Successfully Publishing New Technology-Level Text Materials

This paper explores why Engineering Technology (ET) courses – especially upper division – have few level-appropriate textbook options, & what can (& can't) be done about it. First, ET is defined vs. its more theoretical & practical counterparts. Next comes why ET's small number of majors (vs. other STEM subjects), & confusion in how the word "Technology" is used, have kept publishers out of the ET market from its inception. Then: how five "game-changing" events in publishing & academia further decreased ET text choice, with greater impact (& felt sooner) in Junior/ Senior-level courses. Various solutions to the resulting scarcity of text choices (persisting to this day) are next evaluated, with reasons why collective actions by ETD would likely produce the best results. Finally we explore what a would-be ET-level textbook author should consider in deciding if it’s worth writing a textbook & – if yes – how to maximize his or her odds of success. I, What "Engineering Technology" Is & Why So Few Textbook Choices Let's define Engineering Technology (ET), in contrast to what it isn’t: it's not Engineering or Industrial Technology or Technician study. ABET’s website compares ET & Engr. thusly: “Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Also, engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses. Engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.” 1 Engineering Technology is a young discipline, emerging as distinct only after World War II. Engineering became increasingly theoretical as atomic & transistor advances needed more Ph. D researchers, widening the gap between Engineers & Technicians; but industry needed practically trained professionals – like pre-war Engineers – stronger in math & systems than Technicians. Certain colleges started ET programs to meet this "in between" need: Oregon Tech & Southern Tech (now Southern Poly) did so after being blocked from offering engineering degrees by another university in their state; Purdue & Texas A&M added ET to an existing engineering school; other colleges, both 4 & 2-year, started new ET programs where no engineering existed; & still others offered a combination of ET & Engineering in one department. Some "4-year" ET programs (e.g., SUNY College @ Buffalo; Arizona State U.) are "plus two" programs (Junior/ Senior-level only), relying on nearby community colleges to teach the first two years. From the beginning, ET has often been viewed as a "step-child" (not universally accepted) of/ by Engineering -both within the academic community & by textbook publishers – despite ETD being ASEE's largest division (historically about 25% of ASEE's membership) – because: P ge 23112.2 a) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ “Standard Occupational Classification” database only lists Engineers & Technicians; only in health occupations are "Technologists" listed. 2 b) ET has far fewer programs nationally: 100 4-year colleges & universities in the U.S. offer ET (per ASEE) vs. 350 in engineering, 3 most being ABET-accredited. Of 104 ABETaccredited 2-year ET programs, over a third are at those same 100 4-year colleges. Most original (1950’s) 2-year College ET programs were in Mid-Atlantic & Great Lakes states. c) The average ET program enrolls fewer students than the average Engineering program; also, each Engineering School has more recognized or accredited programs (usually several) than each College with ET programs (often just 1 or 2 accredited ET programs, with few offered anywhere beyond Electrical, Mechanical or Civil ET). 4 d) Are Engineering Technologists “Engineers”? Some states allow ET’s to earn the PE (Professional Engineer) credential by passing the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam; most states don’t allow it, or require petitioning the state licensing board (after X years of practice), & most are denied. Yet, though few ET's ever earn their PE, ET's still study Engr. Economy from an oversized text geared to engineers taking the FE exam. 5 Why, besides smaller overall enrollments, have engineering-level texts predominated in the great majority of ET upper division courses, as in the Engineering Economy example just given? a) Junior/ Senior-level students are expected to use calculus & learn design vs. just systems (though ET graduates rarely do actual designing); thus engr.-level texts often fit “as is.” b) Many programs – especially at rigorous "Engr.