The 86^th Mississippi Valley

Technology Teacher Education Conference:

An Evaluative Case Study

by Jared Berrett

May 4, 2000

Presented to

Robert Stake

Edpsy 399

Case Study Evaluation Methods

&

Tom Erekson: Lifeime Chair

Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference

The 86^th Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference:

An Evaluative Case Study

Half hidden from view, shimmering in the sunlight, the Gateway Arch stretched its graceful steel frame 630 feet above the Mississippi River. I eased into the lounge chair and watched the peaceful scene from the 18^th floor window of the Marriott Pavilion Hotel in downtown St. Louis, Missouri. I was here to attend my first Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference (MVTTEC) scheduled to begin in 45 minutes. I had just enough time for a short walk in the beautiful dawn. I left the comfortable sitting chair where I had been watching the sunrise in the early morning sky, and entering the street below, I decided to go for a short walk before the Conference would begin.

As I stepped out the building door and entered the street, my thoughts turned to the first time I became interested in the Conference. I was a Master’s student in technology education at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. The year was 1996. One Saturday morning, I arose early and headed to the campus library to complete a typical assignment for my history of technology education class. I was suppose to find and read three articles for a class presentation the following Monday. I’d been through the ”article routine” before, and I figured it would only take me a couple of hours to pick up a stack of current periodicals, scan them for something interesting, and photo copy them. I’d be home for lunch where I could finish the assignment that afternoon.

Instead, at 3:00 p.m. I found myself sitting on the floor in the middle of the library surrounded by an endless view of shelved books, bound periodicals, and technical reports with a publication of the 75^th annual MSVTTEC proceedings in my hands. I hadn’t left the spot where I had removed the report called the Industrial Teacher Education in Transition (1988) from the shelf and plopped down quickly to scan its contents. The publication consisted of a number of papers by Conference members presented at the 1988 Mississippi Valley Conference. The papers included in the report provided an excellent discourse of the history of the conference and a thorough discussion of a number of tough issues concerning the future of industrial arts. The central theme of change and crisis gripped me as I read. I also noted names of authors who had contributed to major historical and national turning point initiatives or projects in the field such as the Jacksons Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory, A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education, and Technology for All Americans Project.

Continuing my walk through the park, my thoughts turned back again to BYU on year ago, when Tom Erekson, the current Lifetime Chair, extended an invitation to me to attend the 86^th MSVTTEC as his guest. He knew I would be close by in St. Louis pursuing my Ph.D. at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I later requested permission to conduct an evaluative case study on the Conference. I began reviewing past Conference publications and Conference archives stored at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, as well as conducting interviews with a few key informants. As an evaluator and participant of the Conference, I hoped to gain insight into the particularity and status of it by observing, participating, holding informal interviews, and administering a brief survey. My goal was to conduct an investigation that would support a contextually rich view of the data so that others could read through my findings and formulate their own personal understanding of the complexity of the issues currently faced at the Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference.

Historical Sketch

The impetus for the Conference can be traced back to the manual training field of nearly 100 years ago. In 1909, at Peoria, Illinois, Dr. Charles Bennett expressed the need to gather “teachers and organizers of manual training to get in close conference where they might exchange views on questions of vital importance and express all of their heresies without being reported in educational papers” (Bennett, 1937, pp. 502-504). The idea was accepted and the first conference was convened later that year. Since then, the conference has undergone three name changes as it has made the transition from manual arts to an industrial arts emphasis. Most recently, the Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference became known as The Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference in 1996, when the name was changed to reflect societal and philosophical change in the field (Erekson, 2000, Lemons, 1987).

Today the membership of the conference consists of administrators in the field of technology teacher education within the Central United States. In order to be eligible for membership, one must hold an administrative position in an institution for higher education or in state secondary education programs. Occasionally a leader of a research firm, private institution, a field practitioner or journal editor will become a member, but even with this diversity, the leadership of those outside of the teaching field has never exceeded one percent of the overall membership.

The Conference had a small beginning; only twelve men were invited to attend the first one in 1909 (Evans, 1979). Rules and regulations were established for membership in 1927 and have since been amended sixteen times (Craft, 1999). Today, there are five levels of Membership: Active, Active-at-Large, Associate, Former Active, and Former Active Members Deceased. The policy is that once you are an Active member, you will always be a member. To date there are 433 members including those who first initiated the Conference.

The Conference’s primary contributors are Active Members. A limit has been placed on this membership, which cannot exceed 65 people at any point in time. The membership is also limited to those who are part of the Mississippi Valley territory, and even more specifically to those who hold a leadership position in the field. There can only be one Active Member per institution. Nomination to become a Member must be initiated and submitted by an Active or Active-at-Large member. Active-at-Large members are among the select few -- fifteen potential Members -- who are allowed to join the conference even if they reside outside the MSV territory specifications. Membership will not be considered until the inductee has attended as a guest for two years. The Membership Rules and Policy Document distributed at the Conference contains further detail about these rules and regulations.

The Conference is governed by a General Chairperson who is called the “Lifetime” Chair. This president was set in 1924, after the current Chair had been re-elected so many times, The Membership just decided to make him the “Lifetime” Chair and not vote on it any more. Since then, seven lifetime Chairs’ have lead the MSVTTEC (Wolansky, 1988). The Chairman plays an important role in the conference, and holds a unique undemocratic governing position that allows him to continue on as the leader until he wishes to step down. According to the members I spoke to at the conference, all asserted that strong leadership from the Lifetime Chair was essential for the continued success of the conference.

Conference Issues

Key to understanding this case study of the MSVTTEC, is a broad understanding of the field of technology education today and the high tech world in which the Conference currently operates. Since the first Mississippi Valley Conference was held 86 years ago, the field of industrial education has endured many changes as industry, legislation, and societal needs continually re-shape it. In particular, rapid technological advancement has challenged the field to re-think its content base and has caused divergence, dissention, and disagreement amongst practitioners and professionals alike. Some educators continue to argue for a more traditional manual or vocational skills focus while others want a broader general education focus that aligns technology education with subjects like Math and Science education (Streichler, 2000).

In the long awaited Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the study of technology (2000), presented at this years International Technology Association Conference, the argument for technology literacy to be taught in elementary, middle, and secondary schools is a core tenant of technology education. These Standards suggest there are four key constructs of technology education: 1) learning about technology, 2) learning to do technology, 3) using technology studies as an integrator, and 4) overall technological literacy (p 4-9). The Standards serve as a guide for developing appropriate curricula for technology teachers, and provides recommendations about what skills and knowledge are needed in order to become technologically literate (p 13). These Standards, have been meticulously written and revised more than four years running. They address the changing nature of society and seem to blend past and present concepts of technology education into a view of technological literacy. They may serve a key role in guiding the future of technology education.

The heavy emphasis placed on establishing standards for technological literacy is an indicator of a broader issue in the field and the Conference -- the struggle to cope with rapid technological change. Some would say that the MSVTTEC “appears to be meeting the dynamic needs of the field based on its sheer existence for the past 86 years” (Bjorkquist, Evans & Johnson, 1996). Having never attended this Conference before, I was in no place to challenge or validate this statement, but through my observation and research of this year’s conference, the 86^th annual meeting, I hoped to find the evidence that would allow me do so. To guide my study, I framed the following specific issue questions: Was the Conference addressing current societal issues of technology and education? How is it handling new technological advancement and understanding about teaching, learning, and technological literacy? Is the Membership able, willing and actively engaging issues of vital importance? Does the content and structure of the conference support new way’s of thinking? (See Appendix A for further detail.)

