We Loaded the Children On the Bus--Where Are the Parents?

by Barron E. White

What has happened to our education system? Since the creation and establishment of the Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, education reform promulgated the fact that our children were lacking the necessary skills to meet the demands of the work place. Figuratively speaking, this was our opportunity to load the children on the bus with their parents, properly assess their needs, provide every child equal access to education, adhere to high standards, adopt methods to acquire accountability, and purse parent engagement. In 2001, the reauthorization of ESEA became the No Child Left Behind Act. Through reauthorization, greater expectations were required in order that accountability, flexibility in funding, research-based practices, parent involvement, and parent options, refine the process of closing the student achievement gap. Educators guide children down the road of continuous improvement, but where are the parents?

The Title I parent involvement policy opens the door to involving parents in the education of their child. If not connected with the educational system, one could read and interpret the parent involvement policy as an “invitation” for parents; it is like opening the doors to the school so all stakeholders can join in the success of the children. To the point of sounding ludicrous, have educators intentionally ignored the one group of individuals who have the greatest influence over our nation’s children? Read the policy brief to gain a since of the opportunities parent/guardians have been missing for years.

Now that you have read the policy brief, why are district officials and school administrators making it difficult for parents to become involved in their child’s education? When parents arrive at the school, they receive less than a smile. Why do school office employees exude the attitude, “don’t bother me?” Other than making cupcakes, being room mothers/dads, or making copies, how often do parents receive information concerning how they can assist teachers and students on campus? Parents can assist as math tutors, as reading volunteers, or serve as assistant liaisons who call other parents to attend teacher workshops and planning meetings for school improvement?

In today’s world, people have become vocal in the areas of employment, finance, taxes, etc. When will the American people become vocal advocates for the education of its children? Better yet, when will educators become proactive and gain the trust of parents by inviting them into the education arena? If we empower our parents by offering the necessary tools and trainings for them to become active partners in their child’s education, we emancipate them to establish a community of forward thinking individuals who value education.

The children have been loaded on the bus and there are no questions concerning the whereabouts of the parents.

ADHD, the New Normal?

ADHD is in epidemic proportions in our children. While this may sound like a panic statement it is not intended to incite panic. It doesn’t even have to be a crisis, except that children with ADHD test the educational system at every turn. And the educational system is failing these children. Our answer to this seems to be to blame the students, medicate them, and insist that they continue in the system that is not equipped to handle them.

Part of the problem, when it comes to students with ADHD, is that they learn differently than other students. In an institutional school setting it is difficult to deal with one child who has trouble sitting quietly in a desk, cannot be still, and is easily distracted. But suppose that there are two, three, or even four students who have this issue? What is a teacher of 25 students supposed to do with the students who are disruptive by virtue of the fact that they are constant motion and noise?

This is the dilemma facing may schools today. Institutional school settings are based on a model of children from a different era. Children today, even those without ADHD, seem to be wired differently from the students of one hundred years ago. From a very early age we bombard them with stimulation. Before a baby can even turn over by themselves they have music, lights, and sound in their cribs, in the form of toys, mobiles, and stuffed animals that make noises or lullabies. By the time they are toddling, many of their toys make sound, light up, or move.

It is not long before we have educational programs for baby on the television. We are giving our children computer access at progressively earlier ages. Everything moves fast, and is noisy. And this is all before we send them to school, during those years when the pathways in the brain are still being formed. We make them wired to think being alone and quiet is bad. We push for them to learn such things as colors and numbers at early ages when maybe they should be learning other things. We force our children into a constant input state.

And then we send them to school. This is where the trouble begins. We expect them to sit quietly. We expect them to be satisfied with repetition. We limit the amount of time that they spend physically expending energy because we do not allow them more than a couple of short recesses each day. All of the rest of the time we expect them to sit, still and quiet.

We are setting them up to fail, and when they do, the first thing that happens is that they are labeled as abnormal, and hyperactive. We say that they have no attention span. And we medicate them.

