysis of recorded observations or interviews in field-based educational research:

1. Review the whole event, from start to finish without stopping, taking field notes. During this stage, potential points of interest may be noted.
2. Identify the parts of the event, such as introduction, activity, conclusion.
3. Within each part of the event, identify the organization of the children and the teacher. How do they influence each other?
4. After careful selection of subjects, focus on them, transcribing their words and actions precisely, and just as precisely, pertinent words, actions and reactions of others.
5. Compare the results of analysis steps 4 and 5 with analogous instances from elsewhere in the body of recorded observations.

To analyze written data, Hall (1999) recommended the following procedure: read and re-read the data; code the data based on similarities; categorize the coded data; do a “reality check” of the categorization; and triangulate the data. This process is then repeated as necessary to refine the categories and help identify which items are useful and which are not.

Keeler (1996) was very specific about the data-analysis process in her article describing changes in an elementary classroom when networked computers were introduced:

The interviews were first transcribed onto a word processing program. The verbatim text was then sorted and ordered…Themes and patterns that emerged from several readings of the narrative data were then coded and the narrative data was then sorted by codes. The comments were further condensed and factors of importance began to emerge from the text. Direct quotes were preserved where they served to enhance classroom profiles and illuminate themes. (p. 332-333)

INTERPRETATION OF CASE-STUDY DATA

According to Genzuk (2001), “interpretation involves attaching meaning and significance to the analysis, explaining descriptive patterns, and looking for relationships and linkages” (n.p.). Often the researcher will use a logical-organizational process to kick-start the interpretation phase. In Kinney’s (1995) study of the impact of educational change on elementary students in inner-city Baltimore, “fieldnotes from observations and student statements from interviews were sorted and categorized based on their consistency and similarity to specific issues and concerns” (p. 8). These issues and concerns were essentially his research questions. Kinney also consulted a nationally recognized expert to help interpret the data. Ennis (1996), who investigated the impacts of disruptive students on curriculum in ten U. S. high schools, used a different approach. She first wrote narratives describing each of her ten cases, then examined these for “tentative assertions, common themes, and discrepancies” (p. 148).

Interpretation, or theorizing, is followed by the selection of episodes or facts which exemplify, or in some cases challenge, the theory. Incidents which refute the theory under certain circumstances may prove useful in further refining the theory (Stemler, 2001). Items selected in this stage may be used to demonstrate the veracity of the theory, and may be used in the explication of the theory as well (see Krathwohl, 1993).
PROSPECTS FOR CASE-STUDY RESEARCH IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Three recent prescriptive reviews of the technology education research base provide scores of potential case-study research projects in areas where research is lacking. These papers are Zuga’s (1996) Review of technology education research, Petrina’s (1998) content analysis of the first eight volumes of the Journal of Technology Education, and Lewis’s (1999) “Research in technology education-Some areas of need.”

Zuga (1996) summarized needed technology education research in two points, the first being “researching the effectiveness of technology education via the ability to meet goals which the professionals in the field purport to hold” (p. 11). Clearly the methods used to answer research questions about the effectiveness of technology education for delivering-as an example- related academic content could be measured quantitatively via standardized academic tests. But delivering related academic content is only one of those “goals which the professionals in the field purport to hold.” Technology education is also believed to increase students’ “technological literacy” (ITEA, 2000) and improve self-esteem and other social variables (Wright, 1992).

How best to study these questions? There are several problems preventing the straightforward application of quantitative models in such studies. For example, there are no accepted quantitative tests of technological literacy, so the researcher will have to use a self-designed or adapted test which will be under-normed. Because there is no accepted definition for technological literacy, such a test will vary from researcher to researcher, making studies less generalizable and less comparable-and by extension making case-study analysis less objectionable.

A second problem in applying quantitative methods to a study of the effects of technology education is that, even if the outcomes (academic, technological, social, etc.) could be perfectly quantified, determining the proportion of the outcome attributable to technology education (e.g., via analysis of covariance) would require the replication of the experimental conditions in several classrooms, along with a number of “control” classrooms. While this would not be impossible, the cost and effort would be colossal, even when compared to a multi-observer longitudinal case study using ethnographic methods.1

Zuga’s other major recommendation for technology education research, “addressing issues of identifying and implementing integrated curriculum through technology education for all children taught in a constructivist manner” (p. 11), is perhaps an even better candidate for case-study research. Zuga herself has remarked in several reviews of research that qualitative methods may be the most appropriate for addressing the major gaps in technology education research. Petrina (1998) identified seven “central framing questions,” which the technology education field needs to answer. Each is constituted by a unique combination of several of nine research areas. The seven questions are

* How do we come to practice and understand technology?
* Toward what ends and means is the subject practiced?
* What should be the nature of technological knowledge?
* How should the content of the subject be organized?
* How is the subject today influenced by its history?
* How is technology practiced across cultures?
* Who participates in the subject and why or why not? (paraphrased in Lewis, 1999, p. 42.)