Prelude

I had been walking for a while, and it was nearing the scheduled time for the conference to begin. I decided to begin re-tracing my steps towards the hotel. As I crossed through the park once again, I could see the arch stretching above the shadows, towering over the Mississippi River. The air was crisp and refreshing. The brilliant sun warmed downtown St. Louis. What a beautiful day! Entering the hotel, I made my way to the conference room. Once inside, I was greeted by many smiling faces but few hellos. There were already 30 to 40 people there. It was 8:45. The majority of men were wearing sport coats and ties, and women were notably absent. Three women eventually made their way into the room. The group seemed to be enjoying visiting with one another. They stood in clusters smiling, talking, and sipping beverage from the nearby-catered table of drinks.

Seeking Dr. Erekson, I thanked him for inviting me. He said I would be introduced to the Members of the Conference during this first session and that I could administer my questionnaires at the beginning of the second session. During our conversation, he made several trips to and from his boxes, setting packs of papers on the table nearby. He seemed confident and eager to begin the conference. I knew he had taken an early flight into the city the day before to ensure all arrangements were set, and it seemed his efforts were now paying off.

Setting

I made my way back through several tightly formed groups of people standing near the entrance and the catering tables. Their enthusiasm to visit created a formidable obstacle to beverage seekers as their expanding huddles began to join one to another. The room was rectangular shaped approximately 120’wide by 200’ long. (See Appendix B for drawing.) Conference tables were set up in a U shape in the front of the room and a podium was placed in the trough of the U for the presenters. Observing members sat in chairs lining both sides of the U, which opened towards the back of the room. At the back of the room, chairs were placed in rows with an aisle in the middle separating them into two sides much like an assembly hall.

I sat in the front aisle in the rear of the room and visited with another guest about the setting, structure, and arrangements of the conference. We discussed the outlined program which would consist of six sessions total -- three today, three tomorrow, but the business meeting on Saturday afternoon would be for Members only. We also noticed that in addition to the conference Lifetime Chairman, each session was presided over by its own chairman and officiator. Neither of us knew why they were there, but anticipated finding out.

I turned and surveyed the room and facility again to get a feel for the physical setting. The room and set up appeared to provide a promising forum for viewing the presenter, participating in discussion, and seeing the lecture. Those members sitting on the inside of the U, however, would have to either strain their necks to see, or end up turning their chairs away from the table to face the presenter. Overall, the facility seemed functional.

A Guest’s Perspective

I scanned the faces of people in the room, wondering who was here and who should be here that wasn’t. How many people were actually in leadership roles in teacher training, and how may State Supervisors of technology education were attending? Were there others? Why not include practitioners? A pile of pin type tags, engraved with names of people I assumed were Members of the Conference, sat virtually untouched at the end of one of the tables. I wished they would put their tags on so I could begin to find answers to these questions. A few people picked them up and pinned them on, but the majority of the Members at the tables wore no tags, nor did the guests.

As people continued to make their way into the room, I noticed a few people sitting quietly in their seats all alone. Some were members, and many were guests, just staring at other groups visiting, or perhaps looking down at their conference agenda sheet. I turned to my neighbor again. We began discussing some details about the conference. I mentioned the conference policies that required guest to sit in the back and did not allow them to ask questions My neighbor felt very comfortable with the idea. But I thought the arrangement sent a clear message to guests; it seemed to say, “you’re welcome to be here, but you’re not welcome to participate. If it hadn’t have been for Dr. Erekson’s efforts to ensure I was included in the informal gatherings at mealtimes etc. I would have felt left out.

This non-participatory format for guests is probably entrenched in part by the original letter by Bennett expressing the desire to discuss heresies without being reported in educational papers. This might begin to explain the conference policy toward guests in that one of the major purposes of beginning the Conference was to keep away outsiders while discussing issues they thought important. For this reason, guests are treated similarly–although cordially. The fact that they are not allowed to participate may just be another way to show that the conference is not for them. This position may become problematic however when current Members invite guests to become future Members, if guest experiences lead to negative attitudes toward the Conference.

Since this issue was nagging at me, I pursued it with other guests and Members asking them how they felt about these guest policies and if they thought guests should take a more active role in the Conference. In particular, I asked if guests should be allowed to voice a question during the debate sessions? The responses I got were generally supportive of the idea and included the following:

“I wish some of the guests could speak. Especially when we have authoritative and knowledgeable people in the audience that know more than most of us members on a particular subject. I would be willing to give up my questions for a session to a guest.”

“The conference has a very interesting format, I wish I could say something as a guest, like ask questions of the presenters during question and answer time.”

“I enjoy that focused presentation format and the one hour then feedback session. I think we should possibly open up the question session to guests - once the membership has had adequate opportunity to question the presenters, or inform guests that they may have members ask questions for them. ”

I was surprised with the interest and response to the issue. Although there were a few, I would have imagined, based on the current policy, most of the respondents would have been against it.

Conference Purpose

Prior to the conference I had been unable to find a published statement of purpose by the Conference. However, through further investigation of the Conference archives, I found that in 1993, a committee was charged with writing a statement of vision, mission and purpose. They presented their work the following year. The committees’ recommendations for the Mission and Purpose Statements presented at the 1994 conference as follows:

MISSION: The mission of the organization is to give direction to technology education and the programs that prepare its teachers through critical examination and debate of issues confronting technology education. (Proposed but not adopted)

PURPOSE: The purpose of the organization is to provide an environment conducive to scholarly, substantial discussion of technology teacher education content, curriculum, research, methodology and administration by leaders, teacher educators, and other knowledgeable individuals. (Proposed but not adopted)

The membership discussed and voted on the committee’s suggestions during the business meeting of that year. The only action approved was to adopt a modified mission statement: “To facilitate debate on critical issues and problems about the teaching of technology.” (Erekson, 2000) As I read this statement, I was again struck by its similarities to the reasons to call the meeting originally identified in the Bennett letter initiating the first Conference 91 years before.

In a similar way, this current statement of the Conference is in line with the ideas of getting “teachers and organizers of manual training together in close conference where they [Members] might exchange views on questions of vital importance.” In a following up with Dr. Erekson on the acceptance of the mission statement, he stated that

“The Conference format, one that provides ample time for discussion and debate after the presentation of papers, was viewed as a unique strength and, in effect, has been institutionalized in the mission statement. . . . It should be noted that the name of the Conference is based on the mission statement which focuses on ‘critical issues and problems about the teaching of technology.’ This is not to be viewed as narrowing the scope of the Conference as the “teaching of technology” takes place at all levels of education and in diverse settings. Therefore, the name and mission statement are inclusive of a wide array of programs and personnel.”

Yet even though there are similarities, an important clarification that must be made about the potential population served in the Conference. Erekson’s explanation allows for the possibility that at some point, a radically different set of Members could be invited to participate in the Conference. Future Members could come from outside the current 99% norm of Leaders of Higher Educational technology education programs, and represent those who are affected by teaching and technology in a variety of different levels.

