Title  : NSF 94-32  Gaining the Competitive Edge
Type   : Report
NSF Org: EHR / DUE
Date   : April 19, 1994
File   : nsf9432




GAINING THE COMPETITIVE EDGE:
Critical Issues in Science and Engineering Technician
Education

A Report from a Workshop Sponsored by the National Science
Foundation
and the
Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and
Technology
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation
July, 1993
TELEPHONIC DEVICE FOR THE DEAF
The National Science Foundation has a Telephonic Device for
the Deaf (TDD) capability which enables individuals with
hearing impairment
to communicate with the Division of Personnel and Management
for information relating to NSF programs, employment, or
general information. This
number is 703-306-1636.
ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION
You can get information fast through STIS (Science and
Technology Information System), NSF's online publishing
system, described in
the "STIS Flyer" at the end of this document.
ORDERING BY ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION
If you have access to either Internet of Bitnet, you may
order publications electronically. Internet users should
send requests to pubs@NSF.
gov. Bitnet users should address requests to pubs@NSF. In
your request, include the NSF publication number and title,
number
of copies, and your name and complete mailing address.
Printed publications also may be ordered by FAX (703-644-
4278). Publications should be received within 3 weeks after
receipt of request.

GAINING THE COMPETITIVE EDGE:
Critical Issues in
Science and Engineering
Technician Education
A Report
from a
Workshop
Sponsored by the
National Science Foundation
and the
Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and
Technology Timothy W. Collins
Don K. Gentry
Vernon O. Crawley
Co-Chairs
July 20-23, 1993
Division of Undergraduate Science, Engineering and
Mathematics Education
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation
Directorate for Education and Human Resources
February 1, 1994
Dr. Neal F. Lane
Director
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
Dear Neal:
I am pleased to submit the report from the workshop on
critical issues in science and engineering technician
education that was a
joint effort of the National Science Foundation and the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology.  The workshop was developed with leadership from
the Division of Undergraduate Education and with significant
support from the Division of
Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education and other
divisions of the Directorate for Education and Human
Resources.  The American Chemical Society and the American
Society for Engineering Education provided additional
leadership and information to ensure that issues were
addressed by representatives from all groups who are
stakeholders in science and engineering technician education
and professional development.
On July 21-23, 1993, 115 technicians, technician educators,
government representatives, and employers met to explore
issues important to the development of high quality science
and engineering technicians in the United States.  During
the three days, participants worked
in interdisciplinary groups to develop recommendations that
provide
a basis for future activities and projects designed to
improve the quality of the U. S. technician workforce.
Through their joint efforts, and with expanded support from
NSF and others, academia and employers can work together to
significantly improve the technical workforce.
Recommendations of the workshop are being carefully
considered.  Many
of the perspectives gained from participants were
immediately incorporated into NSF's Advanced Technological
Education program which received final approval on August
19, 1993.
     Sincerely,
Luther S. Williams Assistant Director
Letter of Transmittal
January 24, 1994
Dr. Robert F. Watson
Director
Division of Undergraduate Education
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
Dear Dr. Watson:
We are pleased to forward to you the report of the FCCSET
workshop, Gaining the Competitive Edge:  Critical Issues in
Science and Engineering Technician Education. We thank you
for the leadership and support provided by the Division of
Undergraduate Education at NSF in the workshop.  We
recognize that this was one of the major
activities in 1993 of  FCCSET CEHR-CIT Joint Working Group
on Technical Education and the FCCSET Working Group on
Undergraduate Education.  We are especially appreciative for
the support in this major undertaking from Luther S.
Williams, Chair of  FCCSET and Assistant Director for
Education and Human Resources (EHR) at NSF.
This workshop, held July 21-23, 1993, focused on strategies
to help develop a high quality science and engineering
technician workforce in the United States; provide
recognition of the importance of highly educated technicians
to the national economy; and initiate greater cooperation on
education of technicians between academe and industry.  The
115 participants represented high technology companies, two-
year colleges, four-year colleges and universities,
secondary schools, professional societies, and federal
agencies with interest in the education of technicians.
With the assistance of the planning committee and NSF staff,
participants received assignments prior to the workshop
designed to
stimulate their thinking on six critical issues.  Each of
the following six topics was addressed by an
interdisciplinary working group: professionalism of
technician careers;
alliances for technician workforce development;
faculty development and enhancement;
human resources issues including recruitment, retention, and
placement of students;
curriculum and program development and improvement; and
secondary school education of candidates for advanced
technician careers.
This report has been reviewed by members of the planning
committee, the chairs and recorders of the working groups,
and all
other participants.  We now submit it to NSF in the spirit
of cooperation, collaboration, and mutual optimism for the
future of  technician education and careers in the United
States.  We encourage NSF, in cooperation
with other federal agencies and business, industry,
government, and academia, to take a leadership role in
implementing the recommendations in the report.  An
excellent beginning has been made with the creation of the
Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program and the
expansion of other programs at the Foundation.
On behalf of all participants of the workshop, we wish
to extend to Elizabeth Teles of the Division of
Undergraduate Education at NSF and  Kenneth Chapman of the
American Chemical Society, our deepest appreciation for
their leadership role in this endeavor.  Your continued
commitment to technician education and your recognition
of the central role of two-year colleges is applauded by
both the
education and employer communities.
     Sincerely,
Timothy W. Collins             Vernon O. Crawley        Don
K. Gentry   Workshop Co-Chair              Workshop Co-Chair
Workshop Co-Chair The Procter and Gamble     Moraine Valley
Purdue University
Company                  Community College
FOREWORD
This FCCSET workshop, Gaining the Competitive Edge:
Critical
Issues in Science and Engineering Technician Education, was
a natural
extension of recent workshops, studies, and reports
supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to help
improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics
education in the United States.  The 1986 National Science
Board report, Undergraduate Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Education (NSB 86-100), identified serious
problems in undergraduate education and included
recommendations for improving
the quality of science, mathematics, and engineering
programs in two-year colleges.  NSF then convened a workshop
that resulted in the report, NSF Workshop on Science,
Engineering, and Mathematics Education
in Two-Year Colleges (NSF 89-50).  A variety of groups then
undertook studies that served as resources for a subsequent
NSF workshop that produced the report, Matching Actions and
Challenges (NSF 91-111).  This report contained specific
recommendations for two-year college faculty, professional
organizations, and college administrators to foster improved
interactions among organizations, faculty, and federal
funding agencies.
To provide a base for future activities and projects
designed
to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education in two-year colleges by utilizing the resources
and networking available from professional societies, NSF
convened a workshop, Partners
in Progress, on October 29-30, 1992.  The report from this
workshop, Partners in Progress (NSF 93-64), noted that the
educational
community [all types of colleges and professional societies]
can improve the quality and effectiveness of science,
technology, engineering,
and mathematics education at all levels to help the nation
remain
a leader in the world marketplace and meet the challenges of
the future (p. 3).
The present workshop was in response to a nationally
recognized
need for a well-educated technical workforce in the high
performance workplace of advanced technologies.  Both
Congress and the White House emphasized the technical
workforce in their 1992 and 1993 initiatives. Congress
passed and the Administration supported the Scientific and
Advanced Technology Act of 1992 which called for the
National Science Foundation to establish a national program
to improve the education for technicians in advanced
technology fields utilizing the resources of the nation's
two-year colleges. In August, 1993, NSF announced the
Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program as a
cooperative effort between the Division of  Undergraduate
Education and the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and
Informal Education. These efforts have created a sound
foundation for cultivating innovative programs to advance
technician education in the United States.
With the experience of several recent workshops that
addressed science, engineering, and mathematics education in
institutions that traditionally educate technicians, NSF
supported the proposal of the
American Chemical Society (ACS) for an invitational workshop
to address science and engineering technician education in
depth. The American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE), the Joint Working Group
on Technology Education of FCCSET, and the FCCSET Working
Group on Undergraduate Education joined ACS and NSF as co-
sponsors of the workshop. The 115 participants who attended
represented high technology companies, two-year colleges,
four-year colleges and universities, secondary schools,
professional societies, and federal agencies with interest
in the education of technicians.
Over the three day period, participants worked to develop
recommendations that provide a basis for future activities,
initiatives, and projects designed to improve technician
education.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the
workshop participants and do not represent NSF policy.  The
recommendations
are under review at NSF.
Executive Summary
The workshop, Gaining the Competitive Edge:  Critical Issues
in Science and Engineering Technician Education, addressed
issues relevant to ensuring the high quality of science and
engineering technicians in the United States.  The workshop
was timely because it has become increasingly apparent that
for the United States to maintain a competitive edge in the
world market, while being environmentally concerned, the
technical component of the workforce in the United States
must be better prepared than the corresponding workforce in
other industrialized countries.  The purpose of the workshop
was to identify critical issues in science and engineering
technician education, to develop recommendations for
industry, academe, and government; and to engage these
communities into action. Deliberations focused on
development of strategies to strengthen two-year college
technician education programs; however, improving education
programs for prospective technicians at the secondary school
level and expanding opportunities for technicians at four-
year colleges and universities and after their employment
were addressed as well.
The 115 participants who attended the workshop, held July 21-
23, 1993, represented high technology companies, two-year
colleges, four-year colleges and universities, secondary
schools, professional societies, and federal agencies with
an interest in the education of technicians. The workshop
was co-sponsored by the American Chemical Society (ACS), the
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the
FCCSET CEHR-CIT Joint Working Group on Technical Education,
the FCCSET Working Group on Undergraduate Education, and the
National Science Foundation (NSF).
Principal Recommendations
Participants were divided into six working groups to examine
the following issues:
professionalism of technician careers;
alliances for technician workforce development;
faculty development and enhancement;
human resource issues including recruitment, retention, and
placement of students;
curriculum and program development and improvement; and
secondary school education for candidates for advanced
technician careers.
This workshop report presents issues and recommendations
relevant to the education of science and engineering
technicians.  The audience for this report includes:  (1)
administrators and faculty
of academic institutions at all levels, but particularly in
two-year colleges; (2) employers of technicians (companies,
government agencies, universities, and others); (3) leaders
of professional societies
in science, engineering, and technology; and (4) federal,
state, and local government officials who have
responsibilities for the quality and quantity of the
nation's technical workforce.  The recommendations in the
report are clustered under the charges of the working
groups. Because there were many cross-cutting themes, a few
highlights of the recommendations that address all concerned
groups are given in this summary.
Administrators and faculty, employers, professional
societies,
and government working together must:
recognize that new educational strategies will require their
commitment and cooperation as well as input from technical
personnel in all groups.
formally recognize the accomplishments and unique
professional characteristics of science and engineering
technicians.
support and disseminate information that identifies,
develops, monitors, and highlights careers of technicians.
catalyze educational reform that gives a high priority to
faculty enhancement and preparation.
address essential standards for the development of technical
curricula and assure quality programs through accreditation
of programs and other similar means.
enhance academic mobility through articulated curricula with
emphasis on applied content knowledge and skills.
develop systems that value racial, gender, and cultural
diversity and promote the prestige and importance of
technicians.
establish job classifications based on voluntary industry
standards to provide career ladder opportunities for
technicians.
provide recognition and award programs for students and
those involved in technician education.
establish successful partnerships to support educational and
professional activities for technicians.
These alliances must:
*    work cooperatively in planning, prioritizing, and
funding educational
programs that produce high quality technicians.
*    support programs that prepare future faculty and
teachers in technical
programs.
*    provide regular opportunities for faculty and teachers
to update
content knowledge and pedagogical skills and remain current
with technological developments.
*    support working technicians with opportunities for
educational and
professional development and enhancement.
*    encourage sharing of resources among all partners.
*    collect and disseminate data on science and engineering
technician
careers and opportunities and provide this information to
students,
parents, and the general public.
*    support the development and delivery of comprehensive
and flexible
instructional materials and programs for technician
education.
In general, technician education programs should:
make experiential, contextual, and collaborative learning an
integral part of education.
assure an adequate foundation in mathematics, science, and
technology.
develop student competencies in written communication, oral
communication, and data acquisition and interpretation.
incorporate advanced instructional technologies including
computer
networks, multimedia, and applications software.
recruit faculty and teachers with appropriate educational
and work place
credentials.
provide faculty and teachers with appropriate time and
resources for course and material development.
supply appropriate facilities and equipment for effective
teaching of technical courses.
provide opportunities for internships in industry for
students, faculty, and teachers.
The Future
Mounting a major national effort to improve the education of
technicians at this time will benefit greatly from the
recognition by many employers that technicians are critical
to future competitiveness and to achievement of work place
management reform efforts.  Furthermore, the interest of
academic institutions in reform should enable technician
education to gain its rightful place in American education.
Implementation of recommendations in this report requires
all groups involved in technician education and employment
to take a much more proactive effort than in the past.
Technician education has become a priority for the National
Science Foundation as well as other government agencies.
The current Administration and Congress have demonstrated
their commitment to technician education by support of new
legislation as well as many policy statements. Ensuring the
cooperation by all stakeholders in technical education will
enable the nation to provide a highly qualified workforce
for tomorrow. Two-year colleges must plan and work
cooperatively with employers in business, industry, and
government; four-year colleges and universities; secondary
schools; and professional societies to improve the quality
of the United States technical workforce.  No one group can
do it alone.  All must cooperate.  With continued support
from the National
Science Foundation and others who share the vision, our
nation can maintain a    competitive edge and meet the
challenges for the future while providing
a    safe and clean environment for its population.
Table of Contents
Letter from Luther S. Williams  i
Letter of Transmittal   ii
Foreword  iii
Executive Summary       v
Introduction   3
     Background     3
     The Workshop  4
     Closing   5
Workshop Reports        7
     Professionalism of Technician Careers 7
     Alliances 10
     Faculty   13
Human Resources Issues Recruitment, Retention, and
          Placement   16
     Curriculum and Program Development    19
Secondary School Education for Technical Careers      23
Bibliography    26
Selected Preconference Papers   27
     Abstracts of Preconference Papers     27
What Do Technicians Do? (Abridged)  - Stephen R. Barley
28
Education for Engineering and Industrial Technicians in the
Reinvestment Economy  - Lawrence J. Wolf 32
One Society's Response to Technician Needs  - Kenneth M.