But what if this picture is wrong? What if they are not abnormal and hyperactive? What if that is the new normal? In a school setting that has not changed in a hundred years, maybe it is not the children who are abnormal. Maybe the school needs to adapt to the new normal.

Maybe in an age where almost every adult has a smart phone that is constantly in their hands, and many cars have navigation systems, and televisions take up more than four feet of wall space, we need to consider that the educational system has not kept up with the changing world that we live in. Today’s world is one of 24 hour news cycles, and multiple computers, laptops, and tablets in every household. Children and adults spend hours interacting with gaming consoles, where the worlds created are quite fantastic.

Shouldn’t the education we afford our children be equally exciting and dynamic?

Please don’t misunderstand. The argument here is not that ADHD doesn’t exist, because it does exist. Nor is the argument that children who have ADHD shouldn’t be medicated. In each family, and with each child, a decision must be made to do what is best for the child. The argument here is that maybe we should stop saying that the children who are wired for constant input from multiple sources are abnormal or different, and begin treating them like they are normal. If we can change the way we teach them, and the expectations we have for their behavior, perhaps we can stop fighting the way ADHD children are, and begin working with what we have. Maybe they are not abnormal, but instead are the new normal.

Einstein’s Educational Philosophy

Einstein’s Educational Philosophy

In December of 1999, Time Magazine named Albert Einstein “Person of the Century” arguing that his discoveries revolutionized humans’ understanding of the universe.

Although lauded for his scientific mind, Einstein was also a philosopher. Borrowing from his experiences living in Nazi Germany, or during the time he spent straining to understand scientific principles, he expressed his ideas about the challenges of daily life.

As Einstein was a professor of physics, quite a few of his most known sayings relate to education. Take a look at ten pieces of Einstein’s educational philosophy below—some are sure to inspire:

1. “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

Some subjects are difficult for students. Specialists obviously know their subject very well, but it is important to see that subject from a student’s perspective, and to not necessarily assume prior knowledge or skills. As a teacher, you should try to place yourself in the frame of mind of a novice learner, and only by doing this will you be able to fully comprehend your own studies.

2. “Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.”

Although explaining material simply is often the best way to communicate to larger audiences, you shouldn’t water subjects down or remove important complexities.

3. “Information is not knowledge.”

As instructors and teachers we need to ensure that students are not just learning facts, but rather the meaning, trends, or application behind these facts. In lectures, quizzes, and assignments, we need to make sure that students are asked to understand and explain the importance of the material being taught.

4. “Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death.”

We need to encourage students in learning, and emphasize that when they are done with a course or with a program their learning should not stop. It’s likely they will be more fulfilled and successful in life if they maintain a continued sense of curiosity and wonder about everything around them.

5. “Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I can assure you that mine are still greater.”

There is a myth that Einstein failed math when he was in school. He didn’t—he actually did well. But the point he is making here is that what he did in life did not come easily; he had to work very hard to do well. As teachers, we need to convey that even the truly great have to work to become great.

6. “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

Here, Einstein is again saying that his great scientific achievements required continuous effort and did not come to him “naturally.” He simply had a passionate desire to learn new things.

7. “Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”

Here, Einstein isn’t saying students should forget everything they learn in school. On the contrary, we can interpret this to mean that if you develop the habit of study and curiosity, long after you have forgotten facts you retain an attitude that allows receptivity to new ideas.

8. “It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge.”

As teachers we should find joy in our subjects, convey that joy to students, and expect it to be reflected in students’ work. This isn’t an easy thing to do, but it does make the subject memorable to those we teach.

9. “When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any talent for abstract, positive thinking."

Einstein emphasizes that ideas and solutions come not only from logical, systematic thought, but also through imagination and out-of-the box thinking. If we can encourage this in our students, they will profit both in our courses and in life.

10. “Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget that in the midst of your diagrams and equations.”

We all want students to succeed in their courses and use their education to achieve. But Einstein reminds us here that education should not be purely utilitarian. As teachers, we need to stress that whatever our students end up doing, it is important that they continuously strive to contribute to society at large.