The idea that the conference should be inclusive of many perspectives on technology, in combination with society’s growing dependency on technologies, could create a huge opportunity for growth and diversity in the field. Technology education is in the unique position to impact everyone from the university English instructor, teaching composition in a computer-integrated classroom, to a manufacturing engineer, receiving on the job training on the latest automation technology, to a student in elementary school -- learning how to do math. (Of course, we can’t expect the student to attend the conference.) Technical literacy is now a life skill required for everyone, even in the “purest” academic pursuits. The divide between traditional academic subjects and practical hands on subjects is narrowing through the use of technology, and I was anxious to see whether the Conference would recognize and respond to the change.

Let the Conference Begin

The first session of the Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference began at precisely nine o’clock on the 5^th day of November, The few people standing quickly took their seats when Dr. Erekson stood to start the proceedings. There were approximately 40 members sitting at the tables and about 30 guests sitting in the rows in the back, yet the room could have held 30 to 40 more people comfortably. A delightful enthusiasm emanated from the group gathered.

Dr. Erekson proceeded to conduct the opening Conference business with a warm welcome. He called the Members who would serve on the membership committee, and requested that they meet over the lunch break. He then described the Conference schedule and format. Each session would have three speakers. Each speaker would have twenty minutes to present their topic, and then there an hour would be devoted to a question and answer period .

Presentation Content

As Dr. Erekson was talking, I picked up my agenda off the floor, and took a closer look. I thought back to an interview I conducted with the General Chair in which he described the process he used to determine this year’s conference research topics and presentation agenda:

1. During the conference the Chairman solicits the conference attendees both guests and members for topics they would like to have presented at the next years conference and suggestions for presenters. Individuals turn in the suggestions before they leave on a slip of paper handed out for that purpose.

2. After the conference, he then compiles and reviews the topics, rank and orders them according to how many requests there were, and puts it on a tally sheet. The list is mailed around the first of the year to the members to ask for any revisions. A conference summary is included.

3. Then he builds the program according the request rankings feedback and his personal opinion and shares it with a couple of people to check for appropriateness.

4. Finally he makes the requests for the presenters to prepare for the papers.

In this uniquely un-democratic process, the Members initially select the topics for the sessions, but the Conference Chairman has the final say and mediates them. If he doesn’t like one, he can throw it out, and choose another that he feels is more appropriate.

Dr. Erekson continued to talk, and I continued to review the topical themes and presenters topics in the Conference agenda. I wondered if there were any topics that Dr. Erekson had influenced directly. It was impossible to tell, but it was clear that each author would address a specific area of focus guided by research questions assigned to him in the undemocratic manner. These questions were framed in the broader topical themes of 1) foundations of the profession, 2) teacher education, 3) leadership and administration and, 4) curriculum and instruction. Scanning the questions and presentation titles, the majority seemed pertinent to the field and I thought many in the profession would agree that they were vitally important. Two examples are given, but for a full listing of Conference content, see Tables in Appendix C.

Session 1 – Speaker 2:

Questions:

Technology programs often focus on application – is there a body of knowledge in technology application? Can research be done on application? What is the nature of applied research? To what extent is it accepted on our campuses?

Presentation Title:

Applied Research in Technology Programs: A Working Draft

Session 2 – Speaker 2:

Questions:

Alternative certification models for preparing technology education teachers:

Which states have emergency or alternative certification routs for technology teachers? What are the effective models for alternative certification? What are the strengths/weakness of various models? Where are the students recruited from? How long does it take to prepare a teacher through alternative models? Is alternative certification meeting the needs for new teachers created by impending shortage?

Presentation Title:

Alternative Routes to Certification of Technology Education Teachers

When asked the question, “Is the focus of the conference appropriate to address the critical issues you are facing in the profession?” the majority of the Members did indicate that ,“yes,” the content was appropriate. However, there were several that said “no”. Dissenting statements included “all but the issues of Department Chairs”; “No it is far too NARROW!”, and “it could be broadened to include items beyond just teacher education in technology education.”

If the questions guiding the content maintain the uniformity and traditional perceptive of technology education, than affecting change on any level will be more difficult. The topics, and questions were not exactly uninspired, but they didn’t seem to have the progressive focus or vision of a field or society that expects technical literacy not just from a specific social class, but from everyone who possesses “jobs skills.”

Presentation Format

Dr. Erekson concluded his remarks, and at 9:30 a.m. the podium was turned over to the first session officers. The transition occurred promptly on schedule. The session officers (the presiding member and the session chair) sat to the left of the podium in the bottom of the U, facing the rest of the conference attendees. They stood to introduce the presenters for that particular session, who sat on the right side of the podium listening and waiting for their presentation time.

The first presenter made his way to the podium and began his remarks. His alert eyes and faint smile conveyed both a sense of fear and enthusiasm. A copy of his paper was handed out to everyone in attendance. Members were attentive, necks were strained, and smiles crossed most faces as they listened to the presenter and reviewed the paper in front of them. Members looked comfortable in what I assumed was a familiar setting and format.

The presentations went smoothly and the only murmur I heard came from an individual at the end of the table whom I mistook for a guest. (Wouldn’t an Active member know better?) After fifteen minutes into each presentation, a note was flashed to the presenter from the session Chair, then another at the nineteen minute mark, and at twenty minutes a final card flashed which read “Your Time is Up.” The papers were politely concluded and thank you expressed. Applause always followed. Although the majority of the presentations fit into this format neatly, one or two seemed might go on forever, but for the thwarting efforts of the session officers. Session officers were rotated each session. Their responsibilities included introducing the presenters, keeping presenters to their time limit, and leading the session discussion period after the presentations. Everything had order and everything seemed to be falling into its place.

It was during a particularly dry presentation later that afternoon that several heads slumped forward -- perhaps in light sleep. Others stared at the screen with expressionless faces. If they were feeling as I was, they were struggling to maintain interest. A few of the members turned to tasks that they might have felt were more important. One of the prominent professionals in the field, an Active member who presented earlier that morning, sat near the back at the end of the U and worked on his palm pilot. Although most of the other audience members did not follow his example, his attention to the speaker seemed to be a barometer of presentation quality.

The presenter, continued to flip through one overhead after the next. Before long, the session chair flashed the final time is up card. A minute later it flashed again. The presenter looked at it, hesitated, and muttered something about not seriously making him stop in the middle…and continued on. The chair’s face went from a look of amazement to amusement. The card flashed again and shortly after, the Cup was passed to the podium so he could pay his fine for going overtime. A nervous laughter along with applause filled the room as the presenter dug in his pockets to find a dollar or two for the Cup. The presenter took his seat.

I relaxed into my chair, thankful for the release of tension through laughter. For some reason, I had been stressed during this presentation. It wasn’t that I was disinterested in the subject, but I was concerned about the level of excellence. I tried to overlook it throughout the conference, but after sitting through all four content sessions, I wasn’t so sure the problem was limited to just the one presenter.

Session Break

After a sessions’ third presentation, the session chair steps to the podium and announces a 10 minute break to allow members to consider questions they might have on concerning a particular topic. I stood to stretch during the break of one of the sessions. The former presenter’s apparent disregard of time and quality when preparing his speech continued to nag at me. Perhaps my inexperience and my first encounter with the Conference back at BYU led me to expect too much from the presenters. I had included a question related to this issue on my questionnaire and I went over to see if anyone had responded to them. Only a few were turned in, but as I looked over them, this comment jumped out at me.

