Women have earned 40% of Ph.D.s in STEM disciplines in the U.S., yet their representation in academic STEM faculty and administrative positions has not wholly reflected this distribution (Hoffer, 2007; NSF, 2007): Women constitute on average only 20% of the faculty in fields related to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (NSF, 2000) a number which did not change proportionally to the degrees earned. In education fields in which the representation of women is traditionally much higher, an interesting conundrum exists: (1) Whereas men typically dominate technology fields, educational technology/instructional technology appears to be a field that has incorporated women more successfully than other STEM domains. (2) Technology education on the other side serves as a stark contrast as a K-12 oriented field that is noted for being male-dominated (Liedtke, 1995; Zuga, 1998). The fields of educational technology and technology education have arisen out of differing socio-historical and cultural contexts, which appear to have impacted the gender parity of each domain differently. This research study will explore the characteristics of graduate programs in Educational Technology/Instructional Technology as compared to Technology Education and explore the relationship of these characteristics to gender parity. Results of this study provide insight into strategies other fields might employ to increase participation of women. Through an evaluation of departmental characteristics such as highest degree offered and gender composition of faculty, we will present statistical data to demonstrate the gender parity/disparity in the academic domain in these two areas. Faculty gender composition can be a pivotal factor in a field’s ability to attract and retain a diverse student body due to role-model effect (Rask & Bailey, 2002). A content analysis of program descriptions and the prerequisite academic preparation and work experience to enter instructional technology versus technology education programs will be explored, as prerequisites (Klein, 2007) are another noted academic barrier to gender equity. This data will be contextualized in a historical analysis of the roots of these two similar, yet disparate, areas of study. While educational technology /instructional technology arose out of audio-visual education and school media, as well as programmed instruction, technology education arose out of the industrial arts tradition (Foster, 1994; O'Riley, 1996). Today, both fields are preoccupied with the concept of technological literacy and are dominated by the use of computer applications in a variety of contexts. As highly skilled educators are needed to model high level problem-solving and critical thinking skills through their use of technology, whether the field is technology education or educational technology, this analysis will offer insight into the cultural-historical perspectives that resulted in different gender parity, and recommend strategies for attracting women across technology-oriented domains.

1. Technology Education and Educational Technology Two Fields, Very Different Representation of Women Johannes Strobel1, Heather Tillberg-Webb2 & Celia Pan1 1Purdue University & 2Johns Hopkins University First Annual Gender and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Research Symposium February 19, 2010

2. Agenda Background of the problem Research Questions Theoretical Framework Methodology Data Results Cultural/historical roots of technology education versus educational technology Input sought

3. Background Initial observation of technology education programs: perception that there is low female representation compared to educational technology programs, which seem to attract more women

4. Female share of S&E degrees National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering:2007, NSF 07-315 (Arlington, VA; February 2007). Available from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd.

5. Master’s degrees in S&E vs non S&E fields

6. Tech Ed vs Ed Tech What are the sex representations of faculty? What are the curricular requirements? What are the cultural historical roots of each field? What are embodiments of technologies and their role?

7. Theoretical Framework Embodiment (Merleau-Ponty) Actions and artifacts as expressions of thought Borrowing from Religious Studies (form of cultural studies) Folk (Popular) Religion (dogma vs. lived religion) What is said vs. what is done History of Practice Yoder, Don (1974). Toward a Definition of Folk Religion. Western Folklore 33 (1): 1-15. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). Translated by Smith, C. Phenomenology of Perception London: Routledge. Orsi, R. (1997). Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice. Princeton University Press

8. Methodological Framework Mixed Method Survey and Descriptive Statistics (TechEd and EdTech) (completed) Content and Artifact (Performance) Analysis (on-going)

9. Sources ITEA (International Technology Education Association) List of programs Individual Program Web sites AECT (Association for Educational Communications and Technology) Database of Educational Technology Programs Individual Program Websites

10. Methods Review all Technology Education and Educational Technology Select only graduate programs resulting in a Master’s degree (EdTech has two bachelor program) Identify sex of faculty from program website Identify technical curricular requirements from program website Identify – self-description (text, artifacts) Curriculum as performance

11. Role model effect (Rask & Bailey, 2002)

12. “Women were underrepresented among candidates for tenure relative to the number of female assistant professors” (NAE, 2009, p.4) NAE (2009). Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering and Mathematics Faculty (Free Executive Summary) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12062.html

13. Technical Course Requirements Curricular prerequisites as barriers (Klein, 2007) Statistics, Programming, Other Technical courses

14. Curricular considerations “Curriculum narratives are not only collective but ‘selective’ stories, and in the case of technology education the selection of technology stories have been articulated from a particular, relatively small, cultural community” O’Riley, 1999 Curricular narrative (Gough, 1993)

15. Historical Trends

16. Cultural historical roots of technology education Industrial arts Vocational Training for manufacturing Situated predominantly in Cs of Engineering/Technology Historically: Technology is the end goal (move to broaden: Technological Literacy)

17. http://www.digital.butlercenter.org/cdm-p1532coll1/images/industrial%20education.jpg

18. http://www.isledegrande.com/giimages7/sidwaydickhogue53.jpg

19. http://www.yarrowbc.ca/images/publicschools/chs_72.jpg

20. Cultural historical roots of Ed Tech Audio visual education (library media services) Programmed instruction Engineering design for training Behaviorism Instructional Design Situated predominantly in Cs of Education Technology is a means to an end In support of “something else” Including of processes

21. http://theswca.com/images-misc/yb/ford-1959-p15.jpg

22. http://sliderulemuseum.com/Ephemera/Dr_Harvey_White_NBC_TV_show_Continental_Classroom_1958_2.jpg

23. http://www.woldgate50.com/computer%201970%27s.jpg

24. Seek your input Further investigation: Artifacts (Marketing material; Self-description) Data mining and word-clouds of textual information Boundaries of text – which, where to stop? Syllabi? Historio-graphical literature?