1996, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 221-238
Comparing technology education in the U.S. and U.K.
- Theodore Lewis
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
British and American discourses and experiences with respect to technology education are compared. Out of this comparison important issues are identified that have implications for the larger ongoing conversation on technology beyond these countries. They include the role of the state in establishing and validating the subject, the dual claims of technology literacy and technological capability, and dual curricular approaches — content and process.
AllsopT. & WoolnoughB.: 1990, ‘The Relationship of Technology to Science in English Schools’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 22, 126–136.
AndersonH. A. & OlstadH.: 1971, ‘American Industry — A New Direction for Industrial Arts’, Man Society Technology 30(8), 246–267.
AnyonJ.: 1988, ‘Schools as Agencies of Social Legitimization’, in W. F.Pinar (ed.), Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Scottsdale, AZ, pp. 175–200.
AppleM. W.: 1982, Education and Power, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.
BarnettM.: 1992, ‘Technology, within the National Curriculum and Elsewhere’, in JohnBeynon & HughieMackay (eds.), Technological Literacy and the Curriculum, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke, Great Britain, pp. 84–102.
BeckR. H.: 1991, General Education: Vocational and Academic Collaboration, National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
BeckwithG. V.: 1989, ‘Science, Technology, and Society: Considerations of Method’, Science, Technology & Human Values 14, 323–339.
BourdieuP.: 1971, ‘Intellectual Field and Creative Project’, in M. F. D.Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control, Collier-MacMillan, London, pp. 161–188.
Congress of the United States of America: 1994, School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Washington DC.
CrossleyM. & VulliamyG.: 1984, ‘Case-Study Research Methods and Comparative Education’, Comparative Education 20(2), 193–207.
Department for Education: 1990 Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO.
Department for Education: 1995, Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO.
De Vore, P. W.: 1967, ‘Curricular Considerations — Oswego’, Final Report to the U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Office of Education, ERIC Document ED 016 069.
DuggerW. E.Jr.: 1995, ‘Technology for All Americans’, The Technology Teacher 54(5), 3–7.
DuggerW. E.Jr., FrenchB. J., PeckhamS. & StarkweatherK. N.: 1991, ‘Sixth Annual Survey of the Profession’. The Technology Teacher 48(1), 10–14.
EgglestonJ.: 1977, The Sociology of the School Curriculum, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.
Epstein, E. H.: 1990, ‘The Problematic Meaning of “Comparison” in Comparative Education’, in J. S. Schriewer & B. Holmes (eds.) Theories and Methods in Comparative Education, pp. 3–23.
Gagel, C.: 1995, Technological Literacy: A Critical Exposition and Interpretation for the Study of Technology in the General Curriculum, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1995.
GoodladJ. I.: 1984, A Place Called School, McGraw-Hill, New York.
GuthrieJ. W. & PierceL. C.: 1990, ‘The International Economy and National Education Reform: A Comparison of Education Reforms in the United States and Great Britain’, Oxford Review of Education 16, 179–205.
HalesJ. A. SnyderJ. F.: 1981a, ‘Jackson's Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory: A Base for Curriculum Derivation’, Man Society Technology 41(5), 6–10.
HalesJ. A. & SnyderJ. F.: 1981b ‘Jackson's Mill Curriculum Theory: A Base for Curriculum Conceptualization’, Man Society Technology 41(6), 6–8.
HannahL.: 1987, ‘Human Capital’, Oxford Review of Education 13, 177–181. Her Majesty's stationery Office (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. Department for Education, (Author).
HerschbachD.: 1995, ‘Technology as Knowledge: Implication for Instruction’, Journal of Technology Education 7(1), 31–42.
HirschE. D.Jr.: 1988, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, Vintage Books, New York, NY.
HirstP. H.: 1972, ‘Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge’, in R. F.Dearden, P. H.Hirst, & R. S.Peters (eds.), Education and Reason, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
HodgkinR. A.: 1990, ‘Techne, Technology and Inventiveness’, Oxford Review of Education, 16, 207–217.
JohnsonJ. R.: 1989, Technology: Report of the Project 2061 Phase I Technology Panel, (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC).
KimC. & LandM. H.: 1994, ‘Recent Development of Technology Education in Korea’. The Technology Teacher 53(4), 30–33.