“I expect the conference to address CURRENT issues of GREAT importance - in open debate. I expect the conference presenters to have done their homework and to present well-researched scholarly presentations that raise issues and take a position, not just pose more questions. Then the questions/debate should address the position taken. My expectations have generally been met over the years, but not as much so in the past 5 years.”

I decided to continue to ask others about how they felt about the quality of the conference in my informal interviews if I got the chance.

I turned to walk out of the conference room and just about bumped into a Member approaching rather quickly. He had a stern look on his face. Asking if he could have one of my questionnaires, he told me he had thrown his away. I searched for a copy in my folder and he made a comment about making it a practice not to fill out questionnaires, but that today he was mad enough that he might just fill one out. I sensed frustration in his voice and asked if he would share with me what was bothering him. He told me he was tired of the superficial research, and that “we should have model research here at this conference.” He expressed his disdain of poor methodology and presentations on virtually nothing. As he turned to leave the room with survey in hand, he said “Oh well, Garbage in Garbage out.” I suspect his survey never made it back.

Quality

In their studies on technology education research, Foster (1992,1996), Johnson (1993),Zuga (1994, 1996), Lidtke (1996), and Pucel (1995), specify the need for considerable improvement in breadth of research methodologies, scope, and quality of research in the field. I had anticipated that the prestigious Membership and the Conference’s high leadership and quality would set it apart from the rest of the field in this concern. But perhaps the Conference struggles with these same research issues too.

Looking at research methodologies used in papers presented at this year’s Conference, I found 8 of 12 authors used a mailed or electronic survey as their primary data gathering technique. Ex-post Facto designs were the standard for 2 of 12 papers where they analyzed information from the ITEA directory, ERIC databases or Dissertation International Abstract data sources. The remaining two papers did not report new findings, rather they presented supported positions on their topics relying on others research. Two of the studies used combined methodologies effectively, which strengthened the conclusions considerably.

Throughout the Conference debate sessions, several members’ posed critical questions to presenters related to the quality of their presentation or research. During the first day, one presenter stood up immediately following the prior presentation and questioned the methodology of research. In another case, a prominent member of the field presented and Member sarcastically criticized him for “re-presenting” because of its reliance on the former paper instead of generating new information. Contemplating the issue of quality in the presentation and papers presented, I interviewed a longstanding member of the Conference and asked him how he perceived the quality was for this year. He concluded, “during the past several years the scholarship, impact and meaningfulness of the research and of the conference has not been what it used to be.”

Leadership

Even though some of the presentations and research was not particularly well crafted, in the long run these presentations may have a positive outcome. Younger and more inexperienced presenters will benefit by participating in a rigorous presentation format and the natural development and growth process stemming from this will foster leadership and increased attention to quality within the Conference Membership. I noticed that every session of the Conference had two presenters generally more respected in the profession because of their academic contributions scheduled with a less established Member. In this manner the conference can continue to build it’s Leadership, yet try to maintain a high standard of quality.

In talking about this topic, one member stated “It wasn’t long ago that I sat in that back corner and looked around in awe as I put faces with names of people I had been reading.” Now here he was, presenting. I began to realize that not only was this Conference grand because of the grand ideas flowing from the elders, but it was also building people who would succeed them. These upcoming bright people were given the chance to do meaningful research and present it in a very challenging forum.

In a letter I had read congratulating a new Member on his acceptance into the Conference back in 1970, past General Conference Chair Dr. Evans wrote, “gains from the conference will be proportionate to your contributions.” This truism suggests that the success of the Conference may dependent on innovative and thought provoking research topics. As I considered the Membership and their many responsibilities of leadership, I wondered how their time was affecting their ability to contribute. Perhaps a busy leadership position takes too much from their ability to focus on technology education? Similarly, many of the teacher training programs in the field have taken second seat to technology management, human resource management, or industrial technology programs. Are these changes in the field affecting the Members of this Conference in their role as teacher technology education leaders?

Critical Dialogue Sessions

After the ten minute break, we returned to our seats for the debate. From an organizational standpoint, the sessions seemed to be running like a well-oiled machine -- with the exception of one or two presenters going over time. The break itself was nice because it gave Members time to formulate questions for the presenter to be administered during the question and answer period. Guests did not have to worry about coming up with questions because they would not be able to ask them, so the break allowed for a time to stretch, get a drink, and visit.

The session chair stood to the podium to begin the question and answer period. I wondered how aggressive the audience would be to the Member who had just struggled through his presentation. Would the Member who came up to me during the break, get into a heated debate with the presenter? Perhaps now I wold see some “critical” debate in the session. The room quieted as the session chair re-convened. He acknowledged Members’ right to the floor to voice a question by pointing or calling out their names as they raised their hands or stood to be heard. If not already standing, a Member did so when asking a question. It wasn’t long until the member who shared his disgust with me during the break stood. He said “Thank you for the good presentation of meaningless information…could you address the poor methodological issues in your study?” Tension was in his face as he took his seat and waited for the response.

The presenter approached the podium and proceeded to give an answer unrelated to the question. He concluded by saying “I’m not sure if I addressed your question or not,” and sat down. The questioner shook his head, looked around, and his eyes settled on the paper in front of him. The session chair cast a querying look his way, to see if a follow up question was coming, but none came. His eyes continued to convey a look of frustration and tension spread across his face. Perhaps he was frustrated because the presenter had not addressees the issue, and he had let him off.

Critical dialogue sessions are one of the founding and defining elements of the conference. In the words of one Member, “the sessions help the communication of ideas and allows for a friendly communication, especially where strong feelings are involved.” Another one said that the question and answer time “keeps the conference dynamic -- It can't possibly drag on with this format!” While talking on the phone in an interview with the Chairman, he related the following personal story about the presentation format which gives insight to a presenters experience,

“Presenting papers can be very intimidating. Some people are perhaps frightened to do it. I remember one time the Chair phoned me and asked If I knew of anyone who would be willing to present on a paper on equity, gender, minorities, etc. and I volunteered to do it. -- I got ripped to pieces. It was not even funny. It was not a good experience, and I was a Dean at the time.”

Out of the 12 presenters, 8 or more began their remarks with comments concerning the intimidating forum of the conference such as “Thanks for the privilege, I guess it’s a privilege.” “I’d much rather be a guest in the back than be presenting.” And “I thought this was going to be fun until this morning as I stand before you.”

I found it interesting that for most presentations, from my perception that these fears seemed to be unrealized. No voices were raised, or emotions flared. The comments were very cordial and were quite rational. Was the perceived nature of the forum actually much more critical than it was in the past? Visiting with a retired Former Active member, he suggested “Yes. The question and answer sessions were much more aggressive in the past.” He listed several names of people who used to tear into people and “give em hell.” Another member suggested that “It just depends on the audience and who is in attendance as to how intimidating the critical dialogue can be.” It was with this diverging evidence that I continued to observe in safety from the back of the room.

Although many presenters seemed concerned about the question and answer period, the majority fared well. There were very few critical comments and no heated debates. Some of the most critical comments were: “At one time I would have jumped all over that presenter. I’d have told him to go back to school!”, “Thanks for Re-selling last years presentation on…”, and “You didn’t address this issue in the paper or presentation, would you like to?” It was my observation, that people overall were actually quite non-confrontational. Throughout the conference I continued to interview participants during the breaks and contemplated this issue further. Though it wasn’t until I had the opportunity at the end of the conference to face the audience for myself, that I had a sense of what it was they felt and why they continued to comment on the intimidating nature of presenting to the group.

