The National Career and Technical Education research agenda.(RESEARCH REPORT)(Report)

ESTABLISHING A CURRENT RESEARCH AGENDA WITH KEY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES IS CRUCIAL for the continuous development of career and technical education (CTE) programs that meet the needs of students, industry and society. Research frameworks for CTE were developed over the past decade from studies completed by Lewis (2001) and Pearson and Champlin (2003). Lewis (2001) conducted a needs-sensing study in 2000 in collaboration with the National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education (NDCCTE) and the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE). Pearson and Champlin (2003) completed a follow-up of the Lewis study with the NDCCTE and NRCCTE. Most recently, the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE) proposed a research agenda for CTE in response to the Congressional mandate outlined in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins IV). Rojewski (2002) noted that few descriptive research frameworks existed for CTE. He suggested that a conceptual framework for a research agenda should be based on the existing literature, the current state of education reform, and projections of future direction for the economy, work-family-community demands, and CTE.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The conceptual framework that provided the primary foundation for this study was based on investigations and reports produced by Buriak and Shinn (1989, 1991, 1993), Radhakrishna and Xu (1997), Silva-Guerrero and Sutphin (1990), and Rojewski (2002). Each of these researchers concluded there was, indeed, a need for focused, relevant and rigorous research in CTE. The following graphic illustrates the conceptual framework that was used in this Delphi investigation to arrive at the elements of a new research agenda for CTE. In addition to research problem areas from the aforementioned researchers, input was secured from CTE stakeholders using a modified Delphi design, and members of the research committee of the Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE).

The primary purpose of this study conducted during 2007-2008 was to identify consensus among nationally dispersed CTE experts using a Delphi technique regarding problems, objectives and activities that comprised a research agenda for CTE. The study panel was composed of experts from the United States and the District of Columbia who represented 57 affiliations and organizations with direct ties to CTE. The Delphi process for this study was conducted in three rounds. Data were collected using the online survey collector, Survey Monkey. The qualitative data were analyzed using the Affinity Diagram method of data analysis.

The basic structure for the National CTE Research Agenda was developed at the conclusion of the data analysis from the Delphi rounds. Rounds four and five served as validation rounds for the findings from earlier in the Delphi process. Data collection methods included online instruments using an Internet-based survey tool. Data analysis revealed five research problem areas, 15 research objectives and 53 research activities which were organized into the agenda structure. Findings from this study were placed into a CTE Research Agenda Logic Model which clearly illustrates a systematic approach to addressing the research questions identified in this study. The National CTE Re search Agenda Logic Model and the National CTE Research Agenda structure were accepted by 97 percent of the expert panel members (Lambeth, 2008). This summer at ACTE's board meeting, held in Alexandria, Virginia, the National CTE Research Agenda was accepted as the model for future program and professional development. Currently, discussion is in progress by ACTE and the Association for Career and Technical Education Research (ACTER) regarding the dissemination and implementation process for the agenda.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The agenda is presented using a color model which includes the five research problem areas (RPA) and 15 CTE research objectives (RO) identified in this study. This depiction was intended to allow the observer to see the big picture of the proposed National CTE Research Logic Model. It was designed to reflect the CTE philosophy and mission as the core of study in CTE. The inner ring depicts the RPAs with a spectrum of color symbolizing the uniqueness of each RPA, while also indicating that each RPA is connected and interchangeable. This model does not provide the prioritization of the RPAs by number as provided in the research agenda structure, but instead presents a logical order for reference. The outer ring depicted in shades of gray represents the ROs. This coloration illustrates the ROs as fluid objects in the model. Theoretically, these objectives could be placed under any of the problem areas and still maintain their importance for study. Please note each in the following graphic.

Findings from this study were used to create a list of research problem areas (EPA), research objectives (RO), and research activities of the National Research Agenda.