Chapman      34
Summary Comments: Critical Issues in Science and Engineering
Technician Education Invitational Workshop  - George R.
Boggs  36
References for Papers   40
Workshop Participants   43
INTRODUCTION
On July 21-23, 1993, the American Chemical Society, the
American Society for Engineering Education, the FCCSET CEHR-
CIT Joint Working Group on Technical Education, the FCCSET
Working Group on Undergraduate Education and the National
Science Foundation co-sponsored a  workshop, Gaining the
Competitive Edge:  Critical Issues in
Science and Engineering Technician Education to address
issues
relevant to ensuring the high quality of science and
engineering technicians in the United States. This workshop
was timely and extremely important because it has become
increasingly apparent that for the United States to remain
competitive in the world market, the technical component of
the workforce in the United States must be as well prepared
as
the corresponding technical workforce in other
industrialized countries.
The purpose of the workshop was to identify critical issues
in science and engineering technician education; to develop
recommendations for industry, academe, and government; and
to engage these communities
to actions. Deliberations focused on strategies to
strengthen two-year college technician programs. However,
improving education programs
for prospective technicians at secondary school and
expanding opportunities for technicians at four-year
colleges and after employment were addressed as well.
The 115 participants who attended the workshop represented
high technology companies, two-year colleges, four-year
colleges and universities, secondary schools, professional
societies, and federal agencies with interest in the
education of technicians. The participants were divided into
six working groups to examine the following issues:
professionalism of technician careers;
alliances for technician workforce development;
faculty development and enhancement;
human resources issues including recruitment, retention, and
placement of students;

curriculum and program development and improvement; and
secondary school education of candidates for advanced
technician careers.
This workshop report presents issues and recommendations
relevant to the education of technicians.  The audience for
this report includes: (1) federal, state, and local
government officials who have responsibilities for the
quality and quantity of the nation's technical workforce;
(2) administrators and faculty of academic institutions
at all levels, but particularly in the two-year colleges;
(3) employers of technician personnel (companies, government
agencies, universities, and others); and (4) leaders of
professional societies in science, engineering, and
technology.
Background
Since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, the
educational system of the United States has been subjected
to intense scrutiny and study. Changes in the understanding
of how students learn have lead to reforms of K-12 education
which emphasize that all students need to construct their
own knowledge.  This reform movement has lead to the
development of mathematics and science standards which can
be used to determine when quality mathematics and science
teaching is occurring in classrooms.  At the college level,
the changes needed for science and  engineering education
were not clearly evident because several measures suggested
that the United States could arguably claim to have the best
science and
engineering colleges and universities in the world.  Neither
did the nation appear to have a great shortage of engineers
and scientists.  However, in mathematics, chemistry, and
physics, the structure of the introductory courses was being
challenged leading to reforms in these courses.  As
enrollment in engineering courses dropped, there was renewed
emphasis on engineering education, particularly the role of
design.
The decade also witnessed a reduction of the U.S.
technological
and manufacturing lead to other industrialized countries.
To regain
the competitive edge, many leaders in industry, education,
and government recognize the need to change the education of
those in the workplace.
In 1990,  the report, America's Choice: High Skills or Low
Wages,
by the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce of
the National Center on Education and the Economy found that
America may have the worst school-to-work transition
system of any advanced industrial country. and
Our approaches [to education and training] have served
us well in the past.  They will not serve us well in the
future.
The Commission also noted that companies adopting new
work management systems that engaged more employees in
decision-making and that required better educated employees
were achieving renewed competitiveness through spectacular
advances in productivity, quality, and variety.  Although
highly competent scientists and engineers were being
produced in sufficient quantity by the nation's schools and
colleges, far too few science and engineering technicians of
comparable quality were being produced.
Increasing attention and a multitude of reports began to
focus on the portion of the population (about 70% according
to the National Center on Education and the Economy) whose
ability to produce high quality work does not require a
baccalaureate degree.  Many science and engineering
technicians are included in this workforce, although some
continue formal education to a bachelor of technology level.
Two-year colleges and some four-year colleges and
universities
provide the Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S.) degrees
that produce entry-level qualifications for many
technicians.  In addition, a number
of colleges offer Bachelor of Technology programs.  These
programs
have not achieved high visibility and broad support in the
past, although a few have benefited from support by the
college-level programs of
the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Both Congress and the White House emphasized the technical
workforce in their 1992 and 1993 initiatives.  Congress
passed and the Administration supported the Scientific and
Advanced Technology Act of 1992, which called for the
National Science Foundation to establish a national program
to improve the education for technicians in advanced
technology fields utilizing the resources of the nation's
two-year colleges.
Mounting a major national effort to improve the education
of science and engineering technicians at this time will
benefit greatly from a definition of the role of technicians
by employers.  Technicians are not junior scientists or
engineers nor are they trained to do routine tasks.  They
are professionals in their own right with unique skills and
understandings which are critical to future competitiveness.
They work on applications which are built on theoretical
understandings. The current national interest in educational
reform should position
technician education to provide the understanding of
concepts and processes needed to develop highly qualified
technicians.
The Workshop
The format of the workshop was designed to give participants
opportunities to consider broad issues as well as strategies
in the particular area to which they were assigned. With the
assistance of
the planning committee and NSF staff, participants received
assignments prior to the workshop designed to stimulate
their thinking on six critical issues.  Two-year colleges,
secondary schools, four-year
colleges and universities, employers, and professional
societies concerned with this field were targeted in this
effort.  This workshop was an effort to charter new
directions in technician education, career path development,
and professional recognition.
The issues associated with science and engineering
technician
education were divided into six areas.  Each
interdisciplinary working group addressed one of these six
topics at the workshop:
Working Group A: Professionalism of technician careers
To consider how to enhance the role and image of science and
engineering technicians as professionals with unique
expertise.
Working Group B: Alliances for technician workforce
development
To explore how academic institutions, employers (industry,
business, universities, and government), and professional
societies  can effectively  work together to educate high
quality science and engineering technicians.
Working Group C: Faculty development and enhancement
To ensure that technician educators at all levels possess
both the subject matter competence and effective pedagogical
skills required to help students attain the highest level of
technical competence.
Working Group D: Human resources issues including
recruitment, retention, and placement of students
To explore ways to recruit and retain students on a
technical career path and to place graduates in positions
that utilize their unique skills.
Working Group E: Curriculum and program development and
improvement

To ensure that curricula in associate degree programs for
technicians are relevant, effective, and appropriate for
applied careers.
Working Group F: Secondary school education of candidates
for advanced technician careers
To develop secondary school curricula and programs that
provide students a foundation for future educational work,
meaningful work experiences, and applicable career
information.
As the working groups tackled their assigned issues,
recommendations evolved that fit better for reporting
purposes in the issue areas assigned to others.  Thus, the
following  recommendations are arranged by issues rather
than by working groups.
Full implementation of the recommendations presented in this
report could greatly improve the American workforce because:
(1) young people would be
able to make a technician career a first choice instead of
(a) using it as a defensive safety net when early career
dreams are shattered, or (b) discovering this opportunity
only after gaining expensive, time-consuming experience as
an adult; and (2) all new-hire technicians would arrive for
their first full day of work with a sound foundation of
knowledge and skills developed with strong employer input
and guidance.
Closing
The atmosphere throughout the workshop was very upbeat and
positive.  The consensus among the participants was that
this was an extremely important time to address issues in
the education of science and engineering technicians.  Two-
year colleges must plan and work cooperatively with
employers in business, industry, and government; four-year
colleges and universities; secondary schools, and
professional societies on ways to improve the quality of the
United States technician workforce.  No one group can do it
alone; all must cooperate.  Working together academia and
employers can improve the quality and effectiveness of
technician education.  With continued support from the
National Science Foundation and others that share this
vision, our nation can remain a leader in the world economy
and meet the challenges for the future.
(*** Signifies material for margin titles and notes.)
WORKSHOP REPORTS
***Professionalism of Technician Careers
Understanding the role of technicians in the modern
technical work
place is a key element to providing appropriate educational
experiences for both prospective and employed technicians.
Technicians employ techniques using complex technologies
that transform materials into useful products and maintain
and modify physical entities, and services provided by
technicians often are not highly visible to others.  While
they often work side-by-side with other professionals, they
are not junior scientists and engineers nor are they trained
to perform routine tasks.  Their work emphasizes skilled
technical applications, requiring a good theoretical
grounding.  Stephen R. Barley (Barley and Bechky 1993)
states that his research shows that technicians "employ
technologies and techniques to transform aspects of the
material world into symbolic representations."   Barley's
research shows that
the technician's role is misrepresented when it is described
only
as a subset of a professional's role by terminology such as
"semiprofessional" and "junior professionals."  In recent
years, many technicians and some of their associates have
asserted that science and
engineering technicians should be considered as
professionals with a unique expertise that differs
significantly from that of scientists and engineers.
Academic institutions, employers, scientific and engineering
professional societies, and accrediting bodies are all
participants in the improvement of technician education and
careers. Thus, they should address the professional status
of technicians in the United States.
***Issues
The issues addressed included:
requirements for technician pre-employment and continuing
education; accreditation, voluntary industry standards, and
other means of providing assured quality of associate and
baccalaureate degrees in technician and technologist
education;
certification of technicians;
relationships between two-year associate degree programs for
technicians and four-year programs for scientists,
technologists, and engineers; and
contributions of technicians to science and engineering.
***Recommendations
Individual employers, whether private or public, provide
recognition
to their technicians and create conditions that maximize
technician performance.  Such recognition encourages
students to consider technician careers.  Thus, these
employers should:
*** Employers Should Recognize and Emphasize the
Professional Characteristics of Technicians
formally recognize the accomplishments and acknowledge the
professional characteristics of science and engineering
technicians through public statements and by establishing
and providing attractive career ladder opportunities.
eliminate cultural barriers to science and engineering
technician jobs, and create an environment that acknowledges
the important role that technicians serve in the high
technology work place.
design job classifications to recognize associate degree
science and engineering technicians and baccalaureate degree
technologists in business and industry as well as in civil
service.
join with academic institutions to support and disseminate
research information that identifies, develops, and monitors
success for the science and engineering technician pipeline
from the educational institution to the work place and in
the work place itself.
ensure that young people are aware of opportunities for
technicians in the work place and the educational
requirements to succeed in the profession.
provide working technicians with information about pertinent
educational and professional opportunities including college
courses, workshops, seminars, membership in professional
societies, professional meetings, and other other means by
which to keep up-to-date in the profession.
*** Professional Societies Should Recognize and Emphasize
the Professional Characteristics of Technicians
Professional societies that currently serve scientists and
engineers
can provide recognition for technician contributions to
these disciplines,
provide opportunities for technicians to work with others in
society activities, and develop communication links among
technicians, scientists, and engineers.   Societies should:
support the professional development of technicians through
their existing structures or through related societies for
technicians.
assume a leadership role in bringing together federal and
state agencies, industry and union leaders, working
technicians, and public entities to address essential
standards for technical curricula and continued updating of
job skills.
strengthen or initiate activities that support the continual
learning and networking of technicians associated with their
respective disciplines. Such activities may include
technician recognition programs, membership divisions for
technicians, workshops, seminars, regional meetings,
publications, and image enhancement activities.
provide awards and leadership opportunities for technicians
and technician educators.
*** Government Agencies Should Support Activities that
Ensure Quality Technician Education Programs
To foster creation of a well-educated and professionally
recognized technician cadre, government agencies should:
support activities focused on the development of essential
educational standards for science and engineering
technicians that ensure an adequate base of science and
mathematics to satisfy immediate job requirements and future
education needs.  Standards for technician education should
build upon the recommendations developed by the  mathematics
and science education standards projects.  Also,
recommendations from the industry standards projects should
be incorporated into technician education standards.
support activities of technician accreditation efforts to
ensure quality programs.
*** Academic Institutions Should Use Accreditation and
Other Procedures to Foster High Quality Technician Education
Programs
Academic institutions that educate technicians and
accrediting agencies can contribute directly to developing
professional characteristics
of highly qualified technicians.  Thus, two- and four-year
colleges
and universities should:
enhance upward academic mobility (e.g., from Associate of
Applied Science to Bachelor of Engineering Technology
programs) through articulated curricula  with emphasis on
applied content knowledge and skills.  Bridging or
transitional programs should be available where necessary.
seek to achieve program accreditation for science and
engineering technician programs by recognized accrediting
bodies.
encourage faculty and students to participate in
professional society activities.
*** Technician's Responsibility for Their Own
Professionalism
As professionals, science and engineering
technicians/technologists should:
take advantage of leadership, learning, networking, and
certification opportunities offered by
professional/technical societies and other organizations to
enhance their recognition as members of science and
engineering teams.
*** Alliances
Effective technician education demands a close relationship
between employers and academic institutions.  All  working
groups recognized this as an important component in
technician education.  Working
relationships between academic institutions and employers
have long been a part of technician education in many
locales, and almost every technician curriculum has an
employer advisory committee.  Cooperative education has a
rich history at many institutions, and employer-sponsored
scholarships are broadly available.
What is new about the following recommendations about
employer/academic institution alliances is the sense of
urgency for increasing the depth
and breadth of involvement in technician education by many
more employers. Industry has a vested interest in technician
education in two-year colleges because they are recipients
of many services offered by two-year colleges as well as
employers of technicians educated in associate degree
programs. Too many prospective technicians have never had a
working contact in their field of study.  Much of the
experience with materials and equipment needed by new
technicians cannot be provided by educational institutions.
And as suggested by the SCANS report (U.S. Department of
Labor 1991), some competencies expected in today's work
place cannot be provided
by educational institutions alone.  Addressing such problems
is one
of the objectives of employer/academic alliances.
*** Issues
Educational institutions and employers of technicians must
work cooperatively to improve the quality of the United
States' technician workforce.  The issues on creation of
alliances and sustained cooperation among partners included:
recognition that support for pre-career technicians must be
provided for secondary school programs; and for certificate,
associate, and baccalaureate degree programs in two- and
four-year colleges;
articulation between educational institutions at different
levels;
participation by employers in the educational process (e.g.,
providing content expertise and adjunct faculty, making
special facilities available to students and faculty, and
supporting faculty and work experiences at employer  work
sites);
recognition and award programs for institutions, educators,
and students; and
foreign models of alliance relationships that support
technician education, and implementing components of those
models as appropriate.