At the end of the conference, a Member raised his hand and asked the General Chair if he could hear from the “Evaluator.” Dr. Erekson, looked at me way in the back, as did the whole room, and asked me. “What do you say Jared?” I said “sure!” Confidently I walked towards the podium, yet with each step my heart seemed to pound harder, and It felt like the confidence was dripping from my being. By the time I reached the front my mouth was dry, heart racing, and hands sweaty -- I realized why the Members commented as they did. But as I began to tell them of my the Case and the preliminary issues that concerned me, I found free from the fright once more, and ready to take em on. Thinking back, I’m somewhat relieved no one asked me any questions, as I was truly not well prepared for them but perhaps I could have side stepped them anyway.

The Cup

As the debate session continued, it wasn’t long before one of the members stood and gave a long testimonial about his feelings. The session chair responded “is there a question in there somewhere?” Laughter from the audience broke out and the man responded, “well, yeah” then proceeded in vain to formulate a question for one of the presenters. As soon as he sat down, Ray Karnes, the oldest attending member of the conference stood up. He immediately took a five-dollar bill out of his wallet, and walked to the front of the room where the cup sat, and placed the bill inside. He said,

“A certain individual from Wayne State University used to go on and on forever, talking incessantly especially about how great his institution was. After a while we could hardly stand it. The membership decided to initiate a fine for anyone who bragged about his or her institution and to double it for a two-hour speech!”

Knowing he didn’t have a question in his speech, he left the money, turned and said. “I thought I’d share that story with this young man who just bore his testimony.” He sat down with a broad smile on his face.

The Cup is just a glass pulled from a near by catering table. But once it is on the podium, If members are caught mentioning their institution by name, bragging about their institution, or going on and on with their comments during the debate forum while addressing one of the participants with a supposed “question,” the Member will be expected to contribute money to the cup. The Cup was passed around frequently throughout the presentation and debate sessions. A couple of people, when they knew they were going to perjure themselves precluded their comments by first asking for the cup: “I’ll start off by putting two dollars in the cup because I know I’ll use it up.” Others slowed their speech down and pondered how to phrase the reference to their institution carefully when they thought they might run the risk of being fined and came up with sentences like “I am aware of a particular institution in central Indiana that….” Offences were always well received by the audience, and the money went towards the expenses of the Conference.

The Cup is just one unique element that makes the conference appealing to its members. Through talking to the Members and guests and throughout questionnaire responses, other unique elements of format and structure appreciated include a low number of participants, assigned paper topics, critical debate sessions, membership policy, and session officers. One State specialist said, “If the conference wasn’t unique, it would be just like every other thing. Why would we want to come?”

Membership

I joined the membership committee for their luncheon meeting on Friday afternoon. The committee had been formed during the conference’s opening remarks by the Chairman when he called out several members to meet with the conference membership Chair during lunch. That was all that was needed to create an ad-hoc committee, charged with reviewing the nomination of those who were eligible to become new Members of the Conference. The committee took their seat a large round table in the hotel’s restaurant, and now sat poised ready to address the critical issues of membership.

A waitress came and took our orders. I faintly heard the 6 members of the committee order their meals but I was focused on how this committee was going to fulfill their purpose. Who would they be inviting this year to help provide professional impact and leadership in the Central States? Besides having a general curiosity in the overall process, this meeting was particularly interesting to me because it was the last meeting for the current membership chair, Clyde Craft. He was retiring and was the only person to ever hold the membership chair position. This was going to be the first changing of the guard.

The new membership Chair sat next to Clyde, with the 4 additional members of the ad-hoc team sitting in no particular order around the table. I felt awkward being the only non-Member, so turning to the person on my right I introduced myself. Time slipped away as chitchat floated from the table concerning a variety of different subjects. Finally one of the committee members suggested we begin the meeting, and asked what exactly the committee was suppose to accomplish during this time.

Clyde explained that throughout the year, members sent him forms nominating new members for the conference. Once received, he reviewed them for completeness, corresponded with the nominator, then filed them for review at this meeting. He explained that within the nomination file, there are some key items that must be complete in order for them to be considered for the nomination.

The “must haves” are:

1. the completed nomination form

2. a letter from the dean or administrative leader verifying their leadership position

3. their VITAE

4. record of attendance at one or more conferences in the past 4 years.

He stressed the importance of these items and reflected on past committee meetings that lasted into the afternoon sessions because committee members were on the phone trying to determine who was eligible and in the leadership position at their particular institution. If any of these key items were missing, the nominee and nominator was notified that the file was incomplete and they were not considered until the file was completed.

The new membership chair read off the names nominated for Membership this year along with the names of those who had nominated them. There were only three. No one indicated they knew a nominee and no one discussed the Members who nominated them. (Personally, I recognized several of the nominators’ names, one was the Conference General Chair.) Further discussion ensued about past issues that had arisen about the rules and regulations. It was reported that there were currently 37 active members, and 12 Active At Large. This left room for 23 new Active members, and 3 At Large.

Lunch arrived. We began eating and reverted back to related topics, but ones that were not essential to nomination of the candidates. I considered the numbers that had just been reported. There were a lot of vacancies. I wondered if the numbers of active members had been declining like the numbers of professionals in the field of technology and industrial education over the years. When I returned home from the conference I searched the archives to investigate this question. I researched the status of current vacancies as compared to those of the recent past. I randomly selected Membership records from the past 25 years and recorded them as follows:

Year	# Active Members
1977	61
1980	59
1988	54
1990	49
1993	44
1995	43
1999	37

I found that since 1977, the Membership in the Conference has been declining. Furthermore, during the past 30 years, since 1970, there have been many Members leave the Active member status without replacement. In fact in the last 30 years, 62 of the institutions that were represented by an Active Member, no longer have representation at the Conference. Only 20 new institutions, previously not represented with Members at the Conference, joined in this same time period, leaving a gross loss of 42 institutions sending representatives to the Conference.

With these institutional numbers in mind, it is clear that the Conference is involved in a Membership struggle much larger in the profession. Across the nation there is not enough people in the technology education profession. One Member commented on this problem in their questionnaire saying:

“There is a decrease in the number of people who are in the profession of Technology Teacher Education. Other opportunities of faculty at Technology Teacher Education institutions for involvement in other professional associations is growing which causes our profession to be fragmented in the development of a consistent philosophy.”

Marie Hoepfl discussed the problem at the K-12 level as a large challenge as well. “All but five states in this study reported having unfilled positions at the present time, with a maximum of 15 (Florida) and an average of 37 unfilled positions. A total of five states noted more than 100 vacancies.” (1999)

In the State of Missouri, according to a personal communication with the State Specialist for technology education, there are currently 120 positions vacant in the public school system, and they anticipate up to 180 more next year due to retirement. He also said, that “industry is drawing the people that might want to teach into the field because of the high pay. Schools just can’t compete.” He continued by suggesting that until the economy goes bad, the problem won’t be solved. These numbers surprised me, but so did his attitude about our potential solutions to the problem. From his perspective, technology is advancing at such a rapid pace, and there seems to be no shortage of opportunities for skilled people, fewer and fewer technology or skills oriented people are interested in teaching or leading.