-in-all-but-name" programs like OIT & Southern Poly; or combined Engr./ ET programs, or "plus two" programs – don’t really need a simpler text. Yet less rigorous ET programs (students struggle in math, even if “watered down”) don't dare risk ABET accreditation by using a Technician-level text. c) Since junior/ senior-level enrollments in ET have always been modest vs. freshman/ sophomore (3,000 per year per course for mechanical/ civil in U.S. & Canada 6 at the peak [early '80's]; & 6,000 in electrical, counting DeVry – vs. 10-45,000 freshmen), few publishers saw profit in upper division ET titles, especially when Engr. titles were used. By contrast, ABET-accredited ET programs at community colleges have always needed their own dedicated titles, because while ABET requires ET majors to take calculus, it's taught later (second term sophomores) vs. Engr. majors (first term freshmen), thus calculus-based Engr. texts don’t work. Also, enrollments in freshman & sophomore core ET courses were high enough – at least prior to the mid1980's, & especially in Electrical Engr. Tech, Tech Math & Tech Physics – to provide good profits for ET-level textbook authors & publishers already in the market. 7 Despite some overlap & confusion, the line between Engr. & Engr. Tech has still been clearer than between Engr. Tech & "everything below it.” The term "Technology" has been applied to such a broad category of programs “above technician level” that ABET-accredited ET programs have insisted on using both words together – "Engineering Technology" – for clarity. Yet many programs, unrelated to ET, have been renamed "Technology" or "Engr. Technology" since 1990, while neither seeking nor meeting ABET accreditation standards. Many such "new" Technology P ge 23112.3 programs are at ATMAE schools (formerly NAIT) – such as at Ball State U (IN), Millersville U (PA) & Bowling Green State U (OH) – that traditionally trained “shop teachers” & industrial supervisors. ATMAE only recently stopped prohibiting members from using “technology” in program names – unless immediately preceded by the word “industrial” – & now encourages its use. 8 Other technical education groups (secondary & post-) have also added "technology" to their titles since the late 1980’s – when secondary school “shop” was renamed “technology education.” Ironically, that latter term is now also obsolete, replaced by "STEM Education." 9 Most post-secondary "technician-level training" institutions have also renamed themselves since 1990, 10 both public (school district, career center or college) & private – moving from “technical institutes” to “technical colleges” (GA, MN, WA, WI) or "__ College of Technology" (TCI College of Technology in NYC, formerly Technical Careers Institute/ RCA Institute; Dunwoody College of Technology (MN), ex-Dunwoody Institute). Some tech institutes got absorbed by nearby Community Colleges. The name change reflected new transferable Associate’s Degrees vs. terminal Certificates (adding Math, English & General Ed.) – but a result was more word/ name confusion, as hundreds of “Institutes” were now called “... College of Technology.” 11 12 Beyond education, the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET), formed in 1981 by merging two prior groups that certified individual technicians (70,000+ by 12/31/84) or technologists (600by 12/31/84). Yet, though technologists weren’t even 1% of total members, “Engineering Technologies” still got chosen for their new combined name! Thus are Technology & Engineering Technology used (& misused) so widely that confusion reigns. 13 II, Why Five "Major Events" in Publishing & Academia Further Limited ET Text Choices A key premise of this paper is that five "big events" – three on the publishing side; two on the college side – resulted in reducing the availability of textbooks in ET quite dramatically over the past 30 years (since the mid-1980's), even though two of the five (both on the publisher side) occurred years earlier & affected other academic disciplines earlier & more heavily than ET. From the early 1950's through the early 1980's both academia & textbook publishing expanded greatly. As Engineering Technology emerged as a distinct discipline (neither engineering nor “shop”), explosive growth of college enrollments in all disciplines occurred. Existing colleges & universities expanded, while new ones were built right through the 1960's (& some after); twoyear colleges formed & expand through the 1970's. 14 Pre-WW II text publishers expanded their offerings in just about every discipline, & several new textbook publishers started – PrenticeHall alone launched & then spun off Allyn & Bacon, Charles E. Merrill’s College Division & Reston. By 1975, 30 distinct U.S.-based textbook publishers had post-secondary level titles. 15 Many Engineering-level publishers – Prentice-Hall, Macmillan, Wiley, HRW – "dropped down slightly" to sign & publish Engr. Tech titles when they found willing authors. Technician-level publishers – McGraw-Hill (Gregg Division), Glencoe, Goodheart-Willcox, ATS (later ATP), P ge 23112.4 Bennett, McKnight & Delmar – didn’t raise their level, but increased sales at 2-year colleges & "industrial technology" (NAIT) level 4-year colleges, complementing the