*** Recommendations
Alliances may be organized to support educational and
professional activities as a cooperative activity involving
companies, professional societies, educational institutions,
and government (federal, state,
and local) agencies. An alliance may operate at national,
regional, state, or local levels, with each level providing
unique strengths
for improving education and professional opportunities for
technicians.
Technician education is often considered the province of
associate degree granting institutions.  However, these
institutions are part
of a continuum of education in this country, and alliances
for technician education must be considered by other sectors
of the education community as well.
Thus, a successful alliance must:
include technician educators and technicians in alliance
leadership roles.  define its own missions and goals.
consider all partners as equals and ensure that all partners
benefit from the outcomes.
*** Academic Institutions Should Use Accreditation and
Other Procedures to Foster High Quality Technician Education
Programs
identify benefits for each member of the alliance.
integrate services that lead to a sharing of resources.
leverage strengths through facilitating the use and
brokering of local assets.
improve the quality and strive to reduce the cost of
technician education.
adopt standards of performance and encourage implementation
of programs that enable technicians to meet such standards.
develop programs that provide effective contextual learning
situations.
support programs specifically designed to enhance technical
education as well as promote science, mathematics, and
technology education in secondary schools.
promote professional programs (e.g., seminars, workshops,
and internships) that supplement technician education.
assist four-year degree programs in technology as well as
contribute to education in traditional science and
engineering fields.
consider foreign models of technician education that may be
adapted to American conditions.
develop systems that value racial, gender, and cultural
diversity and promote the importance and prestige of
technicians.
*** Additional Activities for Established Alliances
To ensure that alliances sustain continual improvement
beyond the lifetime of start-up or "seed" investments, a
successful alliance must also:
demonstrate at each operational level a strong, ongoing
commitment to cooperation by all partners in the alliance.
promote educational reform that gives a high priority to
faculty enhancement, ensures effective articulation and
smooth transition among technical programs, and provides
many opportunities for students at all grade levels to
acquire knowledge and skills in a learning process that uses
appropriate contextual settings and hands-on experiences.
support the needs of academic institutions for appropriate
facilities, instructional equipment, qualified and highly
skilled instructors, and other factors that are essential in
technician education.
help create a globally competitive and high quality
technological workforce by developing seamless technical
education that promotes sound academic
underpinnings, up-to-date technical content, articulation of
courses across institutions, and technicians' continued
professional development.
engage in outreach activities to the local community, such
as providing technical services to businesses and industry.
provide recognition and award programs at local, regional,
and national levels for students, instructors, and/or
institutions involved in technician education.
*** Government Agencies Support for Alliances
Government agencies at both federal and state levels should:
work cooperatively in planning, prioritizing, and funding to
facilitate development and improvement of local, state,
regional, and national alliances that ultimately enable the
delivery of educational programs that produce high quality
technicians.  This work should include establishing one or
more clearinghouses (perhaps through professional societies)
that would leverage resources among alliances, characterize
effective alliances, provide evaluation strategies, and
disseminate information.
*** Faculty
The most crucial element in classroom and laboratory
education for technician students is the quality of the
faculty.  It is the faculty  who implement the curriculum
and utilize instructional materials while
using their expertise for effective education of the
students they teach.  To develop well-educated technicians,
each faculty member must be current in content, effective in
pedagogy, and knowledgeable
about assessment.  The preparation and continuing education
of science and technology educators in secondary schools and
college faculty and administrators are thus critical.
*** Issues
Academic, business, industrial, and other experiences are
needed
by educators who teach pre-career and employed technicians
and administer such programs both at secondary school and at
college levels.  The issues addressed for this area
included:
appropriate levels of formal education for technician
educators;
work experiences that a technician educator should bring to
the classroom or laboratory;
continuing education for technician educators;
educator participation in professional activities such as
work experiences at employer locations, research, and
consulting;
educator participation in professional activities in
scholarly activities in their disciplines such as
publication of articles, textbooks, software, and laboratory
manuals; presentations at professional meetings; and service
to societies;
local, regional, and national recognition programs; and
roles for nonacademic professionals in instructional
activities for technician education.
*** Recommendations
Most educational institutions involved in technician
education are aware of the need for updating the content
knowledge and improving the teaching capabilities of their
faculty.  Also, many of these
institutions are cognizant of the critical role of
contextual learning, including projects, which enable
students to become highly skilled technicians.  Thus,
technician educators must be provided opportunities for
close, continual contact with technician work places.  In
addition, educators must engage in regular academic
activities to update content knowledge and maintain currency
in technological developments.
*** Educational Institutions and the Technical Competencies
of Their Faculty
As a response to such needs, educational institutions
should:
recruit faculty for two-year associate degree programs with
appropriate industrial experience in addition to
baccalaureate or higher degrees in mathematics, technology,
science, or engineering.  For technician instruction in two-
and four-year colleges, professional registration should be
encouraged.
require faculty teaching in technical programs to have
qualifications as recommended by professional societies and
organizations that implement accreditation standards.
require that faculty members in four-year colleges and
universities involved in the specific preparation of future
teachers for technician education programs have industrial
experience.
encourage and support faculty members who teach technical
specialty courses in both two- and four-year institutions to
update their technical knowledge
of advances made in their field through work in industry
regular intervals.
enable college faculty and secondary school teachers who
teach mathematics, science, and other courses for
technicians to obtain effective exposure to the technical
work place by:
* having an institutional commitment to support work
experiences for faculty and granting leaves for short
industrial internships.
* encouraging that some courses be delivered on-site to meet
employer's needs and to develop in instructors a sense of
the work place environment.
* providing educators with opportunities to participate with
groups of employees in industrial training and orientation
programs.
* making industrial technical training aids and materials
available to teachers.
* encouraging faculty to take part in national training
programs.
As described by the SCANS report (U.S. Department of Labor
1991), more is expected of today's academic institutions
than a mere passing on of concepts and isolated skills.
Thus, both new and experienced teachers must consider their
teaching competencies as seriously as their content
knowledge competencies.
*** Educational Institutions and the Teaching Competencies
of Their Faculty
Academic institutions should:
create flexible, on-campus programs of mentoring or coaching
by master
teachers; and present on-campus discipline-related
professional development activities.
adopt faculty teaching load limits that provide adequate
time for preparing instructional materials for laboratory
activities and classroom presentations.
provide appropriate time and facilities and equipment for
effective teaching of technical courses.
encourage colleges and universities and other relevant
organizations to develop efficient innovative educational
programs to transform scientists, engineers, and
mathematicians with recent industrial or military
experiences into effective teachers for technical programs.
include a variety of pedagogical skills in the creation of
instructor
educational programs at         both preservice and
inservice levels and in the evaluation of teaching, such as
ability to:
* design instructional strategies and materials that foster
analytical thinking and problem-solving skills.
* engage and motivate students.
* evaluate the effectiveness of instructional strategies and
needs of students.
* implement models of effective, proven teaching methods.
* stimulate student teamwork through cooperative learning.
* support innovative teaching strategies for a diverse group
of students.
* teach and exhibit the principles of contextual learning.
* use hands-on equipment and procedures appropriate to the
instructional
area at a high skill level.
encourage sharing resources among educators at all levels
from secondary school through the work place.  Examples
include participation in professional society activities,
use of computer networks and innovative instructional
technologies, joint offering of courses and team teaching,
and sharing equipment.
*** Effective Technician Education Requires Sharing
Resources from Secondary Schools to Colleges to the Work
Place
overcome traditional barriers that separate classrooms and
work places in space, in time, and in fundamental modes of
thinking and learning. Examples of strategies to be employed
are:
* forming instructional teams of specialists across
traditional departmental lines.
* scheduling and locating classes with more flexibility.
* teaching basic science and mathematics through the
vehicles of real-world technical problems and industrial
scenarios.
* encouraging the collaboration of industrial and academic
scientists and technicians.
* using industry-standard equipment for laboratories so that
learning takes place in a realistic setting.
* using employer laboratories, libraries, and databases to
provide
appropriate educational experiences.
*** Government Agencies Should Support Teacher Preservice
and Inservice Programs
The National Science Foundation and other government
agencies should:
support programs that prepare future technician educators
including both secondary school teachers and college
faculty.
support enhancement activities, including workshops,
seminars, and internships in industry, for technician
educators who are currently teaching in secondary schools
and colleges.
*** Human Resources Issues -- Recruitment, Retention,
and Placement
Ultimately, the purpose of this workshop was to explore and
recommend programs to meet the needs of both the students
choosing to make careers as technicians and the employers
who hire them.  Workshop participants recognized that
students in technician education today are a heterogeneous
population, with academic credentials that vary from some
high school education to associate degrees to baccalaureate
science and engineering degrees.  Some students come
directly from secondary school; others
are already technicians or have other four-year degrees and
seek to improve their qualifications through continuing
their education. Increasingly, more adults are returning to
college after being a part of the workforce where they have
limited opportunities for better economic mobility.  Many
potential students are not aware of science and engineering
technician opportunities.  Therefore, these diverse students
should be identified, counseled, recruited, retained and
guided into careers with
viable professional options.  Academic institutions,
business, and industry should work closely together to
assure that jobs and career opportunities exist for students
who complete these technical programs and help
place them in suitable positions.
*** Issues
Educational institutions, employers, and professional
societies all
have responsibilities for providing  assistance that enables
aspiring technicians to attain their career goals.  The
issues addressed for this area included:
initial and continuing education requirements for
technicians;
recruitment and retention of students and placement of
graduates with particular attention to women and to others
who are underrepresented in technical fields;
assessment and exploration of interests and aptitude;
workforce supply and demand for technicians;
linkages between on-the-job-training (OJT) provided by
employers and education and training provided by educational
institutions;
recognition that students in technical programs may have
diverse
backgrounds which vary from those with some secondary school
work to experienced employees seeking upward mobility to
those re-entering the workforce;
needs of students who already hold degrees in other fields
who are utilizing technician programs for upward economic
mobility;
needs of those who will enter the job market immediately
upon completion of an associate degree, and the needs of
those who wish to continue in four-year programs in science,
engineering, or technology;
student support services required to improve retention and
success potential (e.g., tutoring, mentoring, baby-sitting,
job placement, advising, etc.); and
agreements with employers for cooperative education,
internships, and other arrangements that offer students job-
related experience.
*** Recommendations
*** Employers and Alliances Have Important Roles in
Helping Students Become High Quality Technicians
Employers who demand top quality technicians must ensure
that local institutions involved in educating technicians
have appropriate resources, and they should encourage their
own employees to use these resources.  Better relationships
must be developed, resources leveraged, and new creative
approaches tried.  Thus, employers and alliances should:
seek ways to provide or share state-of-the-art equipment.
They should help ensure that faculty members have adequate
content knowledge and understanding of the work place so
they can teach prospective technicians effectively at both
secondary school and college levels.
build relationships to foster long-term commitments to
provide faculty internship opportunities or other faculty
enhancement activities in the work place.
support continuation of necessary and effective technician
programs, through financial and other means, that may have
enrollments too small to permit continuation according to
standard school requirements.
encourage legislative leaders and state government policy
makers to recognize the community benefits provided by
differentiated funding for investment in technical programs.
recognize that new educational strategies may require their
commitment, cooperation, and input from technical personnel
in the work place in the design and/or implementation of
innovative curricula.  Employers should be cognizant of a
growing trend for teaching roles to become an in-kind
support function of  some technical personnel.
recognize that the diversity of the U.S. population requires
the development of incentives for minorities and females to
enter technician education as students, teachers,
counselors, and administrators.
Technician careers often can be attained with a relatively
short time investment in education.  As a result, such
careers attract students with highly diverse backgrounds in
academic achievement and work experience.  To address such
diversity, colleges should build or strengthen partnerships
with employers to develop strategies for:
commit to recruitment and retention of students and
placement of graduates with particular attention to women,
minorities, people with disabilities, and students who have
been in the workforce (including work at home) as well as
recent secondary school graduates.

*** Colleges Should Have a Commitment to Student Diversity
Knowledge about the characteristics of technical work places
is critically absent, if not misunderstood, by the general
population.  Even so, students, or their parents, often are
asked to make life-impacting selections of courses and
curricula as early as junior high school.  Both secondary
schools and colleges should:
*** Secondary Schools and Colleges Should Provide Technician
Career Information
increase efforts to provide career exploration
opportunities, information, access to role models, guidance,
and counseling about technician careers to students,
parents, and the general public.  Such activities should be
integrated into daily instruction beginning in the
elementary schools.  The voluntary industry standards
projects should provide useful information about technical
careers.
help students understand that their attitude and performance
in school are directly related to job and career
opportunities.
*** Alliances Should Address Student Needs
Industrial employers, government agencies, professional
societies, and academic institutions should:
build or strengthen alliances to create innovative methods
for the recruitment, placement, and retention of science and
engineering technicians and students.
develop strategies to reduce and eliminate cultural barriers
to technician job satisfaction, and to create an environment
that acknowledges the value of their role.
*** Government Agencies and Professional Societies Should
Be Responsive to Student Needs at All Levels
The National Science Foundation, other government agencies,
and science and engineering societies should:
collect and disseminate data about science and engineering
technician careers and opportunities as well as about the
educational needs for such technicians.  This information
can be used to support public policy on workforce supply and
demand  and guide academic institutions in program
development.
support the development and delivery of comprehensive and
flexible instructional materials and programs that respond
to the diverse needs of students, employees, and employers.
The needs include: (1) fast response to new developments in
technology; (2) creation of instructional materials that can
be implemented with great flexibility; and (3) delivery of
instruction and information by satellite and computer
networks, and other nontraditional methods.
support and disseminate results of research that identifies,
develops, and monitors measures of success through the
science and engineering technician pipeline from pre- to
post-employment.

*** Curriculum and Program Development
As the rate of technological advancement and work places
demand for integration of traditionally separate disciplines
increases steadily, there are continual pressures to teach
pre-career and employed technicians more content in a
shorter time.  Thus, curriculum designers are faced
simultaneously by a heterogeneous student body and by
increasingly complex content requirements with stricter time
constraints.  Curricula for technicians must be continually
reviewed and updated to meet these diverse needs.