RPA 1: Knowledge Base for Teaching and Learning

RO 1.1 Instructional Strategies

RA 1.1.1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

RA 1.1.2 Higher Order Thinking

RA 1.1.3 Quality of Instruction

RA 1.1.4 Teacher-Learner Interaction

RA 1.1.5 Work-based Learning

RO 1.2 Professional Preparation

RA 1.2.1 Teacher Competence

RA 1.2.2 CTE Teacher Education

RA 1.2.3 CTE Leader Preparation

RO 1.3 Leadership and Organizational Development

RA 1.3.1 Career and Technical Education Student Organizations

RA 1.3.2 Teacher Professional Organizations

RA 1.3.3 CTE Administrator Professional Organizations

RPA 2: Curricula and Program Planning

RO 2.1 Academic Infusion/Integration

RA 2.1.1 Infusion of Communications and Language

RA 2.1.2 Infusion of Mathematics and Science

RA 2.1.3 Integration of Basic Skills

RA 2.1.4 Literacy

RO 2.2 Curricula Designs

RA 2.2.1 Needs of Future Workforce

RA 2.2.2 Work-based Learning

RO 2.3 Future CTE Content

RA 2.3.1 Employment, Supply-Demand and Nature of Workforce

RA 2.3.2 Entrepreneurship and Free Enterprise

RA 2.3.3 Global Market Demands

RPA 3: Delivery Methods

RO 3.1 Best Practices

RA 3.1.1 CTE Teacher Preparation

RA 3.1.2 ESL/ELL Learners in CTE

RA 3.1.3 Marketing for Rigor and Relevance

RA 3.1.4 Educational Methods

RA 3.1.5 CTE Student Organizations

RA 3.1.6 Parent and Student Perceptions, Satisfaction and Retention

RO 3.2 Integration of Technology

RA 3.2.1 Innovative Instructional Technologies

RA 3.2.2 Distance Education and Technology

RO 3.3 Transition to Postsecondary Education

RA 3.3.1 Alignment of Secondary and Postsecondary Education Standards

RA 3.3.2 Articulation of Programs between Secondary, Postsecondary and Higher Education

RA 3.3.3 Dual Enrollment

RA 3.3.4 Programs of Study

RPA 4: Accountability

RO 4.1 Assessment

RA 4.1.1 CTE Student Graduation Rate

RA 4.1.2 End of Program Assessment

RA 4.1.3 Impact of CTE courses on Student Achievement

RA 4.1.3 Levels of Performance

RA 4.1.4 Proficiency of CTE Students on Standardized Tests

RA 4.1.5 Technical Skill Assessment

RO 4.2 Economic Impact of CTE

RA 4.2.1 Impact of CTE in Community Development

RA 4.2.2 High Skill, High Wage or High Demand Occupations

RA 4.2.3 Return on Investment by State for CTE

RO 4.3 Quality of Teachers

RA 4.3.1 Teacher Standards

RA 4.3.2 Teacher Education

RPA 5: Program Relevance and Effectiveness

RO 5.1 Faculty and Staff Development

RA 5.1.1 Recruitment and Retention of Alternatively Certified Teachers

RA 5.1.2 Recruitment and Retention of Teachers

RA 5.1.4 Professional Development of Teachers Recruitment and Retention of CTE Administrators/Local Directors

RO 5.2 Policy Development

RA 5.2.1 Alignment with Economic Development

RA 5.2.2 Alignment with Federal Education Policy

RA 5.2.3 Workforce Investment

RO 5.3 Relevance of Workforce Standard

RA 5.3.1 Follow-up Program Completers

RA 5.3.2 Industry Credentials for Program Completers

RA 5.3.3 Impacts of External Program Standards and Accreditation

Based on findings from this study, rigorous research designs and data analysis strategies are imperative to the future of CTE research. Rigorous qualitative and quantitative approaches need to be employed to provide the most reliable data. Comments submitted by CTE expert panelists from this study suggest that there is the perception that CTE research is being accomplished on a small scale and that it is separate from the academic curriculum, thus making some CTE research redundant (Lambeth, 2008).

Lagemann (2000) indicated that networks and collaboration between and among faculties from different disciplines should be created to overcome the isolation of education research. These networks can be found among faculties from different disciplines through organizations that meet individual researcher needs and interests. ACTE and ACTER could develop these types of networks based upon the agenda. Combined with continually emerging topics, the information collected in this investigation from the experts in the CTE profession can assist researchers, educators and policymakers when planning and con ducting research, teaching and establishing policy for program curriculum, teacher education and professional development.

Based on the findings in this study, it is concluded that the CTE research model can serve as a conceptual guide for conducting research based upon the core of CTE which is based on the mission and philosophy of CTE. The 53 research activities on which the expert panel reached consensus provide direction for CTE research. In this study, the expert panel submitted 134 unique research activities during the Delphi process. It was concluded that the 61 research activities that failed to reach consensus may reveal 'niche' activities that warrant further investigation.

The implications based on the findings from this study indicate that the results for this investigation provide clear focus for state and national CTE leaders and researchers as they chart the course for the future direction of CTE programs, research and professional development. An attempt must be made to ensure that CTE, as a unified body, is positioned to address the nation's educational trends and issues. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the CTE programs should be measured with more than anecdotal evidence. CTE programs should be assessed for effectiveness using qualitative as well as quantitative methods. Clear and concise empirical evidence based on approved research methods will provide a solid foundation for decision making. A sustained effort for research in CTE should be made by scholars in collaboration with national and international associations and organizations.

Based upon the results of this study it is recommended that the proposed model be viewed by stakeholders as a descriptive model and not a prescriptive model (Lambeth, 2008). It is also recommended that one or more national organizations in CTE should create an educational process for monitoring and keeping state and national leaders updated on emerging CTE research. Organizations such as ACTE and ACTER could possibly be the best place to begin the suggested process. Finally, a discussion needs to be encouraged to begin to define or redefine the philosophy and mission of CTE. A unified philosophy and mission will provide a foundation from which to build both collaboration and research focus.

Reference

Buriak, P., & Shinn, G. C. (1989). "Mission, Initiatives, and Obstacles to Research in Agricultural Education: A National Delphi Using External Decision-makers." Journal of Agricultural Education, 30(4), 14-23.

Buriak, P., & Shinn, G. C. (1991). "A Structure for a Research Agenda for Agricultural Education: A National Delphi Involving Internal Experts." Proceedings of the National Agricultural Education Research Meeting. Gainesville, Florida. 28, 158-164.

Buriak, R, & Shinn, G. C. (1993). "Structuring Research for Agricultural Education: A National Delphi Involving Internal Experts." Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(2), 31-36.

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-270, 20, 120 Star. 683 (2006).

Gemici, S., & Rojewski, J. W. (2007). "Scientifically-based Research: How Does Research in Career and Technical Education Stack Up?" Paper presented at the Association for Career and Technical Education Research Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada.

Lambeth, J.M. (2008) "Research Foci for Career and Technical Education: Findings from a Vocational Delphi Study." Unpublished Dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station.

Lewis, M. V. (2001). Major Needs of Career and Technical Education in the Year 2000: Views from the Field. National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education, The Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio.

Pearson, D., & Champlin, B. E. (2003). More Views from the Field: Need-Sensing Activities in 2002. National Dissemination Center for Career and Technical Education. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Radhakrishna, R. B., & Xu, W. (1997). "A Review of Subject Matter Topics Researched in Agricultural Education and Extension Education." Journal of Agricultural Education, 38 (3), 56-69.

Rojewski, J. W. (2002). "Preparing the Workforce of Tomorrow: A Conceptual Framework for Career and Technical Education." Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27(1), 7-36.

Silva-Guerrero, L., & Sutphin, H. D. (1990) "Priorities for Research in Agricultural Education." Journal of Agricultural Education, 31 (1), 1-13.

United States Department of Education (2007). Proposed Research Agenda for the National Assessment of Career and Technical Education. Washington, D.C.

Jeanea M. Lambeth is an adjunct professor at Northern Arizona University end the deportment head of engineering et Betty H. Fairfax High School in Loveen. She con be contacted at jmlambeth@cox.net.

Jack Elliot is professor end department head of the Agricultural Education Department at The University of Arizona, Tucson. He can be contacted at elliot@ag.nrizona.edu.

Richard Joerger is system director for agriculture end business program coordination or Minnesota State Colleges and Universities--Office of the Chancellor. He can be contacted et richord.joerger@so.mnscu.edu.