Adult Learning In Groups

/ Home / Library / Articles on Education / Adult & Vocational Education / Adult Learning In Groups

Adult Learning In Groups

Author: Susan Imel
Date: 1997

Groups [can] exert powerful influence both to advance and to obstruct learning. A group can be an environment in which people invent and explore symbolic structures for understanding the world, learning from each other and trying out for themselves the discourse of the domain of knowledge they seek to acquire. Alternatively, groups can encourage conformity, squander time and energy on ritual combat, revel in failure, and generally engage in all sorts of fantasy tasks that have little or nothing to do with learning. (Knights 1993, p. 185)

The use of groups has deep historical roots in adult education, and, if asked, most adult educators would say that learning in groups is a fundamental principle of the field. Adult educators use groups frequently in structuring learning experiences, and groups also form the basis for much informal adult learning both within and outside institutional boundaries. Although group theory once played a major role in shaping the field, the topic of learning in groups has been relatively unexamined in the recent literature. This Practice Application Brief provides information that can be used in developing adult learning groups in formal educational settings. First, the nature of learning in groups is considered, followed by discussions of the role of the facilitator and forming groups. Guidelines for structuring group learning experiences for adults conclude the Brief.

The Nature of Group Learning

Little research exists on how learning occurs in groups (Cranton 1996; Dechant, Marsick, and Kasl 1993). Futhermore, when forming groups, adult educators tend to focus on helping learners work effectively together rather than on helping them understand the learning processes that may be occurring in the group (Dechant, Marsick, and Kasl 1993). By drawing on Habermas' domains of knowledge and interests, Cranton (1996) has developed a helpful way of thinking about how groups can accomplish or facilitate different types of learning. Cranton suggests that there are three types of group learning, each affiliated with the following kinds of knowledge proposed by Habermas--

instrumental (scientific, cause-and-effect information)
communicative (mutual understanding and social knowledge)
emancipatory (increased self-awareness and transformation of experience)

As outlined by Cranton, the type of learning that occurs in groups varies according to the learning tasks and goals. Group learning that has as its goal the acquisition of instrumental knowledge is called cooperative. In cooperative learning groups, "the focus is on the subject matter rather than on the inter- personal process . . . [although] the strengths, experiences, and expertise of individual group members can contribute to the learning of the group as a whole" (ibid., p. 26). The term collaborative describes group learning that is based on com- municative knowledge. Because communicative knowledge is sought, collaborative learning groups emphasize process and participants exchange ideas, feelings, and information in arriving at knowledge that is acceptable to each group member. Transformative applies to learning groups that seek emancipatory knowledge. In transformative learning groups, members engage in critical reflection as a means of examining their expectations, assumptions, and perspectives.

Another question related to the nature of learning in groups is whose purposes should the learning serve the individual's or the group's? In other words, should the group foster the learning of individual members or should the group as an entity learn? With some types of group learning for example, cooperative as described by Cranton (1996) the focus is explicitly on the learning of individual group members. As groups engage in collaborative or transformative learning, however, the distinction between individual learning and group learning becomes more invisible. Even when group members jointly produce knowledge, that knowledge may be used by an individual (as well as by the group). In such cases, both the group and the individual learn, making it more difficult to distinguish which purposes are served by the learning (Imel 1996).

The Role of the Facilitator

When group learning is used in adult education, the teacher or instructor is usually referred to as a facilitator. Use of the term facilitator to describe the individual in charge of an instructional setting carries with it certain expectations about how this person will carry out his or her role. Usually, a facilitator is expected to foster, assist, support and/or help with accomplishing the learning tasks by sharing responsibility with the learners. In addition, the facilitator is expected to establish and maintain the group learning environment and provide information about how members will work as a group (group process). Varying perspectives exist, however, about how these roles should be performed. (ibid.).