Kimbell, R.: 1993, Technology in the School Curriculum, a report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment Congress of the United States of America, Goldsmith's College, University of London, London.
LaytonD.: 1993, Technology's Challenge to Science Education, Buckingham, Open University Press.
LaytonD.: 1995, ‘Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5, pp. 89–118.
LewisT.: 1991, ‘Introducing Technology into School Curricula’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 23, 141–154.
LewisT. & GagelC.: 1992, ‘Technological Literacy: A Critical Analysis’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 24, 117–138.
LewisT.: 1994, ‘Limits on Change to Technology Education Curriculum’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 31(2), 8–27.
LewisT.: 1995, ‘From Manual Training to Technology Education: The Continuing Struggle to Establish a School Subject in the U.S.A.’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 27(6), 621–645.
LewisT.: 1996, ‘Accommodating Border Crossings’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 33(2), 7–28.
LewisT.: (1995), ‘Including Technology in the Curriculum of Developing Countries’, Canadian and International Education 24(2), 36–54.
LiaoT.: 1994, ‘Toward Technological Literacy for All’, The Technology Teacher 54(3), 2–4.
LindbladS.: 1990, ‘From Technology to Craft: on Teachers' Experimental Adoption of Technology as a New Subject in the Swedish Primary School’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 22, 165–175.
McCormickR.: 1992, ‘The Evolution of Current Practice in Technology Education — Part 1’, The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau 18(2), 19–28.
McCormickR.: 1993, ‘The Evolution of Current Practice of Technology Education — Part 2: Issues’, The Journal of Technology Studies 19(1), 26–32.
MedwayP.: 1992, ‘Constructions of Technology: Reflections on a New Subject’, in JohnBeynon & HughieMackay (eds.), Technology Literacy and the Curriculum, The Falmer Press, Basingstoke, Great Britain, pp. 63–83.
MurataS. & SternS.: 1993, ‘Technology Education in Japan’, Journal of Technology Education 5(1), 29–37.
National Commission on Excellence in Education: 1983, A National at Risk: The Imperative for Reform, U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC.
NowakS.: 1977, ‘The Strategy of Cross-National Survey Research for the Development of Social Theory’, in A.Szalai and R.Petrella (eds.), Cross-National Comparative Survey Research: Theory and Practice, New York, Pergammon Press.
OakesJ.: 1985, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
OkuyaT., MiyakayaH., HatanoY. & KadowakiT.: 1993, ‘The New National Curriculum of Technology Education in Japan’, 53(2), 24–27.
RappF.: 1989, ‘General Perspectives on the Complexity of Philosophy of Technology’, in Paul T.Durbin (ed.) Philosophy of Technology: Practical, Historical and Other Dimensions, Philosophy and Technology, 6 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht).
ReidW. A.: 1988, ‘The Technological Society and the Concept of General Education’, in I.Westbury & A.Purves (eds.) Cultural Literacy and the Idea of General Education, Eighty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois).
SavageE. & SterryL.: 1990a, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education’, The Technology Teacher 50(1), 6–10.
SavageE. & SterryL.: 1990b, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education’, The Technology Teacher 50(2), 7–11.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills: 1991, What Work Requires of Schools — A SCANS Report for America 2000, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington DC.
SchwabJ. J.: 1962, ‘The Concept of the Structure of a Discipline’, Educational Record 43, 197–205.
Towers, E. R., Lux, D. G. & Ray, W. E.: 1966, A Rationale and Structure for Industrial Arts Subject Matter. A joint project of the Ohio State University and the University of Illinois. US Office of Education, Bureau of Adult and Vocational Research, ERIC Document No. ED 013 955.
WarnerW. E.: 1947, 1965, A Curriculum to Reflect Technology, Epsilon Pi Tau Inc., Columbus, Ohio.
WinnerL.: 1993, ‘Upon Opening up the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology & Human Values 18, 362–378.
- Comparing technology education in the U.S. and U.K.
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Volume 6, Issue 3 , pp 221-238
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- technological literacy
- technological capability
- curriculum as process
- curriculum as content
- Theodore Lewis (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Work, Community and Family Education, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, USA