*** Tech Prep concentrates on contextual learning situations
and applied academics, including applied mathematics,
applied sciences, and applied communications.
*** Apprenticeship programs may consist of formal,
prescribed education to which is added work experience.
*** Cooperative education consists of alternating work
periods and school periods.
*** Career academies operate as a subunit in a secondary
school environment.
While facing the reality of older students currently in
technician education programs, policy makers seek ways to
make transition from school to work more effective.  If the
educational reform efforts
of Tech Prep, apprenticeships, cooperative education, and
career academies achieve their goals, the average age of
students in technician programs will start falling during
this decade. Further, articulation between secondary school
programs and post-secondary technician programs is being
advocated and supported by government, business and
industry,
and education leaders. Various initiatives such as the NSF
Advanced Technological Education program and Tech Prep have
already started such activities.
New challenges face curriculum developers in technician
education
programs as they merge work place demands, society needs,
and implement recommendations from a variety of national
standards projects. Mathematics education standards (NCTM
1989) have been well developed by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and implementation efforts
led by NCTM and various NSF-supported projects are underway.
Special attention should be directed to the American
Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC)
standards (AMATYC 1993) expected to
be released in 1994.  Science education standards are being
developed by the National Research Council and should be in
place by late 1994.
The criteria for accreditation of engineering technology
programs
by the Technology Accreditation Board (TAC) of the
Accreditation Board
of Engineering and Technology (ABET) should be considered
for engineering technician and technologist education.  The
American Chemical Society (ACS) approval program for
chemical technician education should be similarly
considered. Voluntary industry standards intended to reflect
industry expectations of knowledge and skills of new
employees are under development and draft standards for some
science and engineering technician areas should be available
by late 1994.
*** Issues
As new programs develop and older programs are reformed to
address changing needs, there must be continuous
reformulation of curricula
and instructional materials.  Discussion focused on the
development of model instructional programs in advanced
technology education.  The issues addressed included:

design of comprehensive technician education programs based
on a strong foundation of basic mathematics, science, and
engineering principles;
application of the content and philosophy of mathematics and
science education standards to technician education;
identification of the necessary contributors to curriculum
design and instructional materials development;
establishment of innovative alliances and partnerships
including national consortia for curriculum design and
instruction as well as materials development;
coordination of curricular change across institutional
boundaries;
joint development and dissemination of instructional
materials among secondary schools, two-year colleges, and
four-year colleges and universities;
role of instructional media in innovative technician
education programs;
evaluation of programs, courses, instructional materials,
and instruction processes and assessment of student
learning;
acquisition, maintenance, and upgrading of equipment; and
development of courses and programs that facilitate transfer
to other programs or institutions (other technician
programs, science and engineering programs, four-year
technology programs, etc.).
*** Recommendations
Recognizing that they have been the traditional focus of
technician education, two-year colleges; individually and
through local, state, and national consortia; should:
*** Two-year Colleges Must Be Flexible and Still Provide
for Lifelong Learning Foundations
ensure that associate degree technician programs play a
central role in the continuum of education from secondary
school programs through the baccalaureate degree.
accommodate the diversity and learning styles of adult
learners and ethnic minorities.
provide multiple entry and exit points.
deliver instruction in both campus and work site settings.
fit the time constraints of both traditional and
nontraditional student schedules.
provide curricula for science and engineering technician
education that lay foundations for lifelong learning, while
satisfying the more immediate needs of the rapidly changing
technical work place.  Such curricula should include three
essential components:
*       General component  -- mathematics and science,
written and oral communications, and computer skills
appropriate to the work goals
and learning styles of technicians, and as pre- or co-
requisites to technical and industry-specific components.
*       Technical component  --  discipline-specific
knowledge and skills that are fundamental to the field.

*       Industry-specific component   -- knowledge that is
required for local needs and for technological changes.
make experiential, contextual, and collaborative learning an
integral part of the programs by utilizing a variety of
techniques such as relevant laboratory-based activities,
simulations, internships, and cooperative education.
*** Mathematics is a Key Foundation for Technician Education
The application of mathematics to technical problems is
fundamental
to all technician education programs.  A statement of the
mathematics prerequisite is the most common way to describe
the "rigor" of a technical program and individual technical
courses. All participants felt that
a strong foundation in mathematics was an absolute
requirement for technician education; however, there was a
divergence of opinion about what form the mathematics
coursework should take.
Some members of the group believed that two-year colleges
should:
ensure an adequate foundation in mathematics for technician
education by requiring a prerequisite of two years of
secondary school algebra and one year of geometry or its
equivalent as minimal entry qualifications.  To provide
adequate skills and knowledge for technicians to enter the
advanced technological workforce, the minimal mathematics
requirement in two-year programs should be college algebra
and trigonometry courses with calculus and/or statistics
being strongly recommended for appropriate programs. These
courses should integrate technical applications throughout.
Others believed:
that traditional mathematics courses at both secondary
school and college levels should be replaced by courses of a
different design and be implemented through different
pedagogical strategies.  For example, statistics may be more
valuable than some traditional advanced
algebra topics; science and mathematics courses may be
integrated;
or a stronger emphasis on applications may be appropriate.
*** Additional Workshops Should Determine Appropriate
Content of Core Courses in Science and Mathematics for
Technician Education
A parallel concern applied to the laboratory-based science
courses, particularly physics and chemistry, that are used
to support technician education.  Thus, the group
recommended that:
workshops be held to determine appropriate content of
application-driven core courses in science and mathematics,
both at the secondary schools and two-year college levels.
The content of the courses should reflect the National
Research Council (NRC) and the NCTM Standards at the
secondary level.  At the two-year college level, the content
and pedagogy should reflect the AMATYC Standards.  Specific
mathematics and science courses that are recommended should
reflect the different needs among technician programs.
*** Alliances Have a Role in Curriculum Development
and Dissemination
Alliances and partnerships, including professional
societies, industry consortia, and educational institutions
are the major stakeholders
in technician education. By ensuring representation from all
groups and serving as communication channels, such alliances
and government agencies should support the development of:
curriculum frameworks or guidelines for program
implementation.  These
efforts will serve to stimulate program implementation and
supportive activities such as instructional materials
development.  Successful implementations, which can serve as
model programs, should then be disseminated through NSF-
supported Center of Excellence, professional meetings,
publications and reports, consultants, and other means.
programs for contextual learning through authentic hands-on
experiences with equipment, apparatus, and procedures that
are relevant to the work place.
model curricula and programs.  They also should provide
support to disseminate such curricula; acquire up-to-date
and appropriate equipment; and improve articulation of
courses and programs among educational institutions.
*** Academic Institutions Should Make Extensive Use of
Educational Technology in Technician Education
Opportunities to improve technician education through
educational technology are numerous and underutilized.
Thus, secondary schools and colleges should:
seek to maximize student mastery of content and to ensure
that graduates are prepared to continue their professional
growth by using model curricula that incorporate
comprehensive instructional support systems. These must
utilize advanced technologies including computer networks,
multimedia, applications software, courseware, and data
acquisition technologies. Delivery strategies should serve
to increase access to curricula both on campus and at the
worksite.
improve access and support for faculty professional
development.
*** Secondary School Education for Technical Careers
For the last few decades, success of secondary schools has
been determined primarily by statistics describing admission
to four-year college programs.  However, many students have
not responded well to academic track programs, with the
result that many potential technicians spend four years in
secondary school programs that prepare them neither
for jobs nor continued education.  Many of these students
find their ways into technician education programs only
after spending many years in low-paying, dead-end jobs;
others develop sufficient skills to become classified as
technicians lacking the opportunity for upward mobility.
This portion of American youth is being targeted by some of
the new initiatives of the current administration.  Among
the best
known school-to-work transition programs are Tech Prep,
apprenticeships, cooperative education, and career
academies.
*** Issues
Studies have indicated that the education of those entering
the workforce as technicians and plant workers has been
particularly deficient at
the secondary school level.  Tech Prep is one national
reform effort that addresses this issue.  It currently has
many forms of implementation and still is in an early state
of development. Other models of educational reform also have
shown impressive results in raising student qualifications,
while simultaneously improving retention. The issues
addressed included:
design of curricula and instructional materials that provide
foundations for technician education and linkages to college
and employer training programs;
coordination between technical specialty areas, such as
electronics, and other course areas, including
communications, mathematics, computer applications, and
physics;
assessment of student learning for the benefit of curriculum
and program improvement;
needs of students who may pursue other career choices,
including science and engineering, after completing part of
a secondary school Tech Prep program;
nontechnical employment opportunities that may be served
well by education designed for technician careers;
alternatives to the Tech Prep secondary school route for
technician education;
enhancement and preparation for preservice and inservice
teachers in technician education programs, including those
teaching core and specialty courses; and
guidance and career information on technician careers for
middle and secondary school students.
*** Recommendations
Recognizing that technology must be used by all U.S.
citizens and
that the ability of the nation to compete internationally
demands technically competent technicians and production
personnel, workshop participants recommended that secondary
schools enable:
*** Secondary Schools Should Provide All Students Direct
Experience with Technology
their teachers to work with faculty from two- and four-year
colleges to implement existing model programs or to develop
more effective school programs.
practical applications to be integrated continually into
academic courses.
every student to build, and/or repair, invent, and innovate
as well as to use computer and other design tools.
every student to master a core set of competencies
benchmarked to international standards, yet consistent with
American needs, at Grade 9 or 10 in mathematics, science,
communications, social studies, technological literacy,
critical thinking, and problem-solving.  Students who lag
behind their colleagues at any time should be provided extra
assistance. Those who lack the required mastery by Grade 10
must receive the extra assistance and time necessary to
master the core.
facilities to remain open after regular school hours for
enrichment activities that allow students access to
computers, hands-on technologies, libraries, museums, etc.
*** Educational Institutions Should Ensure that Teachers
of Pre-technicians Are Intimately Familiar with the
Technical Work
Place
Teachers in technical programs must be well-prepared to
teach students
both applied and theoretical skills.  They must engage in
regular academic activities to update content knowledge and
remain current
with technological development.  As a response to such
needs, educational institutions should:
employ secondary school teachers associated with pre-
technician education programs who have recent work
experience related to their teaching areas and at least
baccalaureate degrees in appropriate mathematics, science,
engineering, or technology fields.  All prospective teachers
of technicians should also have relevant preservice training
in pedagogy, particularly in providing applied instruction
in mathematics, science, and engineering.
provide effective exposure to teachers in secondary school
technical programs to the technical work place (see Faculty
Section, fifth recommendation).
encourage secondary school technology, science, and
mathematics teachers to take technical courses at two-year
colleges.
*** Professional Societies and Government Agencies Should
Facilitate Effective Assessment
Standards offer guidance to assessment procedures that
provide feedback to students and teachers and guarantee
quality of courses and programs. Thus, professional
associations and government agencies should ensure that:
standards (e.g., NCTM and NRC Standards) are developed and
adopted to provide for all students to master a core set of
competencies for mathematics, science, communications,
social studies, and technological literacy.
standards include the SCANS (U.S. Department of Labor 1991)
work place competencies of managing resources; using,
evaluating, and communicating information; dealing
interpersonally with others; and using systems and
technology.
assessments are developed to enable students to demonstrate
their mastery of the core set of competencies and the SCANS
work place competencies.
*** Schools Should Incorporate Technology Education
into Students' Early Years
Fundamental knowledge of technology and its effects on
people, the environment, and culture is important for all
citizens, including technicians.  Starting in the early
grades and continuing to early secondary school, schools
should provide technology education:
as a common subject in the school curriculum for all
students.  This education must involve both "knowledge and
know-how" in conducting technological work. For greatest
impact, contextual learning should be provided through
concrete experiences that offer active ways of leading to
and reinforcing mathematics and science concepts. Technology
education should emphasize design, problem solving, and
decision making involving human values, material resources,
and technological systems and processes.
to connect student learning across the curriculum in
mathematics, science, communications, social studies, and
other subjects with an organized set of concepts, processes,
applications, and systems drawn from modern technology.
*** Professional Societies, NSF, and Other Government
Agencies Should Support Development of Standards and
Educational Materials
To provide a better foundation both for future employment in
technical jobs and for life in a technological society,
professional societies, the National Science Foundation, and
other government agencies should:

support development of common standards for technology
education for implementation in mathematics, science, and
technology education courses.
*** Teacher Enhancement Activities for Technology Education
Should Be Supported
support materials development and teacher enhancement
activities which implement technology education standards in
a variety of disciplines.
Bibliography
American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
1993.  Standards for Curriculum and Pedagogical Reform in
Two-Year College and Lower Division Mathematics. Cobleskill,
NY: American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
Barley, Stephen R. and Beth Bechky 1993.  In the Backrooms
of
Science: The Work of Technicians in Science Labs.  Working
Paper, National Center for the Education of the Workforce,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989.
Curriculum
and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA:
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. What Work Requires of
Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
(Only printed reports and documents referenced in this
report are
listed here.)
Selected Preconference Papers
For the workshop, 12 papers, or specific compilations of
information, provided a base for discussion.  Three of these
papers are included in this document because they represent
broad statements on technician education: the Barley paper
on what technicians do; the Wolf paper on the history of
technician education; and the Chapman paper on professional
society roles in technician education.
The other papers were on specific models of technician
education. Abstracts are included below.  Copies of all
papers can be obtained from:
Kenneth Chapman
American Chemical Society
1155 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)872-8734
E. Peter Benzing, What Can Be Learned from the German
Apprenticeship System to Improve Skilled Worker Training in
the United States?
Some features of the German Dual System model may be
applicable to education in the United States.
Jan Berntson, Imaging Technician Development Program
A comprehensive, post-associate degree, corporate training
program has been developed for carefully selected new-hire
technicians.

Ruth Ann Cade, Expanding the Student Pipeline in Science,
Engineering, and Technician Education
Enrichment programs are needed to raise the probability of
success for women and minorities who have only recently been
aggressively recruited for technical work.
Paul Dickinson and Richard Fosse, Partnership for
Environmental Technology Education
This partnership directs its attention to preparing
environmental technicians in two-year colleges for both
clean-up and prevention.