While most of these may be best studied via nonquantitative means, several in particular are good candidates for case-study research. The first part of the final question, “who participates in [technology education]?” may be responded to using quantitative means; researchers could in theory collect rich enrollment and course participation data and break it down by socioeconomic status, gender, race/ethnicity, special-needs status, and the like. In fact such quantification would be needed to inform the second part of the question. But to respond to that second part- “why or why not?”-lends itself to case-study analysis, with the case unit viewed either as individual students or a school or system with sizeable and representative groups of those who do and do not participate in technology education.

Other of Petrina’s questions, such as cultural comparisons of technological practices, might be ideal but impracticable as case studies. Yet a meta-analysis of existing case studies, each considering a different culture, might be useful to the field.

Lewis (1999), making reference to Petrina, identified “areas of research potential” for technology education (p. 43), including to technological literacy; perceptions, conceptions, and misconceptions about technology; creativity; gender; curriculum; and teachers. Several of these topics lend themselves to case-study research. One possible research model for investigating misconceptions about technology would be to observe one or more classes of students as they learn technological concepts; analyze their written explanations of those concepts; use this analysis to identify those with high and low incidences of misconceptions; and select informants from these two student groups. With this three-pronged approach to data collection- observations, interviews, and document analysis, triangulatable data would be generated which could be used to begin to address questions of student misconceptions about technology.

Similar models could be constructed for many of the other research areas identified by Lewis. Consider, for example, “questions pertaining to technology and creativity” (p. 46) and “questions pertaining to gender” (p. 47). Taking a mixed-gender classroom, or other group of students, as a case and observing and interviewing them as they engage in potentially creative technology activities might be the start of an investigation of several of Lewis’ “areas of research potential.”

ELEMENTARY-SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AS AN EXAMPLE

As suggested by the work done by Lewis, Petrina, Zuga, and Hoepfl (e.g., 1997, 2001) the range of research topics in technology education appropriate for case-study research is potentially limitless. Specifically, the following are three areas of needed research in elementary-school technology education(ESTE) (see Foster, 1997):

Inservicing in ESTE. Over the past ten years, thousands of elementary teachers have been in-serviced in the area of technology education at national and state technology education conferences. Have these in-service sessions had an impact? How do teachers approach technological content in the existing curriculum (e.g., social studies, science, etc.) before and after attending in-service sessions?

Assessment via ESTE. If elementary-school teachers implement technology education in their classrooms, how do they assess student performance? In some cases (e.g., Foster, 1997), teachers implementing ESTE reduced the number of traditional assignments they used in their classrooms. Could ESTE be a vehicle for assessing students’ social skills, such as working with others?

Student and teacher roles. Does ESTE have potential in delivering on the challenge of having elementary teachers become facilitators of knowledge rather than dispensers of it? How do successful ESTE teachers prepare for activities for which the outcome is uncertain? Content aside, is there a difference between constructivism and using ESTE as a delivery method, as suggested by Todd and Hutchinson (1991)?

Many of these questions could be addressed via quantitative research; for instance, teachers could be surveyed or interviewed to determine their perceptions of student and teacher roles, assessment, and the like. But to move beyond opinions, in-depth, on-site study is much more powerful.
FINAL THOUGHTS

Case-study analysis is only an appropriate educational research model for a limited range of research questions, specifically those in areas of education where foundational questions remain unanswered. It is clear from the literature that technology education is such a field. Several of the most respected technology-education researchers have identified large domains in which little or no quality research exists, and have pointed in general to the need for more qualitative research to fill these voids.

At the same time, technology educators have three important ingredients to beginning their own case-study research. There is now a small but growing literature base demonstrating the unique benefits of technology education, especially at the elementary level (Hoepfl, 2001). Secondly, there is also a well-established methodological knowledge base explicating the methods of case-study analysis. Finally, the editors of major journals in the technology education field have demonstrated a willingness to publish qualitative and case-study research.

