INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UME films the text direct^ from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in ^ew riter 6ce, while others may be from any type o f conqmter printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, b%innmg at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right m equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographicalty in this copy. Œgher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appeaimg m this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directty to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infinmatios Cboipaiv^ 300 Noith Zeeb Road. Ann Aibor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/S21-0600 A NATURALISTIC STUDY OF AT-RISK STUDENTS ENROLLED IN HIGH SCHOOL TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Phillip L. Cardon, M.S, ir ir ir ir ir The Ohio State University 1999 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Karen F. Zuga, Adviser Professor Michael L. Scott T] o m m u r. ' AAdvise^dvise^ J Professor Jeffrey P. Smith College of Education Graduate Program UMI Number: 9931572 UMI Microform 9931572 Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Utle 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ABSTRACT The enrollment of at-risk students in technology education classes is pervasive throughout the country. However, little was known about why at-risk students would want to take technology education classes, how they valued these classes, and if their desires to take and values of technology education classes helped them to remain in school. Qualitative research methods were used to study how at-risk students view a technology education program. The theoretical basis for the study was related to three theories of learning. These were the knowledge construction, problem solving, and hands-on learning theories. Findings indicated that at-risk students valued technology education courses for the achievements and successful experiences received through hands-on instruction and problem-solving experiences. An additional finding indicated five of the eight students in the study remained in school because of their enrollment and ability to enroll in technology education courses. Ü In memory of Walter Courtland Mason, my maternal grandfather, whose strength of character and eternal belief in education influenced a grandson. XXX ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with heartfelt gratitude that I acknowledge several individuals for the help and encouragement that they gave me during this endeavor. First, to my Father in heaven who blessed me and gave me the opportunity to undertake this endeavor and who blessed me with the talent to do so. Without my loving and wonderful wife, Yuko, this dissertation would not have been possible. To my children, Anthony, Kenny, Charles, and Emelina, who were patient and understanding with their father. For my parents, I express my love and devotion for providing me with life and supporting me in this process. Appreciation is also extended to the high school teachers, students, students' parents, principals, and district directors who participated in this study. Last, but certainly not least, I am indebted to my professors for their efforts in assisting me through the Doctoral program. Special thanks is expressed to Dr. Karen F. Zuga, Dr. Michael L. Scott, and Dr. Jeffrey Smith. iv VITA January 8, 1966 .............. Born - Moab, Utah 1990 ......................... A.S. of Ind. Ed., Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho 1992 ......................... B.S. of Auto Technology, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah 1992-1994 ..................... Product Engineer, Toyota Motor Sales, Torrance, California 1994-1995 ..................... Graduate Work at Utah State University, Logan, Utah 1995-1996 ..................... Graduate Assistant, Technology Education, Brigham Young University 1996 ......................... M.A. of Technology Ed., Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 1996-1999 ..................... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS Research Publication 1. Cardon, P. L. (1998). The Utilization of Problem Solving for the Disabled. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 257) 2. Cardon. P. L. & Christensen, K. W. (1998). Technology- based programs and drop-out prevention. Journal of Technoloav Studies.24(It. 50-54. 3. Zuga, K. F., & Cardon, P. L. (1999). Issues in technology education related to the evolution of the field. In Albert J. Pautler, Jr. (Ed.), Workforce education: Issues for the new century. Ann Arbor, MI: Tech Directions Books, Prakken Publications, Inc. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Studies in Technology Education. Dr. Karen F. Zuga Studies in Curriculum. Dr. Beverly M. Gordon vx TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t ................................................. il D e d i c a t i o n .............................................. iii Acknowledgments........................................... iv V i t a ...................................................... V Table of Contents........................................vii List of T a b l e s ........................................... xi Chapters : 1. Introduction ....................................... 1 1.1 Initial Review of Literature ................. 6 1.1.1 Overview of Technology Education: Literature Pertaining to Secondary Education ........................... 6 1.1.2 Overview of Literature Pertaining to At-risk Students in High School .... 11 1.1.3 Educational Literature Concerning At-risk Students'Perceptions of School 15 1.2 Statement of the P r o b l e m .......................18 1.3 Goals of the S t u d y ............................. 18 1.4 Questions of the S t u d y .........................19 1.5 Objectives of the S t u d y .........................21 1.6 Methods ......................................... 22 1.7 Assumptions..................................... 25 1.8 Significance of the Study .......................27 1.9 Delimitations................................... 28 1.10 Definition of Terms ............................. 29 1.12 Time Line ....................................... 32 2. Procedures........................................... 33 2.1 Planning the S t u d y ............................. 34 vii 2.1.1 P r e - S t u d y ................................. 35 2.1.2 Choosing a S i t e ........................... 36 2.1.3 Entering the F i e l d ......................... 39 2.1.4 Participants............................... 44 2.1.5 Gaining Acceptance......................... 49 2.2 Collecting Evidence ............................... 53 2.2.1 Observations............................... 53 2.2.2 Interviews................................. 63 2.2.3 P a r t i c i p a t i n g ............................. 72 2.2.4 Document A n a l y s i s ......................... 75 2.3 Evaluating...........................................75 2.3.1 Relating Literature ..................... 76 2.3.2 Describing................................. 76 2.3.3 Interpreting............................... 78 2.3.4 Appraising................................. 79 2.3.4.1 Evidence Analysis ................... 80 2.3.4.2 Evidence Retrieval... ................ 81 2.3.5 Establishing Credibility ................. 83 2.3.5.1 Professional Judgement ............. 85 2.3.5.2 Triangulation ....................... 87 2.3.5.3 Dependability ........................ 88 2.4 Summary .............................................90 3. The Context ........................................ 91 3.1 The Environment..................................91 3.2 The Philosophy .................................100 3.2.1 School Philosophy ..................... 100 3.2.2 Technology Education Program Philosophy 108 3.3 The Curriculum ................................ 112 3.3.1 The School c u r r i c u l u m ................... 112 3.3.2 The Technology Education Program Curriculum..................... 115 3.3.3 The Technology Education Program Lessons ....................... 118 3.3.4 Adapting to the Curriculum............... 132 3.3.5 Valuing the Subject Matter of the C u r r i c u l u m ..................... 140 3.3.6 Modifying the Curriculum................. 148 3.4 Summary ......................................... 155 4. The Students' Perceptions of the Technology Education Experience ................ 156 4.1 Presentation, Evaluation, and Analysis of the E v i d e n c e................. 157 4-1.1 How the Students L e a r n e d ................. 157 4-1.1.1 The Construction of Knowledge . 158 viii 4.1.1.1.1 E v i