David Hata, Training Technicians On-site
A two-year college presents an associate degree technician
program on-site for the mutual benefit of students, the
employer, and the college.
Diane Jernigan, Tech Prep Articulation Agreement
A Tech Prep planning model that starts with the development
of an applied science foundation at a vocational high school
and that involves a two-year college and local industry has
been implemented in Memphis.
National Research Council, Excerpts from National Science
Education Standards: An Enhanced Sampler
The status of the NRC Science Education Standards project as
of early Spring 1993 was provided.
Theodore Towns, The Bidwell Model for Technical Education of
Adults
With attention to their individual qualifications, adult
students become competent technicians through an intensive
industry-sponsored program at the Bidwell Training Center.
U.S. Department of Education, Voluntary Industry Standards
Twenty-two projects funded by the U.S. Departments of
Education and Labor have started developing voluntary
industry standards to describe what employers expect new-
hire employees to bring to their jobs.
What Do Technicians Do? (Abridged)
Stephen R. Barley
Director, Program on Technology and Work
School of Industrial and Labor Relations Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14850
May 28, 1993
Draft in Circulation
The work reported herein was supported under the Education
Research and Development Center program, agreement number
117Q00011-91, CFDA 84.117Q as administered by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of
Education. The findings and opinions expressed in this
report do not reflect the position or policies of the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement or the U.S.
Department of Education.
INTRODUCTION
Common sense notions about technician education sometimes
prove misleading. For instance, the educational and policy
literature routinely portrays technicians as a "junior
professionals" whose work requires a less rigorous, more
"applied" version of the formal knowledge of a professional
specialty.  If the image of a junior professional" is
inaccurate, it may lead educators to develop curricula that
are, at best, irrelevant and, at worse, a barrier to entry.
In 1991 researchers associated with the Program on
Technology
and Work at Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor
Relations embarked on a five-year study to gather detailed
information on technicians' work.  To date, we have
completed investigations of emergency medical technicians
(Nelsen and Barley 1993), science technicians (Barley
and Bechky 1993), medical technologists (Scarselletta 1992),
radiological technologists (Barley 1990), and scientific
liaisons in the European Space Agency (Zabusky 1993).
Studies of microcomputer support specialists, engineering
technicians, and programmers are under way.  We are about
to launch studies of technical sales, software engineering,
automobile repair, and technicians on factory floors.
Some preliminary observations suggest that conceptualizing
technicians as "junior professionals" misrepresents the
technician's role through two unwarranted connotations: (1)
that technicians serve professionals as functionaries, and
(2) that the professional's knowledge subsumes that of the
technician.  We have found instead that the division of
labor between technicians and professionals is usually more
collaborative (horizontal) than hierarchical (vertical) and
that members of the two types of occupations command
substantively different knowledge and skill. Further, many
technicians work in contexts that are not tied to the
activities of a profession.
OBSERVATIONS
The Technician's Role
Overseeing an Empirical Interface:  Most technicians work on
or with reputedly complex technologies or techniques.  Most
also work at the empirical interface between a larger
production process and the materials on which the process
depends.  The technician's task at the empirical interface
involves two complementary processes: transformation and
caretaking.
Technicians employ technologies and techniques to transform
aspects of the material world into symbolic representations
that can be used for other purposes.  Technicians are also
responsible for taking care of the physical entities they
oversee.
Figure I depicts the technician's activity at an empirical
interface. Transformation and caretaking represent the
common epistemic core of a technician's job.  The
technician's social role, however, varies according to how
the epistemic core is articulated within a division of
labor.  Based on our research and the research of others, we
submit that technician's work is of at least two general
types: (1) buffers (Figure 2) and (2) brokers (Figure 3).
Technicians may buffer other occupations from contact with
the empirical phenomena over which the latter are reputed to
have mastery.  These technicians are usually positioned near
the beginning of a serially interdependent, occupational
division of labor such that the technician's "output" serves
as "input" for the work of an occupation classed as a
profession. Thus, technicians link a world of symbols,
information, or theory to its empirical referents.  Since
science technicians operate lab equipment, conduct
experiments, and generate data, it is they, rather than
scientists, who usually preside over science's encounters
with the physical world.
Because the technicians and professionals speak much the
same language, buffers usually transmit the representations
they create directly to the professional.  The professional
then employs the technicians' representations in his or her
own work.
Membership in a common speech community affects the
technician's
work as well. Technicians who serve as buffers usually draw
on or appropriate the professionals' theories, plans,
diagnoses, or designs for their work at the empirical
interface.  The central dynamic of the production process
(which moves from left to right in Figure 2) is one of
translation. The technicians who serve as brokers usually
work in an organizational division of labor.  Others do not
depend
on specific products of the technician's work.  Instead the
technicians are responsible for creating general conditions
necessary for the work of others. Technicians of this sort,
typically oversee some aspect of the technical
infrastructure on which a production system rests.
The epistemic core of the second type of occupation is
identical
to the first.  To manage a technological infrastructure, a
technician must create symbolic representations of the state
of the technology
and then maintain or alter the technology based on the
representations. However, the technician's position in the
production system differs from that of a buffer.  Brokers
must assess the users' needs and then develop systems that
meet those needs via their caretaking function; also, they
must educate users about the system's functioning, features
and limitations.  Restatement and assessment therefore
require brokers
to engage in considerable translation and speak the language
of both
the technical and user communities.
THE NATURE OF TECHNICIANS' KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL
Formal knowledge: Contrary to the rhetoric that calls for
more formal knowledge and credentials, we have found that
the perceived importance of credentials contrasts sharply
with the experience and opinions of technicians themselves.
Barley and Bechky (1993) report that among of the university-
based science technicians they studied, holding rank
constant, a quarter possessed at least a master's degree but
another quarter had no more than a high school diploma.
Studies suggest that between 20 and 30 percent of all
engineers in the United States lack a bachelor's degree in
engineering and many have no more than a high school diploma
(Zussman, 1985).  Preliminary evidence suggests that many
engineering technicians also lack advanced degrees. Barley
and Zahusky (in progress) found that 50 percent of the
microcomputer technicians and in-house programmers they
studied have no formal technical training.
Perhaps more troublesome for advocates of credentialling is
the fact that technicians with technical degrees also claim
they use little of what they learned in school.  In fact, we
have yet to encounter a technician willing to testify to the
importance of the content he or she learned in school.
Technicians often claim that they think more "rigorously" or
logically" about problems because of their education
(Zussman 1985).  When solving problems, technicians also
occasionally employ heuristics and other bits of knowledge
that can be traced to courses in technical subjects (Barley
and Bechky 1993).  The technician's devaluing of formal
education is therefore best interpreted as a sign that they
subscribe to a theory of learning that differs from that of
most educators.  Educators often portray courses in formal
theory as a necessary platform for understanding
the details of practice. Technicians believe the converse:
that practice provides the platform necessary for making
sense of theory.
Regardless of occupation, all technicians appear to value
experience and practical understanding over formal
knowledge.  In fact, in our studies the only technicians who
have made positive claims about their schooling were those
whose training involved hands-on practice.
Contextual Knowledge: Technicians universally value
experience more highly
than formal training.  "Experience" for most technicians
serves as a shorthand for contextual knowledge. Technicians
argue that although contextual knowledge is required for
successful practice, training programs provide few
opportunities to acquire it.  Technicians are particularly
critical of the educational establishment's tendency to
elevate theoretical over contextual knowledge.  Almost all
technicians claim that they had to acquire contextual
knowledge on-the-job.
Most employers do not orchestrate the training of new
technicians;
nor do they usually assign mentors to the newly hired.
Instead, technicians appear to gain contextual knowledge by
solving problems, by informal coaching, and perhaps most
importantly by listening to "war stories" that encode
lessons learned by colleagues (Orr, forthcoming). Face-to-
face contacts are most pervasive.  Technicians not only
discuss problems and discoveries with their immediate
colleagues, they are usually linked to technicians at other
sites who can serve as informal consultants. Technicians
therefore serve as repositories of contextual knowledge
that is disseminated orally through networks.  Vendors of
equipment
and supplies also function as crucial conduits of
information.  Some occupations, such a medical and
radiological technology are sufficiently well organized to
have their own journals.
Although, by definition, the precise content of contextual
knowledge varies from occupation to occupation, broad
commonalities exist.  Most important is the ability to make
sense of subtle differences in the appearance of materials
and the behavior of techniques or instruments. Accomplished
technicians see signs and codes where novices, and even
professionals, seen no information at all.  For example,
bench talk in science laboratories routinely revolves around
the relevance of colors, shapes, patterns, sounds, and
smells (Barley and Bechky 1993).
Contextual knowledge encompasses an encyclopedia of
heuristic or rules-of-thumb.  Members of every technical
occupation we have
studied routinely recite heuristics to themselves and each
other during their work.  In fact, we have begun to wonder
if talking to oneself is not actually critical for effective
technical problem solving.
Technician as cutpoint:  Because technicians serve as
buffers and brokers, only they are positioned to develop a
contextual understanding
of materials and technologies.  It is therefore the
technicians' contextual knowledge rather than their formal
knowledge that represents their substantive expertise.  To
the degree that contextual knowledge is necessary for the
smooth functioning of a production system, the technician
becomes a cutpoint for the entire system: Remove the
technician and
the production system collapses.
In every technical setting we studied we found clear
evidence that technicians are vital precisely because their
contextual understanding is pivotal. Even scientists admit
that without technicians lab work would stop because
scientists do not possess the contextual knowledge necessary
for empirical activities.  Further evidence for the pivotal
importance of the technician's knowledge can be found in
those instances where labs attempt to duplicate each other's
work.  It is usually necessary for technicians from the
second lab to train technicians from the first (Cambrosio
and Keating 1988).
Under certain conditions, microcomputer technicians also
become cutpoints in a production system, especially when
computers are networked.  In fact, the use of outside
technicians and computer consultants actually increases the
odds of a malfunction.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
The foregoing observations challenge the prevalent image of
a technician as a "junior professional" because they suggest
that technicians are not mere adjuncts to an existing
occupation. Instead, technicians are members of
unique occupations with their own bodies of knowledge.
Because this knowledge is largely contextual and because
contextual knowledge is learned in situ, the technician's
knowledge is not a subset of the knowledge commanded by
another occupation. Furthermore, although technicians may
have status incommensurate with their importance, it is not
because they serve as functionaries in a vertical division
of labor (Barley 1991; Barley and Bechky 1993).  If
accurate, these observations suggest at least four potential
policy implications.
First, effective educational programs for training
technicians must impart contextual knowledge of a technical
domain.  If one takes the technician's perspective
seriously, hands-on experience must become integral to the
education of the technical labor force.  Apprenticeships and
internships are ways of providing such experience.  However,
neither should be viewed as an adjunct to classroom
instruction.  Instead, classroom instruction might more
appropriately be viewed as an adjunct to apprenticeship.  If
formal knowledge becomes relevant for technicians only in
the context of practice, then it behooves educators to
design curricula that tailor formal instruction to the
exigencies of practice rather than the reverse.
Apprenticeships and other hands-on experiences will not be
maximally effective if approached as elaborate
demonstrations to support theoretical points.
Second, practicing technicians must be involved in designing
training programs.  Unless educators and policy makers are
themselves technicians (which, of course, most are not),
they will be ignorant of the contextual knowledge that
technicians require. Our observations imply that persons
ignorant of the demands of practice do not usually design
adequate training.  Although an educator's knowledge of
pedagogical tactics is useful for structuring the delivery
of knowledge, it is important to recognize that the
educator's expertise does not encompass the content of
technical work.  The same is true of professionals with whom
some technicians interact.  Policy makers must therefore be
particularly alert not to confuse knowledge relevant for one
occupation with knowledge relevant for another. Recognizing
that technicians are themselves experts in the content of
their work will lessen the risk of designing irrelevant
curricula.
Third, conceptions of technical education must be broadened
to include translation competency. Because technicians serve
as buffers
and brokers in a division of labor, a significant component
of their work requires an ability to translate across the
boundaries of social worlds.  The skill is particularly
crucial for technicians who work
as brokers.  Brokers must be able to assess the needs of
users and
to articulate technical issues in a language that laypersons
can understand.  Not only are general communication skills
required but so is the ability to think of one's work and
the work of others in systemic terms.  The notion of
translation is also useful for re-examining the role that
formal theory plays in the education of technicians.
Historically, technicians have been taught scientific,
technical, or medical theory under the presumption that such
knowledge provides a background crucial for the epistemic
core of the technician' s work.  Although this perspective
has merit, it may be that theoretical knowledge is most
useful for enabling technicians to communicate effectively
with the professionals with whom they interact.  This
possibility casts a different light
on the relevance of formal knowledge and, by extension, the
way in which such knowledge is taught.
Finally, since technical knowledge changes so rapidly,
technical work demands continual learning and access to new
information.  Since relevant technical knowledge is usually
bound to the particulars of a problem, crucial information
is difficult to systematize.  For this reason, technical
knowledge is generally spread informally and often orally
through a community or network of practitioners. Policy
makers should therefore direct resources to the development
of tools for the timely exchange of information and the
development of communities
of practice.  In particular, funds could be used to develop
and maintain on-line databases indexed by terms that
technicians use when solving problems.  Resources might also
be spent to facilitate the formation
of the guild-like organizations that have proven so
effective in spreading knowledge of techniques among
craftspersons and professionals.  Such approaches would
recognize that from a policy perspective the community-of-
practice is potentially a more relevant unit of analysis
than the individual practitioner.
References: A list of references for this paper are
available on page 40.
Education for Engineering and Industrial Technicians in the
Reinvestment Economy
Lawrence J. Wolf
President and Professor of Engineering Technology
Oregon Institute of Technology
THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNICIAN EDUCATION FOR INDUSTRY
Applied wasn't the stylish thing to be in the post-sputnik
years nor through the era of the arms race.  Though leading-
edge science and technology flourished, its reduction to
nondefense endeavors slipped away because other producer
countries reduced the time-to-market for
new products.  Now, as the U.S. seeks to revitalize its
civilian industry, large numbers of technicians having the
scientific background to understand the new technologies
need to be deployed in manufacturing, maintenance and
product support. These requirements will have a profound
effect
upon technician education.