One perspective one might take in viewing this crisis, is that the evolution or change from industrial education, (a field that traditionally focused on skills), to technology education, (a field that is more focused on technology literacy and life long learning skills), has cost the field its uniqueness. Dr. Garth Hill, former department head at Brigham Young University used to say that “if your program or field looses it’s uniqueness, you loose your program.” If this has occurred, couldn’t it affect professionals considering the field, teachers, students, legislator, and the general public in a negative way?

In a study conducted in the State of Utah investigating the acceptance of technology education, it was found that the majority of teachers were resistance to change. Furthermore, many teachers indicated that there is no concept for what technology education is, let alone know how to accept it or teach it. One of the teachers summarized this idea in the following statement:

“Industrial education and technology education are not the same thing. As industrial educators have tried to embrace “technology education (whatever that is) we have given our unique body of knowledge. We once had a special place and real identity. Since we have tried to teach everything in every field to everybody, we no longer have a specific identity that people can relate to. When you say you teach industrial arts, people know what you are about. When you say you are a technology teacher, they don’t have a clue.” (Berrett, 1999)

Several Conference Members made reference to this challenge as well. One of the Members made the following comment. “I believe there are significant opportunities passing us by as a total profession because we are still operating under traditional practices, most of which still has value but does not reflect the changes in our cultural environment on a global scale.” In one of the debate sessions, Dave Bjorkquist, former General Chair, raised the question if the modular approach would give us that “identity” we have lost as a field. Although the question was not directly answered, it made me wonder how our identity crisis is going to affect our future, and understand what is happening now.

Voting

Tuning back in to the lunch conversation, I heard the new Membership Chairman ask if there were any more questions about the Nominees. He seemed ready to initiate the committee vote process for the three completed folders. I wondered if everyone was as uncomfortable as I might have been voting for someone that I hardly even knew their name when their membership was going to be critical to the organization in the years ahead. One of the members, with a concerned look on his face, suggested he would like to review the folders before they voted. I eased back into my chair. The folders were passed around one by one. People scanned them briefly, the vote was taken, and lunch was adjourned. The vote was unanimous for the new candidates.

As we headed back to the conference room, I pondered a statement the retiring Membership Chair made just prior to voting. He said “During the time I have been involved with membership, as Membership Committee Chair (approximately twenty years) no one who has had his or her paperwork properly filed has ever been turned away from membership.” I was struck with this comment because it was my perception that a members were inducted through a fairly selective process such as the one cited below that another member shared with me on how this whole process worked.

“There is a membership chair, and a nominating committee who nominates new applicants. They fill out applications, and at the conference the committee reviews them, they are voted on, and the top five or so are presented in the business meeting as new members.”

Although some may have this perspective that the committee weeds out through voting, apparently the current standard is nomination itself as the defining rule of membership.

Mediation

I thought it ironic that the Conference, with such a leading role in thinking and writing about technology education challenges, itself offered limited evidence of how to address it’s decline in Membership. To further investigate this issue I asked some of the attendees in my questionnaire “Who should be here at the conference?” Was it a matter of attracting them, or a matter of redefining who should be there? One member wrote:

“Who is already established, the Mississippi Valley chairs and deans... If we invite others, the unique structure will be lost. This is a perfect size group -- if it gets bigger it'll lose that flavor”

I thought about the declining numbers again, the changing context of needed skills, and technologically advancing society, and I couldn’t help but thinking this answer was narrow minded.

Not Attending

One reason that the number of attendees to the conference was low is because there are fewer people to invite. There are fewer leadership positions in technology education than their used to be and fewer people filling them. In the last 10 issues of the International Technology Education Directories, it can be seen that the number of department heads affiliated with that organization has dropped by 20% from nearly 300 to approximately 240. In addiction to this more obvious reason, Guests, potential Members, and longtime Members give various reasons for their decision not to attend the Conference.

In a letter declining the invitation to join the conference back in 1969, a dean gives us insight into the challenges administrators’ face and the reasons they might be unable to accept a Member position. The dean reports that he typically attends 4-6 conferences a year, is responsible for thee different departments, and just can’t afford to spend more time away from the university. A recent interview with a former active member who no longer attends uncovered yet another explanation for his absence: “We don’t do Technology Education anymore” he reported. The focus of his department has shifted and as a result his research, time, and interests have all shifted as well. Attending the conference was no longer a priority for him.

Alternative views

When a new Member wrote to Rupert Evans back in the early 70’s to nominate someone else for Membership, he took the opportunity to observe that “there are other highly qualified individuals who cannot be named because present membership rules prohibit their consideration at this time.” My analysis of the 1999 Membership report (Craft, 1999),; during the first 30 years of the conference and up until 1940, revealed that during this period primary membership of the conference was held by University and College leaders in the field. Five members of the conference represented public school systems. A few trade school representatives had become members as well. Board of education members from several different states, magazine publishers and a few technical society representatives also served as Members during the first thirty years. Still, there were relatively few Members with these backgrounds 50+ years ago, and their representation remains small today. During the most recent 30 years of the Conference, there have been only 18 members from organizations other than universities or colleges, which means that just 1% of the Membership population is made up of individuals outside of academia.

These statistics prompted me to think that perhaps people from these under represented segments of the membership might have more to contribute. I sought out some state technology education specialists at the conference to confirm my suspicions. One told me that the conference was providing value to them because “State superintendents call me and ask me for teachers…I am a resource. I need to know what is going on in the field, and need to be in the know. I bring back a learned perspective a good perspective.” However, another perspective emerged on the questionnaire as well. One state supervisor in response to the question “Is the focus of the conference appropriate to address the critical issues you are facing in the profession?”, wrote “No, as a state supervisor I have to address issues and problems that are based within the k-12 labs/classrooms of my state.” Issues and problems he identified included keeping practicing teachers up with the state of the art technology, funding k-12 technology education programs in order to sustain the growth and technological change, and coordinating collaborative efforts between individuals in our system. Perhaps this individual was not looking hard enough in the content of the Conference, but even still, the comment indicates a perception that the Conference is not meeting their needs.

Another effort designed to mediate the declining membership problem has been realized in the creation of the Active At Large Membership position. This position was proposed in 1972 after a special committee, appointed to study and make recommendations regarding future directions for the conference, suggested:

“ that there be a membership category of “Active-at-Large” confined to five individuals who have a great interest in the conference and who would be appointed without regard to institutional or professional responsibilities and who would be willing to be active in the Conference.

These membership positions have now expanded to 15 members. The committee also recommended that “outside speakers be invited to participate in Conference meetings when the topic under discussion requires their unique expertise.” There were no outside speakers who participated at this year’s conference to evince that this recommendation had been accepted. Perhaps it was accepted, but is still not being utilized. There is always the possibility that “outside speakers” have presented at previous conferences and that the absence of them this year was peculiar.

Finally, women make up another group not well represented in the Conference. I did not focus any of my research questions on women, but as I reported earlier, the maximum number of women Members I saw in one session was three at this years Conference. The field has always had difficulty attracting women, but perhaps as the field moves further into broader technological frontiers, there will be more women who feel that there is a place for them in this new world of possibilities. In the next decade, as more and more people are involved in collaborative network, distance education, and the Internet, people in every discipline will use elements of technology and will need and teach technological literacy. Can technology education as a field if not the MSVTTEC accommodate them? And if they were included, what kind of contribution could they make?

