Educators’ Resistance to the Technology and Engineering Education Transition

The purpose of the qualitative grounded theory study was to explore why industrial arts educators resisted organizational change to technology and engineering education. An exploratory, grounded theory method was used to identify new theory related to educators’ resistance because the current literature did not provide a theoretical perspective about why industrial arts educators have resisted the change. The sampling frame was derived from a database of 379 secondary technology and engineering education teachers in the state of Kansas, and a sample size of 13 participants was needed to reach theoretical saturation of the phenomenon. The data for the study was collected through observations and face-to-face semi-structured interviews with in-service industrial education teachers. Data collected from the observations and interviews were analyzed using the threephase classic grounded theory coding technique. Data analysis and interpretation resulted in the emergence of three substantive theories related to the study phenomenon: (a) inefficacious transition to technology and engineering education, (b) value for technical learning, and (c) industry demand-based change. keywords: educator resistance, technology education, engineering education, industrial arts, grounded theory EDUCATOR RESISTANCE TO THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION TRANSITION Technology and engineering education is a school discipline that has a century-long history of being redefined (Asunda & Hill, 2008). With each transition, the theoretical place and purpose of the discipline within the schools has been modified, which has created a growing gap between the discipline’s theory and practice (Lauda, 1984; Wright, Washer, Watkins, & Scott, 2008). Even though program titles within the discipline have changed from industrial arts to technology and engineering education, there are still a significant number of secondary industrial arts educators who continue to teach from a traditional industrial arts curriculum (Kelley & Wicklein, 2009; Spencer & Rogers, 2006), and as a result they have resisted this transition (Sanders, 1997; Spencer & Rogers, 2006; Wright et al., 2008). Despite significant efforts from the International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) to establish technology education as a broadbased academic core discipline for technology literacy, it has often remained as an elective under the umbrella of career and technical education (Dugger & Johnson, 1992; Wright et al., 2008). These discrepancies have created division among professionals in the field and confusion regarding the overall purpose of the discipline (Katsioloudis & Moye, 2012; Wicklein & Hill, 1996).