Cranton (1996) suggests that the roles and responsibilities of the facilitator change to correspond to the group's purposes and goals. In cooperative learning groups, for example, the facili- tator develops exercises and activities and manages time and resources. In collaborative and transformative learning groups, however, the facilitator is more of an equal partner in the learning, although in collaborative learning groups, the facili- tator must assume the responsibility for maintaining the group process. Heimlich (1996) disagrees with those who "interpret the concept of facilitator as being equal to the learners of the group . . . [suggesting that] although the adult educator is always a potential learner in the teaching-learning exchange, someone must be willing to bring to the group the ideas or issues the group may choose to avoid" (p. 42). Heimlich also views the facilitator as being the one responsible for constructing learning activities and managing their implementation, which is quite similar to how Cranton sees the facilitator's role in cooperative group learning.

Because adult education draws heavily from the humanistic perspective, those acting as facilitators may feel responsible for looking after and supporting students and for solving all problems related to the group. Knights (1993) suggests that pro- viding too much support can help learners avoid "the pain of learning" (p. 196), adding that group members can look after one another. Foley (1992) warns that, because too many things related to the group are outside their control, facilitators should not fall into the trap of thinking "that for every facilitation problem, there is an appropriate technique that can be applied, if only one is experienced and competent enough" (pp. 158-159).

Forming Groups

Among the many considerations when forming learning groups are group size and membership. Size is an important characteristic of groups. The consensus among group theorists is that smaller groups, those of six or less, tend to be more cohesive and productive than larger groups. Even in a class of 8-12 learners, therefore, forming two small subgroups might produce better results for some learning tasks (Imel and Tisdell 1996).

"Although theory speaks conclusively about the importance of size, it is not so explicit about the question of learners choosing or being assigned to groups" (ibid., p. 19). Because of the voluntary nature of adult education, facilitators may choose to let learners form their own subgroups, making selections on the basis of preexisting relationships and/or topic. Allowing learners to select their groups may not produce the most effective learning outcomes, however. A study (Butterfield and Bailey 1996) with upper division and master's level business students (with a mean age of 24) compared self-selected groups with groups that were designed by the researchers "on the basis of overt or readily identifiable differences to create diversity on such factors as sex, national origin, race, academic background and so on" (p. 104). Groups were given task assignments that required both cognitive evaluation and judgment. Groups selected by the researchers performed significantly better than the self-selected groups, leading the researchers to conclude that "engineering the group composition provides an opportunity to improve the educational process by taking advantage of the diversity that naturally exists in the class" (p. 105). They did find, however, that members of the self-selected groups perceived their group process to be democratic more frequently than did the members assigned to groups by the researchers.

Structuring Group Learning for Adults

When structuring adult learning groups, the nature of group learning, the facilitator's role, and considerations about forming groups all intersect. Questions to consider when implementing group learning in adult settings include the following--

What purpose is the group learning experience designed to achieve? For example, is the goal related to developing relationships among the participants, is it focused on acquiring a certain type of knowledge, or both? The answer to this question will affect all other decisions about the learning group. As described by Cranton (1996), the type of learning in which groups engage affects the role of the facilitator, the relationships that learners are likely to form with one another and with the facilitator, and the type of knowledge that is produced.
What is an appropriate role for the faciliatator? Once the goals and purposes of the learning group are determined, the facilitator's role will be more evident. Certain types of group learning may carry certain expectations about how facilitators are to function, but faciltators may choose to adapt their roles because of their personal characteristics or the particular context in which the group is operating. For example, in some transformative learning situations, facilitators may need to step out of their role of colearner in order to deal with power issues that arise among learners (Imel and Tisdell 1996). Also, facilitators need to remember that their roles have limits and that too many factors lie outside their influence for them to control all outcomes (Foley 1992; Knights 1993).
How should groups be formed? Again, the goals and purposes of the learning group will shape decisions about forming groups. Size considerations are important since research demonstrates that small groups are more effective. However, the size of the entire group or the learning task may affect decisions about the number of small groups and their size. A more difficult question related to forming groups revolves around how group membership should be constituted. Again, the learning tasks and the learners will have a bearing on how this desicion is made. Among the questions to be considered are the following: Is the learning group formed only for the purpose of accomplishing a very short and specific task or will it be ongoing? Are the learners well acquainted already? Do learners possess observable or easily obtainable characteristics that could be used to form heterogeneous groups? How important is it that members perceive the group process to be democratic? For example, Butterfield and Bailey (1996) suggest that a self-selection process may work better when equal contribution of members is more important than output quality.