Status

As I pondered the numerous issues considered here at the Conference, I recalled an analogy that seems to relate well to the current status of the field of technology education and the MSVTTEC. Neurath, a famous philosopher who used this analogy for theorizing about theories, suggested that a theory is like a boat surrounded by water. (A program of technology education, or this Conference could be considered the boat.) As the boat floats, it goes though calm and rough waters, and when the course is rough, it often gets battered and ends up needing patching.

In the case of this Conference, the battering might represent funding challenges, problems with state certification or requirement, economic and social changes, technological advancement, or perhaps disagreement as to the future direction of the field. Fortunately, (or unfortunately in some cases), most damages to boats are perceived as repairable, allowing for boats, theories, and programs to be an adaptable and evolutionary invention.. The problem with this adaptability is when we must ask “Should we let the boat sink and get a new one?” As this image drifted into my mind, I remembered something that Paul DeVore had said the previous night at dinner: “If we let programs that are not doing a good job remain, than we are doing a disservice to the society.”

Facing Change

As the final debate session concluded, and the General Chair, Dr. Erekson wished everyone well until they met again, I felt certain that the MSVTTEC boat was still afloat, but tossing about on the seas change. Whether this boat should be patched or pitched is something I leave to those who have attended these meetings year after year and to those who are just joining them. This question should be left to these Members because they are the only people who can answer it. I perceive my role as an outside case study evaluator was to investigate, elaborate and present information that will facilitate further dialogue regarding change and it’s relationship to content, format, and Membership. It is evident that the historical precedence of both the field of technology education and the Conference are factors in how it might proceed to cope with the changing societal needs surrounding it.

Content

At the conclusion of the Conference, I found myself reviewing the papers that had been handed out and again comparing them with the topical questions from the agenda. One paper, among the almost one-in-three focused on looking into the future of technology education was particularly notable because it moved beyond the tired question “How do we cope?,” to offer the vision “How we might embrace technology and the new possibilities it offers the field to excel in the future?” The author writes:

“Let us engage our colleagues actively in ALL facets of technology education …All parties concerned with developing technological understandings and capabilities need to be around the table and interacting. The USA'’ citizenry cannot afford to be served by partisan organizations or professions.” (Dyrenfurth, 1999)

Thinking beyond the traditional perspectives is inevitably in the faced of the rapid growth of our technological society. Paul DeVore said, “It is such an exciting time in the field. We must not focus on how to protect ourselves, but how do we move forward in the field.”

Format

Conference Members seem to enjoy the format of the Conference. They suggest it provides a great avenue for “communication, especially where strong feelings are involved. It also keeps the conference dynamic” through the debate sessions. However, one of the problems evidenced was the lack of attention or the perceived low quality of research. Some of the members showed concern, as did I. One member states that there has been some “impediment of ideas as a result of research techniques...” Another Member plainly called for more critical debate in stating : “the fire needs to be re-kindled!”

Membership

When someone becomes a member, they take it upon themselves to do their share, to attend, to participate, present, chair sessions, etc. and to support the Chairman. As Members focus on their responsibilities, nominating qualified candidates might be top on their list. Rupert Evans used to send out letters to new candidates welcoming them and reminding them of this obligation. He expected results, and he worked hard to get them. His uncompromising dedication to the conference seemed to pay off. In 1973, in a letter requesting that a current Member serve on the membership committee, Evans wrote: “this years task will be particularly difficult since we have a considerably greater number of nominees than we have vacancies in membership.” This “difficult” position might be an enviable one today since there are currently 23 vacancies on the membership committee. But even more critical to sustaining a healthy Membership in the coming century may be how new Members are limited by Membership policy, and who should be recruited to fill these vacancies. Should Membership continue to be limited to leaders of a field that is slowly disappearing?

It will be difficult for the Conference to continue to grow and improve with an ever-smaller number of Members or without a field that has a clear vision of it’s goals and focus. The numbers of Members in the Conference are declining right along with the numbers in the field of technology education. Yet paradoxically, Technology use and innovation continues to increase at an unbelievable rate. Perhaps the solution lies not in recruiting individuals who have a historical prescribed set of ideas about what technology education is and should be, but rather a much broader view of technology education --one where the field capitalizes on the teaching of technology in all levels of education as suggested in the mission statement. The Conference may not be able to afford to continue the narrow exclusivity that results from the overwhelmingly non-diverse teacher training leader membership.

Conclusion

Members of the conference began filing out of the room, smiling and saying their good byes. I went with the flow and soon found myself back on the street. I headed through the now familiar park once more as I thought more about the Conference that had just concluded. The sun was low in the sky and the shadow from the arch crept far over the Mississippi River onto the banks of the other side. I couldn’t help wonder if technology education had the potential to cast its shadow across every academic field within a matter of a few short years. Technological literacy is now a reality in all subjects. Perhaps next year’s Conference will focus more on the future. Perhaps the Member I visited with who said “we are not spending the time and effort focusing on the future, we’ve been talking about the same issues for the past 50 years.” will get his own opportunity to present.

As I thought about this Member, I realized there were many individuals at the Conference who supported change, but that as a group, they seem to have lost some of the heretical spirit that once existed at the Conference and have fallen into a state of passivity. Perhaps, as on member suggested, because of this passivity “there are significant opportunities passing us by as a total profession because we are still operating under traditional practices, most of which still has value but does not reflect the changes in our cultural environment on a global scale.” Perhaps what the Conference might need is a few more Members who don’t fee that it is inherently sacred to maintain the historical past; more Members who had suggested during lunch earlier that day that:

“This organization will need to change if it is going to survive. The attitude of the current group attending the Conference, likes the history, and do not want change. However I anticipate it will be needed.”

Another Member who overheard this comment agreed. When I asked all other Members sitting around the table if they anticipated change would be necessary to sustain the conference, they all conceded that it would be. Perhaps this potential for change is just over the next wave. Or perhaps it lies on the shores of a churning sea half a world away.

The Conference and the field of technology education has a unique opportunity to think and act on a grand, if not global scale, but it struggles to do so. Everything from the content, Membership, and structure of the Conference evidences this struggle, but it is the overarching concept of change which perhaps provides the stumbling block. The paper presented by Tom Erekson makes the argument for re-inventing programs and letting old ones die which are not serving the needs of our current paradigm. In his paper presented at this year’s Conference, he posed the critical question that remains to be answered: “Are members of the Mississippi Valley Conference going to be leaders or followers?”

References:

Bennett, C. A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917. Peoria, IL: Bennett.

Berrett, J. (1999). A study to investigate the acceptance of technology education by technology education/industrial education teachers in Utah. Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.

Bjorquest, D. C., Evans, R. N., & Johnson, S. D., (1996). An association’s role in developing leaders. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22,(1), 22-27.

Craft, C. (1999) Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference Membership Rules and Regulations. Paper published for the MSVTTE 86^th annual conference St. Louis Missouri

Dyrenfurth, M. J. (1999). Engineering & Technology – The nature of the Relationship. Paper presented at the Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. November 5-6, 1999.

Evans, R. (1979) ACIATE 78^th Annual Year Book.

Lauda, D. P. (1988). Industrial Teacher Education 1988-2000. Industrial Teacher Education in Transition, 255-271. Paper presented at the Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, Missouri.

Foster, T. W. (1992). Topics and methods of recent graduate student research in industrial education and related fields. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30, (1), 59-72.