The challenge, then, is for interested technology education professionals and graduate students to view research in the field as wide open for exploration with the appropriate methods-such as, but in no way limited to, case-study analysis.
REFERENCES

Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (p. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Badke, W. (2000). Case Studies in Research. In Research Strategies [On-line]. Available: www.acts.twu.ca/lbr/textbook.htm

Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braundy, M. (2000). Appendix. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(3), 137-140.

Charles, C. M. & Mertler, C. A. (2002). Introduction to educational research (Fourth Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cohen, A. P. (1984). Informants. In R. F. Ellen, Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. (pp. 223-229). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

Cole, A. L. (1991). Interviewing for life history: A process of ongoing negotiation. In I. F. Goodson & J. M. Mangan (Eds.), Qualitative educational research studies: Methodologies in transition. (pp. 185-208). RUCCUS Occasional Papers, Vol. 1. London, ON: University of Western Ontario Division of Curriculum Studies.

Custer, R. L. (1997). Qualitative research methodologies. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(2), 3-6.

Delamount, S. & Hamilton, D. (1976). Classroom research: A critique and a new approach. In M. Stubbs & S. Delamount (Eds.), Explorations in classroom observation. (p. 3-20). London: John Wiley & Sons.

Dhillon, J., & Moreland, N. (1996). Participants’experience of a competence-based professional development program: A case study. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 48, 367-384.

Ennis, C. D. (1996). When avoiding confrontation leads to avoiding content: Disruptive students’ impact on curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(2), 145-162.

Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. (p. 201-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Evanciew, C. E. P., & Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Skill and knowledge acquisition in the workplace: A case study of mentor-apprentice relations in youth apprenticeship programs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 36(2), 24-54.

Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. L. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors (Sage university paper series on qualitative research methods, vol. 15). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (p. 361-376). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Foster, P. N., & Wright, M. D. (2001). Unique benefits of technology education to children. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(2), 40-64.

Foster, P. N. (1997). The benefits of elementary-school technology education to children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. UMI Microform 9841141.

Foster, W. T. (1996). A research agenda for technology education. The Technology TeacherM, 56(1), 31-33.

Genzuk, M. (2001). A synthesis of ethnographic research [On-line]. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research University of Southern California. Available: www-rcf.usc.edu/~genzuk/Ethnographic_Research.html

Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

Goodson, I. F., & Magan, J. M. (1991). An alternative paradigm for educational research. In I. F. Goodson & J. M. Mangan (Eds.), Qualitative educational research studies: Methodologies in transition . (pp. 9-48). RUCCUS Occasional Papers, Vol. 1. London, ON: University of Western Ontario Division of Curriculum Studies.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in social research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research. (p. 195-220). London: Sage.

Hall, B. L. (1999). How to do ethnographic research: A simplified guide [On-line]. Available: www.sas.upenn.edu/anthro/CPIA/METHODS/

Hammack, F. M. (1997). Ethical issues in teacher education. Teachers College Record 99(2), 247- 265.

Hansen, R. (1998). The socialization of technology teachers: Two unique cases. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35(2), 29-40.

Harnisch, D., Gierl, M., & Migotsky, C. (1995a). An evaluation of Synergistic Systems in classroom settings: Final report. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Office of Educational Testing, Research, and Service.

Harnisch, D., Gierl, M., & Migotsky, C. (1995b). What works with technology education materials in middle schools: An evaluation of Synergistic Systems in classroom settings. Paper presented at Evaluation ‘95, Evaluation for a New Century: A Global Perspective, Vancouver.

Haynie, W. J. (1998). Experimental research in technology education: Where is it? Journal of Technology Education, 9(2), 78-83.

Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47-63.

Hoepfl, M. C. (2001). Editorial: Testing, testing… Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(2), 3-5.

International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

Jackson, C. M. (1996). Can birds fly? Can first graders learn the importance in technology? The Technology Teacher, 56(1), 11-15.

Jansen, G., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Subjectivity in educational research. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education. (p. 681- 726). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Järvinen, E.-M., & Hiltunen, J. (2000). Automation technology in elementary technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 37(4), 51-76.