References

Butterfield, J., and Bailey, J. J. "Socially Engineered Groups in Business Curricula: An Investigation of the Effects of Team Composition on Group Output." Journal of Education for Business 72, no. 2 (November-December 1996): 103-106.

Cranton, P. "Types of Group Learning." In Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emer- ging Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Con- tinuing Education no. 71, edited by S. Imel, pp. 25-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Dechant, K.; Marsick, V. J.; and Kasl, E. "Towards a Model of Team Learning." Studies in Continuing Education 15, no. 1 (1993): 1-14.

Foley, G. "Going Deeper: Teaching and Group Work in Adult Education." Studies in the Education of Adults 24, no. 2 (October 1992): 143-161.

Heimlich, J. E. "Constructing Group Learning." In Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emerging Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education no. 71, edited by S. Imel, pp. 41-49. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Imel, S. "Summing Up: Themes and Issues Related to Learning in Groups." In Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emerging Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education no. 71, edited by S. Imel, pp. 91-96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Imel, S., and Tisdell, E. J. "The Relationship between Theories about Groups and Adult Learning Groups." In Learning in Groups: Exploring Fundamental Principles, New Uses, and Emerging Opportunities. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education no. 71, edited by S. Imel, pp. 15-24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Knights, B. "Hearing Yourself Teach: Group Processes for Adult Educators." Studies in the Education of Adults 25, no. 2 (October 1993): 184-198.

Vocational Education Research Trends

/ Home / Library / Articles on Education / Adult & Vocational Education / Vocational Education Research Trends

Vocational Education Research Trends

Author: Michael E. Wonacott
Date: 2000

Vocational education is a large and complex undertaking, with activities across many occupations and areas, at many levels, in many settings. Likewise, the body of vocational education research is large and complex, with a diffuse focus on topics ranging from the essential nature of vocational education and its role in society to the individual details of specific occupational programs. In the many strands it follows, however, vocational education research seeks to answer one form or another of a fundamental question: How can we best prepare youth and adults for the workplace of today? This Alert examines the different forms of that question vocational education research asks and the answers it provides.

Comprehensive national and international research programs typically attempt to ask and answer larger forms of that question. Recurring themes in the United States reflect change-what skills workers need for the changing workplace and how vocational education should provide them (National Center for Research in Vocational Education 1999). In Europe and Australia, attention is focused more on the impact of research on policy, decision making, and return on investment, although one European study called research in return on investment "sparse and underdeveloped" (Barrett et al. 1998).

For the most part, other research focuses on the specifics of occupational areas in vocational education. Noticeable examples include a focus on attitudes toward agricultural education and teaching strategies in business education. One recurring theme in research across occupational areas is the call for further research-particularly research in cooperative education, described as "sparse" (Bartkus and Stull 1997).

Although quantitative methods still play a major role in research (Rojewski 1997), other research approaches and methods are still being recommended, particularly action research, reflective practice, and critical theory/critical research. Barret et al. (1998) suggest a complementary combination of qualitative and quantitative research on the returns to vocational education and training. Looker and Dwyer (1998) recommend alternatives to the linear pathways research model for education-to-work transitions. Other approaches used include Delphi survey, concept mapping, context-input-process-product (CIPP), action research, and action reflection learning, but case studies were by far the most common.

Some questions arise in looking at recent vocational educational education research. Why do comprehensive research programs in the U.S., Europe, and Australia have different emphases? Does the somewhat different focus and schedule of occupation-related research merely reflect the different priorities-and place in the pipeline-of front-line practitioners? Why do different themes recur in the U.S., Europe, and Australia? Perhaps answers to such questions will come in future vocational education research.