THE TWO-YEAR ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATE DEGREE
Engineering technicians were a post-World War II phenomenon.
The Technical Institute Committee of the Engineers Council
for Professional Development (ECPD), now called the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),
formed to develop the criteria and procedures for the
accreditation of two-year programs for technicians.
Activities began in 1946 with seven programs at three
technical institutes (ABET 1990).  With the surge of the
community college movement in the late 1960's, the Technical
Institute Subcommittee went on to become the accrediting
body for all associate degree programs in the field of
engineering technology.
Two-year engineering technician programs produced personnel
at a level that everyone agreed was needed. Technicians had
a clear employee classification in which they could be
recognized in pay and stature for their education beyond
high school.  The earnings differential divided by the sum
of the direct cost of education and the small forfeited
income for the short time in school, made it one of the best
educational investments possible.
BIFURCATION OF ENGINEERING
The launching of Sputnik by the Soviets in October of 1957
shocked engineering education into adopting the
recommendations of the ASEE Committee on Evaluation of
Engineering Education from 1952 to 1955, which became known
as the Grinter Report (ASEE 1955).
The Committee's objective was to provide a dual choice for
each student of either a scientific or a more pragmatic
orientation of his program of engineering (Grinter 1984).
The Grinter Report bifurcated engineering into engineering
science and applied engineering. Under the name of
engineering
science, schools were encouraged to go further into the
mathematical analyses that were beginning to flourish with
the arrival of the digital computer.  Others, taking the
name of applied engineering, were to remain in the realms of
design, construction, and manufacturing.
What in hindsight seems to be cold war hysteria, virtually
all engineering programs were converted to engineering
science and none to applied engineering.  My 1980 study of
nine representative public and private mechanical
engineering programs across the country shows that the
number of credits that could be earned in laboratories using
machine or welding shops reduced from 6.1% to 0.1% of the
mechanical engineering curriculum during the period from
1955 to 1975. The number of credits earned through studio
laboratories (engineering drawing, descriptive geometry,
kinematics, and machine design labs) reduced from 14.4% to
5.8%.  Meanwhile, the number of credits in engineering
analysis grew from 2.9% to 14.7% (Wolf 1980). Programs were
simply changed in content, though not in title, to
engineering science.
THE TECHNICIAN/TECHNOLOGIST SYMBIOSIS
It was conjectured that more two-year technicians might be
trained instead to satisfy the need for the applied
engineers. In 1959 the ASEE formed a distinguished committee
with Jim McGraw, of the University of Dayton as the
Chairman, to evaluate the associate degree product. The
Characteristics of Excellence in Engineering Technology
Education was produced in 1962 (ASEE 1962).  This very
prestigious report became the basis of the ECPD criteria for
engineering technology and influenced the development of
many associate degree programs. The are now 450 accredited
associate degree programs at 166 institutions in the U.S.
Though two-year programs produced excellent technicians,
they were not a substitute for applied engineers for the
obvious reason that one couldn't
accomplish in a two-year program what had formerly been done
in four-years. But, more acutely, a technician program was
seen by many parents and potential students as an
educational dead-end. Thus, it was difficult to recruit the
kind of student necessary to complete a rigorous associate
degree technician program.  So, amid much contention the
bachelor degree programs in engineering technology were
born.  A subcommittee of the Engineering Technology Council
of the ASEE, formed in l964 to study the concept of four-
year technologist programs. The McCallick Report  was
released in 1965 (McCallick 1966).  ECPD accredited the
first four-year ET program in l967.
Employers then as now ignored the title of technologist.
Some technologists were called technicians.  But most, to
the consternation of many engineering schools, were called
engineers.  Nevertheless, the number of four-year ET
programs has grown to 312 bachelor degree programs
accredited by ABET at 112 different institutions today (ABET
1990).
The four-year technology programs worked on both counts. A
supply of applied engineers was created, while a trail for
the upward mobility of technicians was blazed.  Though only
about twenty percent of the technicians would go on to
further education immediately after graduation, half of all
those who received associate degrees would eventually find
their way to the bachelor program, usually on a part-time
basis (Wolf 1977).  By dispelling the dead-end image, the
four-year programs attracted far more qualified students as
freshmen into technician education programs than those same
programs drew off from the two-year technician graduating
class.
The bifurcation of engineering in the U.S. did not follow
the process imagined in the Grinter Report; but the effect,
if not the titles, did come into being.  In 1983, Grinter
wrote, Nevertheless, the natural forces of student desire
and employer need have brought about a nearly complete
solution through the development of four-year BET curricula
(Grinter 1994).
LINGERING ISSUES IN ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN EDUCATION
Insufficiency of Numbers   The U.S. produces about 50,000
associate degree engineering technicians per year, most from
unaccredited programs. American colleges and universities
produce about 100,000 engineers per year. On the assertion
that there should be at least two technicians for each
engineer, we need four time as many technician graduates as
there are now.
Programs   The 54 excellent colleges of technology in Japan
(one in every prefecture) are nationally supported.  In the
U.S., associate degree technician courses must compete for
existence with less expensive nontechnical courses within
locally supported comprehensive institutions.
Variances in Quality    Most two-year technology programs
are not ABET accredited and lack the math and science basis
to become so.  There seems to be an over-reliance upon local
advisory committees at a time when technician programs need
to meet national and international standards.
Currency of Subject Matter   Technology progresses at an
accelerating pace. Yet, there is no systematic process for
continually upgrading subject matter.
Preparation of Faculty   The overwhelming need in preparing
technology faculty is related to the content of the
instruction.  Yet, those few schools of education that still
purport to train technology faculty have removed the
technological content, preferring to offer certification
program which deal only with teaching methods.  Since
content drives method in the teaching of technicians, there
is no effective training for technology faulty.
Continuing Professional Development   Technicians in other
industrialized countries have more well defined career paths
with greater stature.
Peer Identification   Technicians do not have peer group
support in the form of professional associations.  They are
out there alone, with few role models, professional
publications, or networks.
Continuing Education   The explosion of technology makes the
need for continuing education among technicians acute.
Technicians desire not only degree conversion programs, but
also focused continuing education containing the right
information and reaching the right individuals when those
individuals are ready for it.
Elitism    Elitism does indeed exist and is the greatest
enemy of applied education.  I have seen numerous examples
of it during my 30 years of technology teaching and
administration.  It exists among counselors, administrators,
senior officers, engineering societies, industrial
supervisors and human resource administrators, foundations
and funding agencies and especially among fellow students
and nontechnical
faulty.  Elitism dissuades young people who would benefit
from applied education, demoralizes technology teachers,
produces a dumping ground, is blind to opportunities, and
drains off philosophical and financial support.  Those who
would divert funds from technical education to something
that is more respectable use the very word, technician,
in the pejorative sense.
References: A list of references for this paper are
available on page 40.
One Society's Response to Technician Needs Kenneth Chapman
Head, Technician Resources/Education
American Chemical Society
Washington, DC
ABSTRACT
Addressing technician needs has not been a high priority
role for discipline-oriented associations.  Since 1963, the
American Chemical Society has steadily increased its
response to the professional and educational needs of
technicians who require chemistry knowledge and skills in
the performance of their duties.
Today, technicians have a Division in the Society; manage
the affairs of that Division; plan and present technical
programs for both national and regional ACS meetings; and
work on behalf of technicians through a local chapter
arrangement in more than 20 areas of the country.
On an irregular basis, the Conference on Two-year College
Chemistry devotes one of its four meetings per year to
chemical technology education.  The Society uses an approval
program parallel to that used for baccalaureate programs to
signify the quality of chemical technology curricula.  The
textbook series, Modern Chemical Technology (ACS 1970),
produced in the early 1970s with NSF  funding, now appears
in its third edition.  The Society recently was awarded a
U.S. Department of Education grant to develop Voluntary
Industry Standards for technicians.  Using the findings
presented in the SCANS report (U.S. Department of Labor
1991) and information provided through a variety of other
sources, it is also exploring a new applied science program
to fit the technical specialty slot in high school-level
Tech Prep programs.
THE DIVISION OF CHEMICAL TECHNICIANS
This Division (probationary until August 1994 by ACS rules)
was created by a group of technicians who gained experience
with ACS procedures through an earlier unofficial
organization supported by the ACS Committee on Technician
Activities. Technicians managed the process of developing
support for the proposed division and created the structure
to meet all the requirements imposed by ACS on Division
operation.  The Division members are actively recruiting new
members to ensure that more than 250 ACS members are signed
on by August 1994.  That number has been nearly reached more
than a year early and total Division membership is about
1,000.
The stated goals of the Division include enhancing
professional status, providing continuing education,
informing others about careers, and providing a network
among peers.  This effort received further support at a
recent ACS Board of Directors retreat where industry leaders
advised that ACS should do more to recognize chemical
technicians as professionals.
In the five years since its inception, the ACS National
Technician-of-the-Year Award has been presented to one white
female, and two Hispanic males, and two white males.  The
slate of Division officers presented by the Nominating
Committee in 1993 consisted entirely of females.  The
technicians whose work has lead to the current level of
technician activity in the Society have been truly diverse
by both race and gender.  Thus, technician activities in the
Society show an appropriate diversity without any special
efforts having been made.
TECHNICIAN EDUCATION TODAY
The Society's Technician Resources/Education program is
located in the Education Division.  While the program title
is new for 1993, technician educational interests have
received continuing attention since 1963.  In recent years,
the activity level has increased steadily.
At present, the Society provides opportunities for
technician educators to
meet together and exchange perspectives, compare programs,
and tell war stories.  In the past year, one national and
one regional (joint with the Chemical Institute of Canada)
have had major chemical technician education programming.
ACS began approving B.S. programs in chemistry in 1936. That
service was extended to chemical technology programs in
1991; however, quality guidelines have been issued since
1967.
The stigma associated with technician education combined
with chemistry have made recruitment for A.A.S. chemical
technology programs very difficult.  Small student numbers
have discouraged textbook development. However, the Society
made available Modern Chemical Technology in 1972 with NSF
support and has helped guide the text through two subsequent
editions. Two handbooks for chemical technicians and a
couple of other textbooks prepared for technicians also are
now available.  That is a very small literature resource for
the technicians who are a key support group
for an area of the economy responsible for 18% of the gross
national product.
To provide a better foundation for curriculum redesign and
instructional materials development, the Society is now
undertaking the development of Voluntary Industry Standards
with U.S. Department of Education support. ACS will work
closely with the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the
International Chemical Workers Union in this endeavor.
Preliminary results are expected to be released in 1994.
To respond to a variety of problems that affect the wide
range of technicians whose work depends on chemistry,
biology, and earth sciences, the Society is studying a
course currently referred to as SciTech.  This course is
proposed as an applied, contextual, and authentic approach
for science in the technical specialty block within the
engineering/industrial cluster of the Tech Prep framework of
school reform.  The targeted students for SciTech typically
would receive only limited preparation for long-term careers
through general or vocational education programs.  An
example module for SciTech is presently under development.
SCITECH
SciTech incorporates the competencies identified in the
SCANS Report and pedagogical features proven in recently
developed science and technology curricula.  SciTech courses
would emphasize: analyzing problems; developing problem-
solving skills; teamwork; working safely; recognizing and
correcting deficiencies in skills and knowledge; and
developing a sound foundation of scientific knowledge and
laboratory skills.
The sample module now being developed requires the class to
function as a quality control team for an aspirin
manufacturing unit that is exploring changes in the
synthesis procedure.  In addition to learning new organic
and analytical chemistry, students will learn about batch
processing, good manufacturing practices, good laboratory
practices, FDA regulations, environmental responsibility,
and economic factors that affect aspirin production.
SciTech will place much different demands on students than
is now typical of chemistry and biology courses.  As their
experience grows, students will take an increasing
responsibility for determining their own knowledge and
skills inadequacies. They will become responsible for
decision-making and their decisions will determine class
operation.  The pedagogical changes will develop teamwork
skills, emphasize planning and operations functions, require
greater use of information resources, and demonstrate the
interaction of other systems with the practices of science.
SciTech will demand that teachers be joined with scientists,
engineers, and technicians from the nearby community in the
instructional process.  In addition to special training for
all SciTech teachers, a supportive
national network should provide quick access to information
and advice.  Teachers will need a continuing, close
association with science efforts in their local community.
THE TEAM
ACS relies heavily on volunteers.  Fortunately, technicians
have always been an important volunteer group for Society
committees dealing with technician affairs.  Today,
technicians are sought for membership on ACS committees
outside the technician arena.  However, technicians need
support from employers just as do their scientist and
engineer counterparts if they are to participate in
organizational activities.  And, that participation can be
local as well as national.
In the practice of science and engineering, technicians are
accepted as critical components.  They are just as critical
as components of the organizations of the technical
communities in which they serve.
References: A list of references for this paper are
available on page 40.
Summary Comments
Critical Issues in Science and Engineering Technician
Education Invitational
Workshop
George R. Boggs
Superintendent/President, Palomar College (CA)
Chair, Board of Directors, The American Association of
Community Colleges
July 23, 1993
These summary comments reflect my thoughts about ideas
presented in both the papers and the presentations. Please
excuse me for not crediting individual authors or
presenters. Several ideas and themes were recurring.
First, let me share some facts and findings:
The United States remains a world leader in the production
of scientists and engineers and in developing new
technologies.
Other countries out-compete us in turning these new
technologies to economic advantage.
Several study panels have warned us that we have lost our
national competitiveness because we have neglected our
nation's workforce.
Unless we take corrective action, we will doom our people to
an unprecedented low standard of living, and our nation's
national security will be threatened.
The current level of worker training in the United States is
inadequate to raise the productivity and quality to the
extent needed to improve our competitive position in world
markets.
Secretaries Riley and Reich are advocating that the skills,
adaptability, creativity, and knowledge of the American
worker must be the foundation for restoring competitiveness.
Both workforce preparation prior to employment and workforce
training after employment need to be strengthened.
There is a lack of connection between the skills needed in
the workforce and the skills imparted through education and
training.
Only 25% of American youth graduate from college, leaving a
75% neglected majority.
Eighty percent of the workforce of the year 2000 is
currently on the job.
American businesses spend $45 billion annually on workforce
training.