Johnson, J. C. (1990). Selecting ethnographic informants. Sage University Paper series on Qualitative Research Methods, Volume 22. Beverly Hills, CA and London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Johnson, S. D. (1993). The plight of technology education research. The Technology Teacher, 52 (8), 29-30.

Keeler, C. M. (1996). Networked instructional computers in the elementary classroom and their effect on the learning environment: A qualitative evaluation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(3), 329-345.

Kinney, D. A. (1995). “We get to learn!”: Building urban children’s sense of future in an elementary school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman.

Levstik, L. S., & Barton, K. C. (1996). “They still use some of the past:’ Historical salience in elementary children’s chronological thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(5), 531-576.

Lewis, T. (1999). Research in technology education-Some areas of need. Journal of Technology Education 10(2), 41-56.

Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Case studies. In R. F. Ellen, Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct. (pp. 237-241). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29(9), 5-10.

Petrina, S. (1998). The politics of research in technology education: A critical content and discourse analysis of the Journal of Technology Education, volumes 1-8. Journal of Technology Education, 10(1), 27-57.

Pitman, A. (1991). The teacher-researcher relationship: Methodological, political, and moral issues in research. In I. F. Goodson & J. M. Mangan (Eds.), Qualitative educational research studies: Methodologies in transition. (pp. 91-116). RUCCUS Occasional Papers, Vol. 1. London, ON: University of Western Ontario Division of Curriculum Studies.

Rosenberg, S.D., Schnurr, P.P., & Oxman, T.E. (1990). Content analysis: A comparison of manual and computerized systems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54.

Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: Sage.

Smith, J. K. (1990). Alternative research paradigms and the problem of criteria. In E.G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (p. 167-187). London: Sage.

Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (p. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, R. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. (p. 86-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Available: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17.

Stewart, J. (1994). An interpretive approach to validity in interpersonal communications research. In K. Carter & M. Presnell, Interpretive applications to interpretive communication. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Todd, R. D., & Hutchinson, P. A. (1991). Design & technology: Good practice and a new paradigm. Technological Innovations and Entrepreneurship for Students, 4(3), 4-11.

Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The formation of children’s technological concepts: A study of what it means to do technology from a child’s perspective. Journal of Technology Education 12(1), 32-48.

USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation. (1996). Conducting focus group interviews. Performance Monitoring and Evaluation [Bulletin no. 10]. Washington, DC: Author.

VanSledright, B. A. (1995). “I don’t remember-the ideas are all jumbled in my head:” 8th graders’ reconstructions of colonial American history. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 10(4), 317-345.

Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection (Sage university paper series on qualitative research methods, vol. 10). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wright, M. D. (1992). A block of wood. The Technology Teacher, 55(6), 3-4.

Zuga, K. F. (1996). Review of technology education research. Paper presented at the Technology Education Issues Symposium, June 23-29, Maui, Hawaii.

Posted by admin Posted in: ST&HV No Comments » July 2008

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NOVICE CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

Sheila K. Ruhland
Christine D. Bremer

University of Minnesota

Abstract

This study examines the professional development needs of secondary career and technical education (CTE) teachers. Fourteen traditionally or alternatively certified CTE teachers participated in an in-depth telephone interview to provide responses related to their background, experience, participation in professional development opportunities, and opinions concerning professional development. While most CTE teachers felt adequately prepared by their teacher preparation program, areas in which more preparation would have been helpful included classroom management and working with special populations. Most of those who participated in a mentoring program found the experience valuable; the quality of the relationship was key. Results point to the need for a range of professional development opportunities that will meet the varied and specific needs of CTE teachers. Furthermore, an increase in support for professional development opportunities can assist with the retention of teachers in their first years of teaching.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the professional development needs of novice secondary career and technical education (CTE) teachers. A secondary purpose was to determine if CTE teachers who entered the profession though alternative certification routes have different professional development needs than those of traditionally prepared teachers. Some states mandate professional development activities, while other states provide little or no support, leaving any professional development activities to local school districts. The professional development of teachers has become a major issue as the shortage and retention of teachers raises concerns as to the quality of education in our nation’s schools.
BACKGROUND

In recent years, preparation of CTE teachers has been strongly influenced by two trends: (a) growing teacher shortages, leading to more flexible teacher licensure and certification policies at the state level, and (b) the need for greater teacher and system accountability, leading to more rigorous teacher licensure and certification policies. CTE teachers have entered the profession through a variety of traditional and alternative certification routes. Teachers who enter the profession through alternative certification routes are more likely to feel well-prepared in terms of content, but feel less well-prepared in pedagogy than those who have completed traditional certification programs (Ruhland & Bremer, 2002). This combination of forces raises the importance of professional development as a strategy for ensuring a high level of competency in CTE teachers.