Resources

Barrett, A.; Hovels, B.; Den Boer, P.; and Kraayvanger, G. Exploring the Returns to Continuing Vocational Training in Enterprises. Thessaloniki, Greece: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 1998. (ED 422 508)

Analyzes "sparse and underdeveloped" research on the returns of continuing vocational training in businesses reported in 21 publications.

Bartkus, K. R., and Stull, W. A. "Some Thoughts about Research in Cooperative Education." Journal of Cooperative Education 32, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 7-16. (EJ 542 262)

Surveys "sparse" cooperative education research and analyzes dissemination, graduate program, and practitioner issues. Recommends strategies for practitioners and associations, including the development of a definitive research agenda.

Bragg, D. D. Educator, Student, and Employer Priorities for Tech Prep Student Outcomes. Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California, 1997. (ED 404 474)

Used concept mapping to identify, classify, and prioritize student outcomes as rated by three stakeholder groups (educators, students, and employers).

Chin, P.; Munby, H.; and Hutchinson, N. L. "Co-operative Education: Challenges of Qualitative Research on Learning in the Workplace." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Montreal, Quebec, April 19-23, 1999. (ED 430 023)

Reports on challenges in the interplay among theoretical framework, data collection, and data analysis in co-op workplace case study.

Connors, J. J., and Murphy, T. H. Creating the Future through Research. Proceedings of the 24th National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, December 10, 1997. (ED 414 479)

Recurring themes include attitudes toward and perceptions of agricultural education, status and content of teacher education programs, and learning styles. Proceedings of 1996 (ED 404 496), 1995 (ED 388 773), and earlier meetings also available.

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. Vocational Education and Training: The European Research Field. Background Report. vol. I, 1st ed. Thessaloniki, Greece: ECDVT, 1998. (ED423 393)

Contains 12 papers on VET and related research developed for Tessaring (1998), including two on costs and benefits of VET.

Hayman, S.; MacKenzie, J.; Adams, H.; and Harris, L., eds. Vocational Education and Training Research Database, 1998. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 1998. (ED 431 130)

Four issues of a quarterly annotated bibliography from Australia's national VET database: VET research (no. 35); international information in VET (no. 36); VET and indigenous students (no. 37); and returns on investment in training (no. 38).

"Home Economics Research in Canada." Canadian Home Economics Journal 48, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 93-100. (EJ 574 883)

Abstracts of 16 papers presented at the 1998 Canadian Home Economics Association conference.

Huberty, C. J., and Petoskey, M. D. "Use of Multiple Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis." Journal of Vocational Education Research 24, no. 1 (1999): 15-43. (EJ 581 066)

Distinguishes between two analyses. Suggests information reporting methods; reviews use of regression methods with missing data.

Lakes, R. D., and Bettis, P. J. "Advancing Critical Vocational Education Research." 20, no. 3 (1995): 5-28. (EJ 515 625)

Suggests postpositivism as a way to understand the cultural context of work; identifies qualitative studies using critical theory; recommends critical research.

Lasonen, J., and Finch, C. R. "Evaluating an International Vocational Education Research Linkage." International Journal of Vocational Education and Training 3, no. 2 (Fall 1995): 51-71. (EJ 515 645)

Identified perceptions cultural collaboration, competencies, academic working style differences, and contribution of linkage to international collaboration.

Looker, E. D., and Dwyer, P. "Rethinking Research on the Education Transitions of Youth in the 1990s." Research in Post-Compulsory Education 3, no. 1 (1998): 5-23. (EJ 585 165)

Advocates alternative approaches (vocational focus, occupational focus, contextual focus, altered patterns, and mixed patterns) instead of a linear pathways model of research on education-to-work transitions.

National Center for Research in Vocational Education. The 1999 Agenda and Personnel Directory for the National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Berkeley: University of California, 1999. (ED 431 136)

Research and development projects of the National Center for 1999. Outlines also available for 1998, 1997, 1996 (ED 398 414), 1995 (ED 384 802), and earlier years. Recurring themes include integration of academic/vocational education, tech prep/school-to-work, and educational and school reform.