* Ninety-five percent of this expenditure is concentrated in
large companies of 500 or more employees.
*  Eighty-three percent of the $45 billion is spent on
inservice training for executives, managers, and sales
staff, leaving only 17% for front-line workers.
Small companies account for 60% of the nation's jobs and 80%
of all new jobs in the last ten years.
The United States is the only industrialized nation without
a formal system for the development and dissemination of
workforce skill standards.
The following information is provided in the Scientific and
Advanced Technology Act of 1992;
Improvement of workforce productivity and our international
economic position depend upon the strengthening of our
educational efforts in science, math, and technology,
especially at the associate degree level. (This is a
refreshing recognition of the importance of education to
economic development. )
Shortages of scientifically and technically trained workers
are best addressed by collaboration among the nation's
associate-degree-granting institutions and private industry
to produce skilled advanced technicians.
NSF shall award grants for:
* Development of model instructional programs. (We suggested
also the dissemination of model curricula. )
* Professional development of faculty.
* Establishment of public-private partnerships.
* Acquisition of state-of-the-art equipment.
* Dissemination of instructional materials.
* Funding up to 10 National Centers for Scientific and
Technical Education.
There is a need to more clearly define the term technician.
Technicians are not junior scientists and engineers.
Different skills are required, the skills of application
rather than theoretical skills.
However, the differences between technicians and scientists
or engineers are not well understood.
The nature of technician's work is changing as work is being
pushed down to lower levels because of company downsizing
and streamlining.
In the language of the Scientific and Advanced Technology
Act, advanced technology includes modernization,
miniaturization, integration, and computerization of
electronic, hydraulic, pneumatic, laser, nuclear, chemical,
telecommunication, fiber optic, robotic, and other
technological applications to enhance productivity
improvements in manufacturing, communication,
transportation, commercial, and similar economic and
national security activities.
From the workshop materials: For this workshop, technician
will apply to those whose education and work activities
require using mathematics at least through algebra as well
as applying scientific principles and design or laboratory
skills to science and engineering applications. Collegiate
education to at least an associate of applied science
degree, or its equivalent acquired through some corporate or
military programs, is required.
Complicating our definition is the fact that some
technicians have come up through the ranks in companies
without formal education.
The current economy has given industry a good supply of
bachelor's degree scientists and engineers to hire as
technicians, further complicating the definition.
There is a need to improve the status or prestige level of
technicians.
"Technician" has a negative connotation among some.
Some companies have even deleted this job title and
substituted other labels such as research associate.
However, even this term is not well defined and can be used
to designate a scientist or an engineer at another company.
A common definition, national standards, program
accreditation, and technician certification should improve
the status of the profession.
Professional societies can enhance the status of the
profession by creating divisions for technicians. Some
already have.
Industry should assess the effects of the trend to hire
temporary or adjunct scientists, engineers, and technicians
on the status of the profession and on long term
productivity.
Strategies must be developed to reduce and eliminate
cultural barriers to the technician profession and to job
satisfaction.
People from all groups should be acknowledged for their
contributions.
Technician careers and their importance to the nation can be
marketed using television, radio, brochures, and posters.
Current technicians are the best sales people. Marketing
efforts should show an openness to women and minorities.
High school counselors and teachers need information about
technician careers.
We need data about technicians.
* How many are there in the current workforce?
* In what industries are they found?
* How many are in large versus small companies?
* What are the projected needs? (Supply and demand)
* What are the demographics? (age, gender, ethnicity, work
location)

We need to define competencies for technicians.
* It is necessary to characterize the knowledge, skills, and
abilities of entry level technicians.
* What training should be: generic versus industry specific
versus company specific? Proprietary knowledge would have to
be provided by companies.
* Competencies and characteristics mentioned at the workshop
include: critical thinking skills, problem solving skills,
analytical skills, teamwork skills, knowledge of safety
measures, technical skills (science and lab), computational
skills, oral and written communication skills, work ethic,
aptitude, interest, enthusiasm, adaptability, self-
motivation, organizational skills, flexibility, and ability
to follow through.
* After generic and industry specific skills are learned,
companies must take it from there.
* Secretaries Reich and Riley are recommending voluntary
national skills standards.
* Skills standards should include generic competencies and
industry (not company) specific skills for broad clusters of
major occupations.
* World class skills standards should be jointly developed
by industry, labor (technicians themselves), professional
societies, and academia. All of these are stakeholders and
should be part of the partnerships or alliances formed.
* Academia must listen to (and involve) industry in
establishing skills standards. In the past, industry
representatives have felt left out.
* Small companies should be included in the establishment of
skills standards. Their needs for skills and competencies
may be different from those of larger companies.
* Federal agencies or professional societies should bring
stakeholders together to develop skills standards.
* Once these competencies and skills standards are defined,
they must be accepted and honored by industry. Job
descriptions should require certification. Industry will
need to resist the temptation to employ people who don't
have the certification when the demand returns.
Components and characteristics of education and training for
technicians discussed by workshop groups include the
following:
* National skills standards can be used to evaluate the
content of academic programs and serve as a basis for
program accreditation.
* National examination boards; made up of representatives of
all stakeholder groups (industry, labor (working technicians
who know the job requirements best), community colleges,
universities, secondary schools, and professional societies;
will provide a path to be certified.
* Tech Prep and other innovative programs should help to
improve the substance and image of vocational training in
secondary schools. There has been too much emphasis on the
college preparation curriculum, ignoring the needs of 75% of
the high school students.
* We must overcome the biases of status conscious parents
and high school professionals who try to encourage every
student to go to a four-year college or university.
* We must provide for the needs of nontraditional and
returning students.
Child care, tutoring, advising, financial aid, remedial
work, career counseling, and job placement services must be
provided. Underrepresented and nontraditional students often
have a limited sense of their career options.
* Education and training must involve hands on experiences.
* Technicians need practical experience and contextual
knowledge rather than theoretical knowledge. However, they
must have a sound basic foundation of knowledge.
* Apprenticeships, internships, or cooperative education
experiences need to be a core part of the education.
* Mentors from industry (employed technicians and
supervisors) should be provided for students.
* Mentors should be trained in how to be mentors. (Some
community colleges already offer courses in this subject.)
* Programs must encourage collaborative or cooperative
rather than competitive learning.
* Programs must be developed for the continual learning and
updating of technicians.
Technology programs should be placed near areas  employment
for the following reasons:
* Need for internships.
* Need for advisory committees.
* Need for mentors.
* Need for access to state-of-the-art equipment owned by
industry.
* Need for guest lecturers or adjunct faculty from industry.
* Apparent lack of mobility of graduates.
Industry must release staff to serve as guest lecturers,
mentors, and as members of program advisory committees.
All stakeholders must be involved in curriculum development
and review.
Community colleges and four-year institutions must
articulate courses for ease of transfer to benefit the
technicians who wish to obtain an advanced degree. Bridge
programs may need to be developed.
Industry must provide a career path and a career ladder for
technicians.
Faculty should have previous industrial experience.
High school and community college faculty should
periodically spend some time in industry. This applies both
to teachers of technicians and to teachers of basic
sciences. Schools, colleges, and companies will have to
develop programs to allow this experience.
Professional societies can create opportunities for
professional development, networking, and recognition for
career advancement.
Community colleges and companies can make use of new
instructional technologies for teaching, including
interactive video and distance learning.
People who move from industry to high school and community
college teaching need to learn pedagogical skills.
Credential requirements must be relaxed to allow this to
happen.
Teachers of technicians need to be recognized as
professionals.
Non-monitory rewards of teaching must be emphasized. Schools
and colleges cannot compete with industry for salaries.
The curriculum should reflect skills and competency
standards and should include general, technical, and
industry specific components. The general component should
have a strong emphasis on math, science, and communication.
The ideal educational program should permit multiple exits
and opportunities for re-entry.
Educational programs must provide for part-time students.
Programs should be evaluated periodically to maintain
accreditation.
References for Papers
What Do Technicians Do?, Stephen R. Barley
Aerospace Education Foundation. 1989. America 's Next
Crisis: The Shortfall of Technical Manpower Arlington, VA:
The Aerospace Education Foundation.
Allen, Thomas J. 1977.  Managing the Flow of Technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barley, Stephen R. and Stacia Zabusky. in progress.  Study
of microcomputer support technicians. School of Industrial
and Labor Relations.  Cornell University.
Barley, Stephen R. 1991. The New Crafts: On the Technization
of the Workforce and the Occupationalization of Firms.
Working Paper, National Center for the Education of the
Workforce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Barley, Stephen R. 1990. The Alignment of Technology and
Structure Through Roles and Networks.  Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35:61-103.
Barley, Stephen R. 1984. The Professional, the Semi-
Professional and The Machine: The Social Ramification of
Computer Based Imaging in Radiology. Doctoral Dissertation.
Sloan School of Management, MIT.
Barley, Stephen R. and Beth Bechky 1993.  In the Backrooms
of Science: The Work of Technicians in Science Labs.
Working Paper, National Center for the Education of the
Workforce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Bell, Daniel. 1973.  The Coming of Post-lndustrial Society.
New York: Basic Books.
Bishop, John H., and Shani Carter. 1991. The Worsening
Shortage of College-Graduate Workers. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 13:221-246.
Block, Fred. 1990.  Postindustrial Possibilities: A Critique
of Economic
Discourse.  Berkeley,University of California Press.
Bucciarelli, Louis L. 1988. An Ethnographic Perspective on
Engineering
Design.  Design Studies. 9: 159-168.
Cambrosio, Alberto and Keating, Peter. 1988. Going
Monoclonal: Art, Science
and Magic in the Day-to-Day Use of Hybridoma Technology.
Social Problems,
35:244-260.
Collins, H. M. (1974) The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and
Scientific Networks.
Science Studies, 4: 165-86.
Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U. S. House of
Representatives.
1991. Technical Education, Work Force Training, and U.S.
Competitiveness: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on
Science, Space and Technology, U. S. House of
Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office.
Committee on Science and Technology,  U. S. House of
Representatives. 1986. Community Colleges and Technician
Training: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology and the Committee on Science and
Technology, U. S. House of Representatives. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Harper, Douglas. 1987. Working Knowledge: Skill and
Community in a Small Shop. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hirschhorn, Larry. (1984) Beyond Mechanization. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Johnston, William B. and Arnold Packer. 1987. Workforce
2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis,
IN: Hudson Institute.
Kuhn, Sarah 1989. "The Limits to Industrialization: Computer
Software Development in a Large Commercial Bank."  Pp 266-
278 in S. Wood (ed) The Transformation of Work?: Skill,
Flexibility, and the Labour Process. London: Unwin Hyman.
Kunda, Gideon 1991. Engineering Culture: Control and
Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1992. Situated
Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The
Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Lynch, Michael. 1985. Art and Artifact in Laboratory
Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research
Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nelsen, Bonalyn and Stephen R. Barley. (1992) "Practice
Makes Perfect: Emergency Medical Technicians and the Social
Negotiation of a Skilled Occupational Identity."  Working
Paper, Center for the Education of the Workforce, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Orr, Julian E. (forthcoming) Talking About Machines: An
Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Parnell, Dale. 1985. The Neglected Majority. Washington, DC:
The Community College Press.
Peltz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews. 1966. Scientists in
Organizations: Productive Climates for Research and
Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pentland, Brian. 1991. Making the Right Moves: Toward a
Social Grammar of
Software Support Hot Lines. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Scarselletta, Mario. 1992. Button Pushers and Ribbon
Cutters: Observations on Skill and Practice in a Hospital
Laboratory and Their Implications for the Shortage of
Skilled Technicians. Working Paper, Center for the Education
of the Workforce, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA.
Silvestri, George, and John Lukasiewicz. 1989. Projections
of Occupational Employment: 1988-2000." Monthly Labor
Review, 112:42-65.
Whalley, Peter. 1986. The Social Production of Technical
Work:The Case of British Engineers. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Zabusky, Stacia. 1993 "Strain and the Organizational
Scientist: A Cultural Explanation." Working Paper, National
Center for the Education of the Workforce, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 1989. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New
York: Basic Books.
Zussmam, Robert. 1985. Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work
and Politics Among American Engineers. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
One Society's Response to Technician Needs, Kenneth M.
Chapman
American Chemical Society. 1970. Modern Chemical Technology.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society
U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. What Work Requires of
Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Education for Engineering and Industrial Technicians in the
Reinvestment Economy, Lawrence J. Wolf
Accreditation Board For Engineering And Technology, Inc.
58th Annual Report, For The Year Ending September 30, 1990.
1990.  p. 132.
American Society for Engineering Education. Report on
Evaluation of Engineering Education. 1955.  Washington, DC.:
American Society for Engineering Education.
American Society for Engineering Education. 1962. The
Characteristics of Excellence in Engineering Technology
Education.  Washington, DC.: American Society for
Engineering Education.
Grinter, L. E. 1984. Engineering and Engineering Technology
Education. ASEE Journal of Engineering Technology.
Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
March.  pp. 6-8.
McCallick, I. E. 1966. Recommended Guidelines for Evaluation
and Accreditation of Four-Year Programs in Technology.  Feb.
2.  Engineers Council for Professional Development.
Wolf, L. J. 1980. ME/MET - Crossroads or Coalescence?
Proceedings of the 88th Annual Conference of the ASEE.
Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
Wolf, L. J. 1977. Articulation Between Associate and
Baccalaureate Programs in Engineering Technology Education.
Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
W. David Baker
Director
School of Engineering Technology
Rochester Institute of Technology
78 Lomb Memorial Drive
Rochester, NY 14623-5604
@    Steven Barbato
State Supervisor
Technology Education
Delaware Department
     of Public Education
Federal and Lockerman St.
P.O. Box 1402
Dover, DE 19903
Stephen R. Barley
Director
Program on Technology & Work
School of Industrial & Labor Rel.
