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

Industrial arts/technology education (IA/TE) is in a crisis - a crisis caused largely by the increasing changes that are occurring within society and technology. In the past five years, national, state, and local commissions, organizations, and educators have developed countless documents, curricula, and workshops on the subject of technology education (International Technology Education Association, 1985; Ferns, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988; Hoopfer, Jost & Nelson, 1987; Hales & Snyder, 1981; Hull & Smink, 1988; Kadamus & Daggett, 1986; Maley, 1988; Michigan Department of Education, Vocational-Technical Education Service (MDE/V-TES), 1988, 1989; Savage, 1989; Virginia Vocational Curriculum Resource Center, 1988). Through various means, thousands of administrators, educators, and ancillary staff mem- bers have been exposed to technology education. IA/TE educators in Michigan strongly agree that tech- nology should be a part of their programming, and, in some cases, identify technology education as what they currently teach (Smith, 1989). Still, the unit shop remains the primary delivery method in the field (Ellis, 1989; Smith, 1989). This serves to accentuate the scope of the crisis, and the professional reaction (or lack thereof) to it. It appears that many efforts in the movement toward technology education have failed because changes have been made in name only, rather than in instructors' understanding of the underlying philosophical differences between industrial arts and technology education. Because of the recurrence of name-change-only programs, and the fact that industrial arts teachers often do not perceive differences between industrial arts and technology education, it may be beneficial to the profession to view industrial arts as a paradigm.