Professional development is defined as the “sum of formal and informal learning experiences throughout one’s career from preservice teacher education to retirement” (Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991, p. 326). There is no consensus in the field of education as to best practices in professional development. School districts often refer to professional development in terms of formal education to include courses and/or workshops. Salary schedules and re-certification policies may influence a teacher’s decision to participate in professional development opportunities. Local school districts receive minimal guidance about how to manage and improve their efforts. “On the whole, most researchers agree that professional development programs typically have weak efforts on practice because they lack focus, intensity, follow-up, and continuity” (Corcoran, 1995, section 2).

The U. S. Department of Education’s Professional Development Team established a list of ten principles of professional development in 1994 (Building Bridges, n.d.). The ten principles of professional development included the preparation and support of educators to help students achieve to high standards of learning and development. “Equitable access for all educators to such professional development opportunities is imperative” (Building Bridges, n.d., para. 3).

ALTERNATIVE TEACHER CERTIFICATION

Alternative teacher certification is a term that has been generally used to refer to non-traditional routes into the teaching profession. “Nearly all states - 45 out of 50 - now offer some type of alternative to going back to college and majoring in education in order to become a teacher. This compares with 40 states in 2000 and only eight in 1983 (National Center for Education Information, 2002, para. 6). According to Feistritzer and Chester (2000):

The term “alternative teacher certification” has been used to refer to every avenue to becoming licensed to teach, from emergency certification to very sophisticated and well-designed programs that address the professional preparation needs of the growing population of individuals who already have at least a baccalaureate degree and considerable life experience and want to become teachers (p. 3).

According to Kwiatkowski (1999), alternative teacher certification “is already one of the most hotly debated issues since chalk first met blackboard” (p. 215). Kwiatkowski reported that between 1983 and 1996, more than 50,000 individuals in the United States received alternative certification. He expected this trend to accelerate, driven by a widespread desire to improve education through alternative teacher training and certification via four strategies:

1. Increasing the number of teachers available and competent in high-demand specialties;
2. Increasing the diversity of the pool of teachers;
3. Increasing staffing levels in schools experiencing staff shortages, such as urban schools;

and
4. Decreasing the need for emergency credentialing. (p. 216)

Houston, Marshall, and McDavid (1993) found that alternatively certified teachers experienced more difficulties in the classroom during their first months of teaching than did traditionally certified teachers. They recommended that teacher education programs emphasize classroom experience, and that teacher training be seen as an ongoing developmental process for all teachers.

Darling-Hammond (1999), in a study comparing 4th and 8th grade reading and math student achievement scores across the United States, found that having an alternatively certified teacher appeared to have a negative impact on student achievement. She compared state licensing practices and found that states with more restrictive licensing practices (e.g., Minnesota and Wisconsin) had students with much higher achievement scores than did states with more liberal licensing practices (e.g., Louisiana and Texas), even after controlling for student poverty and for student language background (Limited English Proficiency status). Darling-Hammond also found that having a higher proportion of teachers on emergency certificates was a strong negative predictor of student achievement.

Goldhaber and Brewer (1999), using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (also known as NELS: 88), examined the academic achievement of students as a function of their teachers’ credentials. They examined student outcomes in math, science, English/ writing, and history in relation to their teachers’ levels of education in subject matter and type of teacher certification. They found that, if student characteristics were held constant, student performance was higher (a) when teachers had bachelor’s or master’s degrees in the subject area they taught, and (b) when teachers had any type of certification, whether standard, emergency, alternative, or private school, as compared to no certification or certification in a different subject area. Goldhaber and Brewer found that even though there was wide variation in state licensure policies, there was little evidence that these policies had an impact on student performance. They noted that there is “remarkably little rigorous research” (p. 84) concerning many important questions, including whether teachers with traditional licenses perform better than those with alternative licenses, whether some components of teacher licensure are more effective than others, and what effect licensure has on the quality of individuals entering teaching.

Truell (1999) conducted a study to compare the concerns of traditionally versus alternatively certified marketing teachers. Of the 141 marketing teachers participating in the study, 30% were traditionally certified and 70% were alternatively cert