Foster, T. W. (1996, June). A research agenda a for technology education. Paper presented at the Technology Education Issues Symposium. June, 1996.

Hoepfl, M. (1999). Alternative routes to certification of technology education teachers. Paper presented at the 86^th Annual Mississippi Valley Teacher Technology Education Conference. November 5-6^th, 1999. St. Louis, Missouri.

Hill, G. (1996), Personal correspondence with Garth Hill, Faculty and Department head Emeritus. College of Engineering, School of Technology, Teacher Technology Education.

International Technology Education Association (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, Virginia.

Johnson, S. D. (1993, May/June). The plight of technology education research. The Technology Teacher, 29-30.

Lemons, D. C. (1988). Technology Education: The culmination of a seventy-nine year quest. Industrial Education in Transition, 47-90. Paper presented at the Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, Missouri.

Lidtke, J. A. (1995). What does our literature reveal about our profession? Paper presented at Illinois St. University, Department of Industrial Technology. 1-12.

Pucel, D. J. (1994). Technological Literacy: A critical worldwide literacy requirement. Paper presented to the International Technology Education Association International conference, 1-25.

Striechler, J. (2000). The past defines the paths to be taken. Technology Education for the 21^st Century. Council on Technology Teacher Education 49^th yearbook. 1-12. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Wolansky, W. (1988). What has made the Mississippi valley industrial teacher education conference effective? Industrial Education in Transition, 47-90. Paper presented at the Mississippi Valley Industrial Teacher Education Conference, St. Louis, Missouri.

Zuga, F. K. (1994). Implementing Technology Education: A review and synthesis of research literature, information. (Series No 326) Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

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

Appendix A:

Evaluative Issue Question Detail

Primary Research Questions:
Overall: What is the status of the Conference concerning sustainability in the face of change and crisis in the field? · Is the Conference meeting the needs of the field today by addressing new technological advancement and understanding about teaching, learning, and technological literacy or is it focusing on more traditional pressing topics like knowledge domain, replacement of qualified teachers and teacher trainers, increasing program closures, and an improved research base? · What role do Members play in the success of the Conference, are there enough Members to contribute, are they willing to actively engaging in other modern issues, and is there enough diversity within the Membership? · Does the content and structure of the conference support this change and how does the structure or operation of the conference affect it’s ongoing status?
Sub-Questions Considered:
Conference Structure and Content	Membership
Is the conference keeping up with the changing professional demands of administrators and technology education? Is there too much reliance on historical values? Which aspects of the conference governance are considered to be most meaningful? How does the membership feel about the leadership and direction of the conference? Are the topics and issues debated vitally important? Do the members accept, embrace, and engage in the presentation topics? Does the delivery method add value? Are member contributions valuable to guests? Are the members pursuing excellence, contributing, and persisting in their professional endeavors to impact the field of teaching technology?	Are members “abandoning ship, changing course, or riding out the storm?” (Johnson, 1993) Who is not attending the conference and why? Do members continue to lead the profession with innovative ideas, plans, research, curriculum, and philosophy? Is the scope of membership and it’s regulations serving the needs of the field and conference?

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Conference Content Tables

Table 1 Conference Topics, Questions, Paper Titles, and Presenters – Session 1
Session 1 Title: Issues in the Foundations of the Profession
S1,1	The roots of our profession were intertwined with engineering programs (e.g., Woodward, Runkle). What are the relationships between Engineering and Technology Education today? Are Engineering educators and/or Engineering societies aware of and involved with Technology Education programs? How do we initiate and foster collaboration between Engineering and Technology Education professionals?
	Engineering & Technology—The Nature of the Relationship	Michael Dyrenfurth
S1,2	Technology programs often focus on application – is there a body of knowledge in technology application? Can research be done on application? What is the nature of applied research? To what extent is it accepted on our campuses?
	Applied Research in Technology Programs: A Working Draft	W. Tad Foster
S1,3	What relationships does the “hands-on/minds-on” approach of technology education have with the findings and contributions of the cognitive sciences? Are the findings and contributions of the congitive sciences embraced, integrated, and taught in technology teacher preparation programs? Should they be?
	Cognitive Science Concepts and Technology Teacher Education	Dan Brown

Table 2 Conference Topics, Questions, Paper Titles, and Presenters – Session 2
Session 2 Title: Issues in the Teacher Education
S2,1	Alternative certification models for preparing technology education teachers: Which states have emergency or alternative certification routs for technology teachers? What are the effective models for alternative certification? What are the strengths/weakness of various models? Where are the students recruited from? How long does it take to prepare a teacher through alternative models? Is alternative certification meeting the needs for new teachers created by impending shortage?
	Alternative Routes to Certification of Technology Education Teachers	Marie Hoepfl
S2,2	The new National Science Standards call for pre-graduation science teachers to learn to teach in an applied, constructivist manner. What role should technology teacher education play in preparing new science teachers? Will we be doing a service or disservice to the technology education programs by getting involved?
	Technology Education’s role in the Pre-Service Education of Science Teachers	Gerald G. Lovedah.
S2,3	How/why have some programs (e.g., UW-stout) been so successful with increasing undergraduate enrollment in technology teacher education? How can this success be duplicated elsewhere?
	Factors for Success in Increasing Enrollment in Technology Teacher Education	David Rouch

Appendix C: (continued)

Table 3 Conference Topics, Questions, Paper Titles, and Presenters – Session 4
Session 4 Title: Issues in Leadership and Administration
S4,1	Is there a leadership void in our profession? What is the nature of leadership in technology education as we approach the 21^st century (e.g., state and education agencies, universities, professional associations)? How and where will new leaders be prepared?
	A Snapshot of Leaders in the Profession	Richard Grimsley
S4,2	Are there common factors that lead to the closure of technology teacher education programs? What are the factors? Should the profession support a dying program, or should we let the program die and put our energies into reinvented programs? How should leaders act or react when confronted with the factors or challenges of program closure?
	(same title as topic questions:)	Thomas Erekson
S4,3	What is the turnover rate for department chairs in ITE Directory? Is the changing length of tenure in leadership positions affecting our profession? What are the main reasons that chairs leave the position? Where do they go when they leave the position?
	Length of Tenure Issues and Turnover Rates of Department Chairpersons Listed in the Industrial Teacher Education Directory	Thomas Bell

Table 4 Conference Topics, Questions, Paper Titles, and Presenters – Session 5
Session 5 Title: Issues in Curriculum and Instruction
S5,1	What are the benefits and dangers of commercially developed modular curricula? To what extend it modular curriculum being implemented in the middle and high school programs? To what extent is the modular curriculum being used in technology teacher education programs? Will modular curricula facilitate or hinder implementation of the Standards for Technology Education?
	Modular Technology Education	Ronald G. Barker
S5,2	What does our profession need to do to have a fully articulated k-12 technology education program such as exists in math and science subject areas? Should the profession pursue a fully articulated k-12 technology education program?
	Infusing Technology into the K-12 Curriculum	Daniel L. Householder
S5,3	Should technology education courses count for high school graduation (other than electives)? Are there states or local school districts that require technology education for graduation? Are there states or local districts that require technology education at the middle school level? What about university admission does technology education courses count? Should they? Can technology education prosper as an elective course that doesn’t count in the university admissions?
	Technology Education: Required Courses or Elective Courses	Daniel Vrudny