Cornell University
387B - Ives Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
E. Peter Benzing
222 Dilworth Road
Sewickley, PA 15143
*%  Jan Berntson
Imaging Technician Development Manager
Eastman Kodak Company
1700 Dewey Avenue
Rochester, NY 14650-1908
George R. Boggs
Superintendent/President
Palomar College
1140 West Mission Road
San Marcos, CA 92069-1487
Sadie C. Bragg
Acting Dean of Academic Affairs
Borough of Manhattan Community College
199 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
John Brosseau
Engineering Physics Instructor
Cherry Creek High School
6205 S. Sycamore Street
Littleton, CO 80120
Ruth Ann Cade
Director
School of Engineering Technology
The University of So. Mississippi
SS Box 5137
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5137
*@ Amy Chang
Head, Education Department
American Society for Microbiology
1325 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20005
*    Kenneth Chapman
American Chemical Society
1155 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Michael Cisneros
Chemical Laboratory Technician
Los Alamos National Laboratory
11MA J541
Los Alamos, NM 87545-0001
Michael A. Clark
Deputy General Manager
National Institute for Certification of Eng. Technologies
1420 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-2794
John V. Clevenger
Director
Office of Technical Workforce Development
Univ. & Com. Col. System of Nevada 2601 Enterprise Road
Reno, NV 89512
Janet Coffee
Research Associate
National Science Education Standards National Research
Council
Harris Building, Rm 486
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
*    + Tim Collins
Manager, BS/Technician Recruiting
The Procter & Gamble Company
6090 Center Hill Road
Cincinnati, OH 45224-1792
*    + Vernon O. Crawley
President
Moraine Valley Community College
10900 South 88th Avenue
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Paul Dickinson
Executive Secretary
Partnership for Environmental Technology Education
Lawrence Livermore Nat. Laboratory
University of California
P.O. Box 808, L-444
Livermore, CA 94551
Cheryll A. Dunn
Associate Dean
College of Applied Science
University of Cincinnati
2220 Victory Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45206
@    Robert English
Chairman
Department of Engineering Technology New Jersey Institute of
Technology GITC Building, Room 2103
Newark, NJ 07102
Dale Ewen
Vice President for Acad. Services Parkland College
2400 West Bradley Avenue
Champaign, IL 61821
David Florio
National Science Education Standards National Research
Council
Harris Building, Rm 486
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418
Wanda Garner
Mathematics, Science and
     Engineering Division Chair
Cabrillo College
6500 Soquel Drive
Aptos, CA 95003
*    + Don K. Gentry
Dean, School of Technology
Purdue University
1410 Knoy Hall
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1410
LaRaux Gillispie
Kansas City Division
Allied-Signal, Inc.
Dept 811-5; MS 2B35
2000 East 95th Street
Kansas City, MO 64131-3095
Ashley Gray
Legislative Associate
American Association of
     Community Colleges
One DuPont Circle, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
*    Harry Hajian
Consultant
40 Oak Hill Avenue
Warwick, RI 02886
Leon C. Hammer
Electronics Technician
Intel Corporation
5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway Hillsboro, OR 97124
*% David M. Hata
Department Chair
Microelectronics Technology
Portland Community College
Sylvania Campus
P.O. Box 19000
Portland, OR 97280-0990
Michael Hill
Manager of Technical Training
Advanced Micro Devices
901 Thompson Place
P.O. Box 3453
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
Clif Hinton
Department Head,
Ind. Pharmaceuticals Technology
     and Envir. Sciences Technology
Wake Technical Community College
9101 Fayetteville Road
Raleigh, NC 27603-5696
@    Robert A. Hofstader
Consultant
2389 Longfellow Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090
@    Toby Mogollon Horn
Biotechnology Laboratory Teacher Thomas Jefferson High
School for
Science and Technology
6560 Braddock Road
Alexandria, VA 22312
Russell K. Hotzler
Vice President for Academic Affairs Queensborough Community
College
Room A-503
222-05 56th Avenue
Bayside, NY 11364
*% Durwood R. Huffman
President
Northern Maine Technical College
33 Edgemont Drive
Presque Isle, ME 04769
William Hurley
Human Resources
E. I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Inc. Nemours Building,  13447
Wilmington, DE 19898
Diane Jernigan
East Vocational Technical Center
3225 Walnut Grove Road
Memphis, TN 38111
Gloria M. Jimenez
Program Manager
CIM In Higher Education
International Business Machines Corp. Int. ZIP 4409
1000 N.W. 51st Street
Boca Raton, FL 33429
Therese Jones
Chairman
Division of Sciences and Engineering Amarillo College
Box 447
Amarillo, TX 79178
Jacinto P. Juarez
Vice President for Instruction
Laredo Junior College
West End Washington Street
Laredo, TX 78040-4395
(210)721-5142
FAX (210)721-5103
Russ Kellum
Colgate Palmolive Company
909 River Road
P.O. Box 1343
Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343
*% Kathleen Kennedy
Education Project Coordinator
North Carolina Biotechnology Center 4501 Building
P.O. Box 13547
Research Tri. Park, NC 27709-3547
Robert L. Kimball
Department Chair
Mathematics and Physics
Wake Technical Community College
9101 Fayetteville Road
Raleigh, NC 27603-5696
*% Fritz Kryman
Dean, College of Applied Science University of Cincinnati
2220 Victory Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45206-2872
Joanne Langabee
Physics and Principles of
     Technology Instructor
Papillion LaVista High School
402 Centennial Road
Papillion, NE 68046
Jane Latz
Eli Lilly and Company
Lilly Corporate Center
Mail Drop 3111
Indianapolis, IN 46285
Robert J. Maleski
Development Associate
Tennessee Eastman Division
Eastman Chemical
Kingsport, TN 37662-5231
Clifton T. Mansfield
Senior Group Leader
Analytical Services
Texaco Research & Development
P.O. Box 1608
Port Arthur, TX 77641
Judy Marmaras
Director of Tech Prep Programs Community College of Rhode
Island
400 East Avenue
Warwick, RI 02886
Carroll Marsalis
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 West Summit Hill Drive
Knoxville, TN 37902
James McBrayer
Chair
Engineering Technology Department University of Central
Florida
P.O. Box 25000
Orlando, FL 32816
David Mertes
Chancellor
California Community Colleges
1107 Ninth Street, 6th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Alan J. Miller
Director of Instructional Support Hillsboro Union High
School District 759 S.E. Washington Street
Hillsboro, OR 97123
Ann H. Moore
Planning Consultant
6502 Ponton Place
Austin, TX 78731-2932
Ray Morrison
Administrator
Professional Development Institute Lockheed Aeronautical
Systems Co.
Div 90-20;  MZ 0376
86 S. Cobb Drive
Marietta, GA 30063-0376
Damian Nichols
Hudson Valley Community College
Troy, NY 12180
Eduardo J. Padron
President
Miami-Dade Community College
Wolfson Campus
300 N. E. Second Avenue
Miami, FL 33132
Leno S. Pedrotti
Senior Vice President
Center for Occupational
     Research & Development
601H Lake Air Drive
P.O. Box 21689
Waco, TX 76710
Ernesto Ramirez, Jr.
Director
Comprehensive Regional Center
     for Minorities
Maricopa Community College
2411 West 14th Street
Tempe, AZ 85281-6941
Kermit Reister
Electronic Engineering Technology Weber State University
Ogden, UT 84408-1805
Jeffrey J. Sich
Assistant Director for
     Education Programs
National Institutes of Health
Office of Education
Bldg 10, Room 1C129
Bethesda, MD 20892
*    Ray L. Sisson
Dean
Applied Science and
     Engineering Technology
University of Southern Colorado
2200 North Bonforte Blvd.
Pueblo, CO 81001-4901
Patricia Sokoloff
Manager, Education and Communications Chemical Manufacturers
Association 2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
*    Ann Leigh Speicher
Manager
Public Policy & Information
American Society for
     Engineering Education
Suite 200
11 DuPont Circle
Washington, DC 20036
Kendall N. Starkweather
Executive Director
International Technology
     Education Association
1914 Association Drive
Reston, VA 22091-1502
Kathleen Stasz
Rand Corporation.
1700 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138
@    Fredrick M. Stein
Director
Center for Science, Mathematics
     and Technology Education
Colorado State University
College of Natural Sciences
Ft. Collins, CO 80523

Leonard Sterry
Director
Technology Education Graduate Program University of
Wisconsin - Stout Menomonie, WI 54751
John P. Stilp
Dean
Technical & Industrial Division Milwaukee Area Technical
College
700 West State Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Anthony L. Tilmans
Director, External Degree Programs Southern College of
Technology
1100 South Marietta Parkway
Marietta, GA 30060-2896
*    George A. Timblin
Head
Engineering and Advanced
     Technology Department
Central Piedmont Community College P.O. Box 35009
Charlotte, NC 28235
Theodore Townes
Head, Chemical Technology
Bidwell Training Center, Inc.
1815 Metropolitan Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
Betty M. Vetter
Executive Director
Commission on Professionals in
     Science and Technology
Suite 831
1500 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005
Jack L. Waintraub
Chairman
Physics/Electrical Engineering Technology Department
Middlesex County College
155 Mill Road
P.O. Box 3050
Edison, NJ 08818
William Walker
Experimental Station
E. I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Inc. E304/A110
Wilmington, DE 19898
Sonia Sparks Wallman
Professor
New Hampshire Technical College
1066 Front Street
Manchester, NH 03102
Gwynn Warner
Technician
Union Carbide Company
Bldg 740, Rm 3103
S. Charleston, WV 25303
Frank Wells
Director, University Programs
National Action Council for
     Minorities in Engineering, Inc.
3    West 35th Street
New York, NY 10001
George W. Williams
Chair
Chemical Engineering Technology
State Technical Institute at Memphis 5983 Macon Cove
Memphis, TN 38134-7693
%    John Wirt
Senior Analyst
Office of Technology Assessment
SET Program
Washington, DC 20510-8025
Lawrence J. Wolf
President
Oregon Institute of Technology
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls, OR 97601-8801
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
300 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20546
Larry Bilbrough
Sherri McGee
Angela Phillips
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22230
Lida K. Barrett
Barbara Brownstein
Lawrence Burton
*    Ray Collings
Margaret Cozzens
Patricia Daniels
*    Karolyn Eisenstein
*    Norman Fortenberry
William Haver
James Lightbourne
Duncan McBride
George Peterson
Stanley Pine
Robert Reynik
Gerhard Salinger
Chalmers Secrist
Tina Straley
*    Elizabeth Teles
Lourdes Tinajero
Kenneth Travers
*    Robert Watson
Luther S. Williams
Office of Management and Budget  Washington, DC 20546
Sarah Horrigan
U.S. Department of Defense
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3080
Russell Herndon
U.S. Department of Education
300 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Nancy Smith Brooks
Wanda Chambers
Mary Silvertsen
Nevzer Stacey
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20585
Margaret Dwyer
Talitha Powell
Richard Stephens
* Planning Group Member
+ Workshop Co-Chair
% Working Group Chair
@ Working Group Reporter
What is STIS?
STIS is an electronic dissemination system that provides
fast
easy access to National Science Foundation (NSF)
publications. There is no cost to you except for possible
long-distance phone charges. The service is available 24
hours a day, except for brief weekly maintenance
periods.
What Publications are Available?
Publications currently available include:
The NSF Bulletin
Program announcements and "Dear Colleague" letters General
publications and reports
Press releases
NSF organization charts and phone books
NSF vacancy announcements
Award abstracts (1989 now)
Our goal is for all printed publications to be available
electronically.
Access Methods
There are many ways to access STIS.  Choose the method that
meets your needs and the communication facilities you have
available.
Electronic Documents Via E-Mail.  If you have access
to Internet or BITNET e-mail, you can send a specially
formatted message, and the document you request will be
automatically returned to you
via e-mail.
Anonymous FTP. Internet users who are familiar with
this file transfer method can quickly and easily transfer
STIS documents to their local system for browsing and
printing.
On-Line STIS. If you have a VTI00 emulator and an Internet
connection or a modem, you can log on to the on-line system.
The on-line system features full-text search and retrieval
software to help you locate the documents and award
abstracts that are of interest to you. Once you locate a
document, you can browse through it on-line, or download it
using the Kermit protocol, or request that it be mailed
to you.
Direct E-Mail. You can request that STIS keep you informed,
via e-mail of all new documents on STIS. You can elect to
get either a summary or the full text of new documents.
Internet Gopher and WAIS. If your campus has access
to these Internet information resources, you can use your
local client software to search and download NSF
publications. If you have the capability, it is the easiest
way to access STIS.
Getting Started With Documents Via E-Mail
Send a message to stisserv@nsf.gov (Internet)  or
stisserv@NSF (BITNET). The text of the message should
be as follows (the Subject line is ignored):
get index
You will receive a list of all the documents on STIS and
instructions for retrieving them. Please note that all
requests for electronic documents should be sent to
stisserv, as shown above. Requests
for printed publications should be sent to pubs@nsf. gov
(internet) or pubs@NSF (BITNET).
Getting Started with Anonymous FTP
FTP to stis.nsf.gov.  Enter anonymous for the
username, and your e-mail address for the password.
Retrieve the file index. This contains a list of the files
available on
STIS and additional instructions.
Getting Started with the On-Line System
If you are on the Internet: telnet stis. nsf.gov.  At
the login prompt, enter public.
If you are dialing in with a modem: Choose 1200, 2400, or
9600 baud, 7-E-1. Dial 202-357-0359 or 202-357-0360. When
connected, press Enter. At the login prompt, enter public.
Getting Started with Direct E-Mail

Send an e-mail message to stisserv@nsf.gov (Internet) or
stisserv@NSF (BITNET). Put the following in the text: get
stisdirm
You will receive instructions for this service. Getting
Started with Gopher and WAIS
The NSF Gopher server is on port 70 of stis. nsf.gov.  The
WAIS server is also on stis.nsf.gov. You can get the .src
file from the Directory of Servers at quake.think.com. For
more information, contact your local computer support
organization.
For More Information
For additional assistance contact:
E-mail: stis-request@nsf. gov (Internet)
     stis-req@NSF (BITNET)
Phone:  202-357-7555 (voice mail)
TDD: 202-357-7492
NSF 91-10 Revised 10/25/92
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
RETURN THIS COVER SHEET TO ROOM 233. IF YOU DO NOT
WISH TO RECEIVE THIS MATERIAL, OR IF CHANGE OF ADDRESS IS
NEEDED, INDICATE CHANGE. INCLUDING ZIP CODE ON THE LABEL.
(DO NOT REMOVE LABEL).
NSF 94-32
Printed on recycled paper.