Noll, C. L., and Graves, P. R. The Business Education Index, 1998. Little Rock, AR: Delta Pi Epsilon, 1999. (ED 431 882)

Latest in a series of annual publications indexing articles and research studies from selected publications. Indexes also available for 1997 (ED 414 980), 1996 (ED 411 420), 1995 (397 257), and earlier. School-to-work and technology education introduced as new categories in 1996.

Peterat, L."Linking the Practices of Home Economics and Action Research." (EJ 550 262) "Now You See It, Now You Don't: What Kind of Research is Action Research?" (EJ 550 263) Canadian Home Economics Journal 47, no. 3 (Summer 1997): 100-104, 119-123.

Advocates enriching understanding of home economics by action research approaches.

Proceedings: 1998 Delta Pi Epsilon National Conference. Little Rock, AR: Delta Pi Epsilon, 1998. (ED 424 361)

Contains 46 refereed research papers, refereed action research papers, and research training papers. Proceedings also available from 1996 (ED 411 400), 1994 (ED 377 393), and earlier years.

Pucel, D. J. "The New Vision of High School Vocational Education: Implications for Research." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Vocational Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA, December 11, 1998. (ED 428 276)

Suggests research needed on the purpose, student audience, design, content, teaching strategies, and evaluation of vocational education and roles for parents and academic and vocational teachers.

Ricks, F., and Mark, J. "I'm Not a Researcher But." Journal of Cooperative Education 32, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 46-54. (EJ 542 266)

Relates research-practice and reflective practice models to integration of research and practice.

Robinson, C., and Thomson, P., eds. Readings in Australian Vocational Education and Training Research. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 1998. (ED 422 525)

Synthesizes 12 areas of recent VET research in Australia, including returns to enterprises and impact of research on policy.

Rojewski, J. W. "Editorial: Past, Present, and Future Directions of JVER." Journal of Vocational Education Research 22, no. 3 (1997): 141-148. (EJ 553 343)

Reports analysis of 160 JVER articles from 1987-1996: two-thirds were quantitative; most frequent focuses were articulation/generalization and content areas.

Seyfried, E. Evaluation of Quality Aspects in Vocational Training Programmes. Thessaloniki, Greece: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 1998. (ED 425 331)

Used the CIPP model to review evaluations from five countries on vocational training program quality and identify a more coherent approach to program quality evaluation.

Smith, C. S.; Hawke, G.; McDonald, R.; and Smith, J. S. The Impact of Research on VET Decision Making. Leabrook, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research, 1998. (ED 422 520)

Used literature review, symposium, semistructured telephone interviews, case studies, and background paper on international practice to examine impact.

Smith, M. G. "Sociological Research and Home Economics Education." Canadian Home Economics Journal 46, no. 4 (Fall 1996): 161-165. (EJ 535 312)

Examines functional analysis, systems theory, symbolic interaction, and critical theory/conflict analysis.

Sylvester, G. C. "Developing Research in New Zealand Polytechnics: A Sector in Change." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research 5, no. 1 (May 1997): 109-130. (EJ 545 610)

Describes action research by staff from four polytechnics to develop a research agenda.

Tessaring, M. Training for a Changing Society: A Report on Current Vocational Education and Training Research in Europe. Thessaloniki, Greece: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 1998.

Gives a comprehensive overview of VET research in Europe, including steering of VET systems, macro- and microeconomic costs and benefits of VET, proposals for curricular research, and aspects of comparative VET research.

Tomal, D. R. "Action Research for Technical Educators." ATEA Journal 4, no. 4 (April-May 1997): 6-7. (EJ 545 550)

Describes how action research model and techniques can be integrated into technical education curricula.

Weaver-Paquette, E. "Crystallization and Congruence: Implications of Cooperative Education Experiences upon the Career Development Process." Journal of Cooperative Education 32, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 63-69. (EJ 542 268)

Analyzes research on cooperative education and career development. Reports a need for additional study to examine the specific constructs of the career development process reported by career-determined and -undetermined students.