Comparing technology education in the U.S. and U.K.

  • Theodore Lewis


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.


technological literacy technological capability comparison curriculum as process curriculum as content 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AllsopT. & WoolnoughB.: 1990, ‘The Relationship of Technology to Science in English Schools’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 22, 126–136.Google Scholar
  2. AndersonH. A. & OlstadH.: 1971, ‘American Industry — A New Direction for Industrial Arts’, Man Society Technology 30(8), 246–267.Google Scholar
  3. AnyonJ.: 1988, ‘Schools as Agencies of Social Legitimization’, in W. F.Pinar (ed.), Contemporary Curriculum Discourses, Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Scottsdale, AZ, pp. 175–200.Google Scholar
  4. AppleM. W.: 1982, Education and Power, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. BeckR. H.: 1991, General Education: Vocational and Academic Collaboration, National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  7. BeckwithG. V.: 1989, ‘Science, Technology, and Society: Considerations of Method’, Science, Technology & Human Values 14, 323–339.Google Scholar
  8. BourdieuP.: 1971, ‘Intellectual Field and Creative Project’, in M. F. D.Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control, Collier-MacMillan, London, pp. 161–188.Google Scholar
  9. Congress of the United States of America: 1994, School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  10. CrossleyM. & VulliamyG.: 1984, ‘Case-Study Research Methods and Comparative Education’, Comparative Education 20(2), 193–207.Google Scholar
  11. Department for Education: 1990 Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO.Google Scholar
  12. Department for Education: 1995, Design and Technology in the National Curriculum, HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. DuggerW. E.Jr.: 1995, ‘Technology for All Americans’, The Technology Teacher 54(5), 3–7.Google Scholar
  15. DuggerW. E.Jr., FrenchB. J., PeckhamS. & StarkweatherK. N.: 1991, ‘Sixth Annual Survey of the Profession’. The Technology Teacher 48(1), 10–14.Google Scholar
  16. EgglestonJ.: 1977, The Sociology of the School Curriculum, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. GoodladJ. I.: 1984, A Place Called School, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. HalesJ. A. SnyderJ. F.: 1981a, ‘Jackson's Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory: A Base for Curriculum Derivation’, Man Society Technology 41(5), 6–10.Google Scholar
  22. HalesJ. A. & SnyderJ. F.: 1981b ‘Jackson's Mill Curriculum Theory: A Base for Curriculum Conceptualization’, Man Society Technology 41(6), 6–8.Google Scholar
  23. 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).Google Scholar
  24. HerschbachD.: 1995, ‘Technology as Knowledge: Implication for Instruction’, Journal of Technology Education 7(1), 31–42.Google Scholar
  25. HirschE. D.Jr.: 1988, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know, Vintage Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. HodgkinR. A.: 1990, ‘Techne, Technology and Inventiveness’, Oxford Review of Education, 16, 207–217.Google Scholar
  28. JohnsonJ. R.: 1989, Technology: Report of the Project 2061 Phase I Technology Panel, (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC).Google Scholar
  29. KimC. & LandM. H.: 1994, ‘Recent Development of Technology Education in Korea’. The Technology Teacher 53(4), 30–33.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. LaytonD.: 1993, Technology's Challenge to Science Education, Buckingham, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  32. LaytonD.: 1995, ‘Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5, pp. 89–118.Google Scholar
  33. LewisT.: 1991, ‘Introducing Technology into School Curricula’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 23, 141–154.Google Scholar
  34. LewisT. & GagelC.: 1992, ‘Technological Literacy: A Critical Analysis’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 24, 117–138.Google Scholar
  35. LewisT.: 1994, ‘Limits on Change to Technology Education Curriculum’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 31(2), 8–27.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. LewisT.: 1996, ‘Accommodating Border Crossings’, Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 33(2), 7–28.Google Scholar
  38. LewisT.: (1995), ‘Including Technology in the Curriculum of Developing Countries’, Canadian and International Education 24(2), 36–54.Google Scholar
  39. LiaoT.: 1994, ‘Toward Technological Literacy for All’, The Technology Teacher 54(3), 2–4.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. McCormickR.: 1992, ‘The Evolution of Current Practice in Technology Education — Part 1’, The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau 18(2), 19–28.Google Scholar
  42. McCormickR.: 1993, ‘The Evolution of Current Practice of Technology Education — Part 2: Issues’, The Journal of Technology Studies 19(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. MurataS. & SternS.: 1993, ‘Technology Education in Japan’, Journal of Technology Education 5(1), 29–37.Google Scholar
  45. National Commission on Excellence in Education: 1983, A National at Risk: The Imperative for Reform, U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. OakesJ.: 1985, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality, Yale University Press, New Haven CT.Google Scholar
  48. OkuyaT., MiyakayaH., HatanoY. & KadowakiT.: 1993, ‘The New National Curriculum of Technology Education in Japan’, 53(2), 24–27.Google Scholar
  49. 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).Google Scholar
  50. 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).Google Scholar
  51. SavageE. & SterryL.: 1990a, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education’, The Technology Teacher 50(1), 6–10.Google Scholar
  52. SavageE. & SterryL.: 1990b, ‘A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education’, The Technology Teacher 50(2), 7–11.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. SchwabJ. J.: 1962, ‘The Concept of the Structure of a Discipline’, Educational Record 43, 197–205.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. WarnerW. E.: 1947, 1965, A Curriculum to Reflect Technology, Epsilon Pi Tau Inc., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore Lewis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Work, Community and Family EducationUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations