A Delphi Study of Research Priorities in Tech Prep

The purpose of this study was to determine research priorities in Tech Prep. The research issues facing Tech Prep-based education over the next ten years were identified, categorized, and ranked based on results from questionnaires distributed to subject matter experts (SMEs). A three-round Delphi was used to generate responses and achieve consensus from Tech Prep SMEs. The findings from the round one questionnaire were used to identify and categorize results into 10 tentative major research focus areas such as marketing strategies, partnerships and linkages with business, staff-development and professional training, curriculum criteria and performance standards, and evaluation methodologies and program assessment. Responses to the second-and third-round questionnaires were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The results of the study produced 11 major research categories and 98 research questions and problem statements. Twenty-six of the 98 research priority items had a mean score of four or more points, based on the assigned five-point Likerttype scale. Background Technical Preparation, commonly referred to as Tech Prep, is a significant aspect of vocational education literature and was authorized by Congress with the passage of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990, which specified Tech Prep initiatives under Titles II and III of Public Law 101-392. The concept was initially discussed during an American Vocational Association (AVA) Workshop Symposium in 1983 (Bottom, 1994). However, the phrase was coined by Dale Parnell and EJournals Digital Library and University Libraries Search Addison Off Campus Sign in Ask a librarian appears in his book, The Neglected Majority (1985), where he introduced the 2 + 2 Tech Prep/Associate Degree program (TPAD). The TPAD concept, according to Parnell (1985), is essentially a new approach to vocational education and is designed to integrate academic subjects (i.e., mathematics and science) with vocational-technical education subjects (i.e., engineering technology, applied science, and mechanical, industrial, or vocational subjects, such as agriculture, health, and business). The Tech Prep concept is further described by Bragg (1995) as combining "academic and occupationally oriented education, using applied academics or other approaches to curriculum integration. Tech Prep also requires formal articulation between secondary and post-secondary institutions, ensuring that the last two years of high school are connected programmatically to two years of college leading to an associate degree" (p. 191). Other researchers and scholars have expressed similar thoughts about the Tech Prep concept, including their beliefs that many students need a vocational education that is integrated with an academic college preparatory curriculum and designed to prepare them to be successful in two-year technical education (Gray, Wang, & Malizia, 1995). Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify, categorize, and rank research needs for Tech Prep. A three-round Delphi survey approach was used to generate responses and achieve consensus from a select sample of nationally recognized subject matter experts (SMEs) in Tech Prep. The results may contribute to scholarly efforts toward establishing a research agenda for Tech Prep educators in four-year college and university teacher education programs. Three research questions were developed to identify and prioritize the goals and directions. 1. What are the proposed research needs for Tech Prep educators over the next ten years? 2. What major research categories are identified for the next ten years by the subject matter experts (SMEs) in Tech Prep? 3. What should be the research priorities for Tech Prep over the next ten years? Methodology A Delphi procedure was selected as the most appropriate method for attaining consensus in a national panel of SMEs. The Delphi approach was devised by Olaf Helmer and his colleagues at the Rand Corporation in the early 1950s as a means to gather expert views, and to determine the extent of expert consensus regarding the future (Cope, 1981; Cunico, 1974; Taylor, 1992). Scholars in vocational education, such as Griggs (1990); Rojewski & Meers (1992); Silva-Guerrero & Sutphin (1990); and Connors (1998) also used the Delphi approach to gather consensus from a panel of experts. Originally, Helmer (1983) used the Delphi approach to obtain opinions about urgent military defense problems. The procedure allows the search for consensus to proceed in an orderly, systematic fashion without some of the problems inherent in bringing a group together for meetings (Starling, 1988). The intention of the Delphi approach is to ensure that changes in opinions or estimates reflect rational judgment, not the influence of certain opinion leaders. The Delphi approach prevents strong personalities from forcing judgments in certain directions as frequently occurs in meetings of SME panels. After all, "good, perhaps more accurate, response may come from persons on the panel with only modest credentials" (Nickell, 1988, p. 225). Although the Delphi approach was originally used to predict future defense needs, it can be used, according to Borg and Gall (1983), whenever a consensus is needed from persons who are knowledgeable about a particular subject. In this study, the vast majority of SMEs were nationally recognized teacher educators and administrators at four-year colleges and universities that play a pivotal role in successfully promoting Tech Prep. In addition to their national reputations, the SMEs were selected because of their involvement with the National Tech Prep Network, which collaborates and articulates with the Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD). A select panel of respondents was given a series of questionnaires. Through controlled feedback with each round, carefully considered group opinions were formed. Initially, 56 Tech Prep panel members were contacted and 37 agreed to participate. However, only 33 respondents completed the first round, 30 completed round two, and 27 completed the three-round process. Round One The process began with a one-page, open-ended questionnaire (mailed in March 1994), that asked the panel to generate or identify research needs (priorities) in Tech Prep over the next 10 years. Specifically, respondents were directed to develop five research questions or problems that they felt should be addressed. Upon the return of the round one questionnaire, a four-member panel coded and categorized 187 identified research needs and priorities into major research categories using an empirically grounded coding scheme. Members of the panel were selected based on their leadership positions and knowledge of Tech Prep. The major research categories emerged from an examination of the common themes among the initial list of 187 research needs and priorities. Efforts to eliminate duplication by editing and modifying some of these reduced the number to 98 research items. Some of the responses were written as questions and some as statements of action because the directions on the round one questionnaire permitted respondents to create either research questions or problems. Round Two The second questionnaire, mailed in April 1994, contained the 98 research items generated from the 33 respondents in round one. The respondents were asked to rate each item as listed in Part A by placing a (X) in the appropriate space. Ratings were based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = least need, 5 = highest need). In Part B, the respondents were asked to rank the 10 major research categories by order of importance -the first would be the most important and the tenth, the least important. Round Three In the third and final questionnaire, respondents were asked to review their round two responses and contrast them using group consensus data. The respondents' round two responses were tabulated to include the following information: (a) interquartile range, middle 50% of all responses; (b) median; and (c) mean. The respondents' initial ratings on the round two questionnaire were identified with a blue dot. Based on the information provided, the respondents could keep their initial rating or change it by placing a (X) in the space for the new rating. They were asked to explain a new rating for any research item that was outside the group consensus (interquartile range). Results The results of the three-round Delphi survey produced 11 major research categories and 98 research questions and problem statements. Twenty-six of the 98 research priority items had a mean score of four or more points, based on the assigned five-point Likert-type scale. As shown in Table 1, the research priority item with the highest rating mean score (M = 4.0, SD =.9) was Institutionalize Tech Prep into the higher education delivery system and focus instruction on data from learning styles/cognitive sciences research, and non-traditional teaching methods. The remaining 25 research priority items had a range of mean scores from 4.4 to 4.0, as shown in Tables 1. Table 1 Research Priority Items with High Rating * Research Priority Items with a Mean Score of 4.48 to 4.00 Mean IQR Mdn Institutionalize Tech Prep into the higher education delivery system and focus instruction on data from learning styles/cognitive science research, and non-teaching methods 4.48 4-5 5


Background
Technical Preparation, commonly referred to as Tech Prep, is a significant aspect of vocational education literature and was authorized by Congress with the passage of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Applied Technology Education Act Amendments of 1990, which specified Tech Prep initiatives under Titles II and III of Public Law 101-392.The concept was initially discussed during an American Vocational Association (AVA) Workshop Symposium in 1983 (Bottom, 1994).However, the phrase was coined by Dale Parnell and appears in his book, The Neglected Majority (1985), where he introduced the 2 + 2 Tech Prep/Associate Degree program (TPAD).The TPAD concept, according to Parnell (1985), is essentially a new approach to vocational education and is designed to integrate academic subjects (i.e., mathematics and science) with vocational-technical education subjects (i.e., engineering technology, applied science, and mechanical, industrial, or vocational subjects, such as agriculture, health, and business).
The Tech Prep concept is further described by Bragg (1995) as combining "academic and occupationally oriented education, using applied academics or other approaches to curriculum integration.Tech Prep also requires formal articulation between secondary and post-secondary institutions, ensuring that the last two years of high school are connected programmatically to two years of college leading to an associate degree" (p. 191).Other researchers and scholars have expressed similar thoughts about the Tech Prep concept, including their beliefs that many students need a vocational education that is integrated with an academic college preparatory curriculum and designed to prepare them to be successful in two-year technical education (Gray, Wang, & Malizia, 1995).

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify, categorize, and rank research needs for Tech Prep.A three-round Delphi survey approach was used to generate responses and achieve consensus from a select sample of nationally recognized subject matter experts (SMEs) in Tech Prep.The results may contribute to scholarly efforts toward establishing a research agenda for Tech Prep educators in four-year college and university teacher education programs.Three research questions were developed to identify and prioritize the goals and directions.
1. What are the proposed research needs for Tech Prep educators over the next ten years? 2. What major research categories are identified for the next ten years by the subject matter experts (SMEs) in Tech Prep? 3. What should be the research priorities for Tech Prep over the next ten years?

Methodology
A Delphi procedure was selected as the most appropriate method for attaining consensus in a national panel of SMEs.The Delphi approach was devised by Olaf Helmer and his colleagues at the Rand Corporation in the early 1950s as a means to gather expert views, and to determine the extent of expert consensus regarding the future (Cope, 1981;Cunico, 1974;Taylor, 1992).Scholars in vocational education, such as Griggs (1990); Rojewski & Meers (1992); Silva-Guerrero & Sutphin (1990); and Connors (1998) also used the Delphi approach to gather consensus from a panel of experts.Originally, Helmer (1983) used the Delphi approach to obtain opinions about urgent military defense problems.The procedure allows the search for consensus to proceed in an orderly, systematic fashion without some of the problems inherent in bringing a group together for meetings (Starling, 1988).The intention of the Delphi approach is to ensure that changes in opinions or estimates reflect rational judgment, not the influence of certain opinion leaders.The Delphi approach prevents strong personalities from forcing judgments in certain directions as frequently occurs in meetings of SME panels.After all, "good, perhaps more accurate, response may come from persons on the panel with only modest credentials" (Nickell, 1988, p. 225).Although the Delphi approach was originally used to predict future defense needs, it can be used, according to Borg and Gall (1983), whenever a consensus is needed from persons who are knowledgeable about a particular subject.
In this study, the vast majority of SMEs were nationally recognized teacher educators and administrators at four-year colleges and universities that play a pivotal role in successfully promoting Tech Prep.In addition to their national reputations, the SMEs were selected because of their involvement with the National Tech Prep Network, which collaborates and articulates with the Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD).A select panel of respondents was given a series of questionnaires.Through controlled feedback with each round, carefully considered group opinions were formed.Initially, 56 Tech Prep panel members were contacted and 37 agreed to participate.However, only 33 respondents completed the first round, 30 completed round two, and 27 completed the three-round process.

Round One
The process began with a one-page, open-ended questionnaire (mailed in March 1994), that asked the panel to generate or identify research needs (priorities) in Tech Prep over the next 10 years.Specifically, respondents were directed to develop five research questions or problems that they felt should be addressed.Upon the return of the round one questionnaire, a four-member panel coded and categorized 187 identified research needs and priorities into major research categories using an empirically grounded coding scheme.Members of the panel were selected based on their leadership positions and knowledge of Tech Prep.The major research categories emerged from an examination of the common themes among the initial list of 187 research needs and priorities.Efforts to eliminate duplication by editing and modifying some of these reduced the number to 98 research items.Some of the responses were written as questions and some as statements of action because the directions on the round one questionnaire permitted respondents to create either research questions or problems.

Round Two
The second questionnaire, mailed in April 1994, contained the 98 research items generated from the 33 respondents in round one.The respondents were asked to rate each item as listed in Part A by placing a (X) in the appropriate space.Ratings were based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = least need, 5 = highest need).In Part B, the respondents were asked to rank the 10 major research categories by order of importance --the first would be the most important and the tenth, the least important.

Round Three
In the third and final questionnaire, respondents were asked to review their round two responses and contrast them using group consensus data.The respondents' round two responses were tabulated to include the following information: (a) interquartile range, middle 50% of all responses; (b) median; and (c) mean.The respondents' initial ratings on the round two questionnaire were identified with a blue dot.Based on the information provided, the respondents could keep their initial rating or change it by placing a (X) in the space for the new rating.They were asked to explain a new rating for any research item that was outside the group consensus (interquartile range).

Results
The results of the three-round Delphi survey produced 11 major research categories and 98 research questions and problem statements.Twenty-six of the 98 research priority items had a mean score of four or more points, based on the assigned five-point Likert-type scale.As shown in Table 1, the research priority item with the highest rating mean score (M = 4.0, SD =.9) was Institutionalize Tech Prep into the higher education delivery system and focus instruction on data from learning styles/cognitive sciences research, and non-traditional teaching methods.The remaining 25 research priority items had a range of mean scores from 4.4 to 4.0, as shown in Tables 1. Can we identify some best practices models that can serve as benchmarks for schools to utilize when they begin to implement school-to-work transition programs?(item 90) 4.04 3-5 4 Should teacher educators be required to spend some time each year working in the public schools as a volunteer, or as an intern in business and industry (item13) 4.00 3-5 4 1 Research Priority Items were based on the assigned five-point Likert-type scale (1=least need, 5=highest need).
On the other hand, Table 2 shows that 16 of the 98 research priority items had a mean score of less than 3 based on the assigned scale.Moreover, research priority item 40, in Table 2, had the lowest mean score (M=2.4,SD = 1.1) of the 98 items; its focus was on identifying the best Tech Prep journals (if any exist).The respondents also were asked to rank the 11 major research categories in order of importance from 1 to 11, with the first being the most important and the eleventh being the least important.Initially, there were ten major research categories; however, during the second round, another was added and the final tabulations were based on 11 categories.Research in instruction and curriculum development received the highest rank order of importance with a mean score of 3.1.The remaining major categories were ranked from 2 to 11:

Discussion
The major research categories developed from survey responses in this study may guide the design of a national research agenda for Tech Prep educators.However, the study results should be interpreted cautiously since the data were collected four year ago.Nevertheless since there is currently no such agenda, the findings from this study should act as a preliminary guide in its development.The opportunity exists for real changes to take place in education by breaking down the barriers that prevent change in the traditional processes of teaching (Johnson & Thomas, 1992).Professional educators generally know that all students do not have the same learning style nor the same cognitive ability.Therefore, nontraditional teaching methods should be implemented into the higher education curriculum because many of the traditional show and tell teaching methods will not prepare students for high-tech and high-touch employability (Naisbett, 1982).Moreover, the high-tech demands of the next century dictate a need for technical teachers with high-tech employability skills themselves; traditional vocational education teachers are currently insufficiently prepared (Farmer, 1993).Curriculum development, staff development, and instructional strategies are required of practitioners and instructional leaders in Tech Prep initiatives and other school-to-work transition programs.
Finally, more research is needed in areas of partnerships and linkages with business, industry, and education.They were noted by respondents as their fourth highest concern.
Policymakers, business leaders, and educators need to give more attention to prioritizing research in Tech Prep for the next century.Such research priorities were identified and categorized in this study.The challenge now is to take action.For example, based on the results of this study, researchers could conduct a follow-up national study every five years or state and regional levels studies to track trends on local needs in their respective communities.

Table 1 Research Priority Items with High Rating * Research Priority Items with a Mean Score of 4.48 to 4.00 Mean IQR Mdn
Institutionalize Tech Prep into the higher education delivery system and focus instruction on data from learning styles/cognitive science research, and non-teaching methods

Table 2 Research Priority Items with Low Rating 1 Research Priority Items with a Mean Score of less than 3.00 Mean IQR Mdn
In other words, the research priorities should provide a starting point for young scholars and other vocational educators interested in developing a researchable problem or topic in Tech Prep.Although Tech Prep initiatives have had a considerable impact on reform of vocational-technical education, further research is still needed.For example, in the area of curriculum development, the first-ranked research category as identified in this study reveals a need for more Tech Prep research on curriculum models that would provide opportunities for collaborative activities with academic and vocational/technical instructors, secondary and post -secondary staff, and educators and business/industry representatives.Further research also is needed in the area of staff development and professional training; respondents identified this as the second most important research category.Most educational leaders would agree that teachers need continuous professional training to create and enhance instructional practices that result in higher student performance.Moreover, the Perkins legislation (Public Law 101-392) mandates in-service training for teachers' professional growth and development.Another area of importance (identified by respondents as the third highest concern) was more research in alternative teaching and learning models.In other words, Tech Prep leaders should focus more research on learning styles, cognitive sciences, and nontraditional teaching methods.