This is my research study on Modular Labs.

1. 1
Proposal
Running Head: Research Proposal
Are Modular Instructional Labs Conducive To Learning?
Kenneth L. Brewer
Introduction To Research
East Stroudsburg University

2. 2
Proposal
Abstract
This is a study to determine if modular instructional labs are conducive to learning. Modular
labs, as they are often referred, are self-contained learning centers complete with course
curriculum, lessons plans and assessments. They have become very popular over the two
decades. Many schools are spending anywhere from between $80,000 to $200,000 on modular
classrooms to replace the traditional industrial arts shops.
There has been some debate over the usefulness of these labs and their ability to educate
students and meet the technology standards for education. Between the high costs to install and
maintain these labs to the continuous maintenance required to keep the labs running there is
reason to wonder if they are worth the money. They sound great on paper. And they look good at
first glance. But, in the long run, are modular instructional labs conducive to learning? This is the
question I intend to answer.

3. 3
Proposal
Introduction
Modular Las are a trend that has been sweeping technology education over the past few
decades. While they lack a clear-cut operational definition they are generally described as self-
contained learning systems where students work at their own pace to complete lessons, lab
activities, quizzes, tests and other activities. Students may work alone or with a partner or
sometimes two partners and the course content at these modules range from residential plumbing
to computer animation. Some modules integrate science, math and engineering concepts others
explore career opportunities. Then, usually at the end of the course there is a standardized test
that assess the students understanding of the concepts. The modules usually come with state-of-
the-art equipment which includes instructional trainers, software programs, testing equipment
and other high technology gadgets.
School districts all over the nation have adopted this style of instruction for technology. And
many schools have invested a lot of time in money in the installation and upkeep of the labs. The
cost of installing a modular classroom ranges from $80,000 to $200,000. And usually the cost to
maintain the labs ranges from $4,000 to $10,000/year. Some districts have installed these labs
against the will of their technology teachers. This has cost many districts to question their
decision to go with modular labs.
But, are these problems just glitches that can be worked? Are they worth the investment if run
properly? Some schools have found that with proper planning, classroom management and
preparation that these modular labs can be a valuable tool for instruction. They have found the
high technology equipment to be very motivating to students. The self-paced style and multi-
media instruction makes it conducive to many learning styles. The accompaniment of course

4. 4
Proposal
curriculum, standardized tests and lesson plans make it very enticing for administrators who are
trying to keep pace with the trends in technology education.
In order to study the effectiveness of these labs a few things must be clarified. Before deciding
if modular labs are conducive to learning we should first define the word ―conducive‖. Blanche
W. O`Bannon and Kathleen Puckett describe ―New Learning Environments‖ (O`Bannon &
Puckett, 2007). They describe these environments as Student-centered, active, exploratory and
inquiry-based. They prefer multimedia instruction to single media. These ideals are also reflected
in the NCATE Standards for Technology Education accreditation. The standards describes a
conducive learning environment as one that promotes technological literacy, provide varied
instruction, are encouraging and motivating to the student learner (NCATE, 2003). Certainly by
these words modular instruction sounds effective. But, I will review these sources further in my
literature review.
A definition of Technology Education will also be useful to distinguish it from traditional
Industrial Arts or ―shop‖ classes that are now outdated. I will review the definition given by a
few experts in my lit. review, but, Technology Education prepares students to solve real-world
technology problems. It uses a systems approach to teach students high level technology
concepts and processes. The term ―technology literacy‖ is used to explain a holistic
understanding of technology. This concept is much different than the skills/competency based
educational approach common to traditional Industrial Arts classes. But, Technology Education
experts like Len Litowitz, Technology Education Instructor at Millersville University, have tried
hard to erase the ―shop‖ stigma that surrounds this discipline. The Pennsylvania Standards For
Science And Technology explains Technology Education as Technology Education is the use of
accumulated knowledge to process resources to meet human needs and improve the quality of

5. 5
Proposal
life (Pennsylvania Standards For Science And Technology, 2002). It is important to understand
technology education in order to decide if the modular instructional labs reflective of the
technology standards.
Is modular instruction conducive to learning? And, if so, is it conducive enough to warrant
spending that much money? This study will help teachers and administrators decide if they
should spend the $80,000 to $200,000 dollars on a new modular lab or explore other options.
And since this seems to be a trend on so many schools in The United States I feel it will greatly
add to the technology body of knowledge. Spending large amounts of money to carelessly can
put a school district and their technology education department in a great financial bind and this
study will try to decide if it is worthwhile.

6. 6
Proposal
Review Of Literature
While I was able to find many studies that related to the topic of technology education I only
found a few that directly related to modular labs. However, the few studies I found on modular
labs were very thorough and well-written. They gave some telling results on teachers’
perceptions of modular labs. The studies were conducted in various locations around the country,
but, some of their findings were very similar. This review will discuss the main ideas covered in
the literature I found.
Modular Instructional Labs
Overall Perceptions
David C. Lebrum (2001) of Southern Doors High School did a study to find out whether or
not his high school should adopt the modular instruction concept. The study surveyed six
different school districts. It assessed the effectiveness of modular technology, instructor’s
perception of the labs and problems with the labs. Beverly DeGraw and Jim C. Smallwood
(1997) did a study on what Kentucky teachers think of modular instruction. The study offered
quantitative data that could help get an idea of the dynamics of modular labs. Kara S. Harris
(2005) of Purdue University provided a well-planned and thoroughly conducted study on
teacher’s perception of modular labs in Georgia. The study surveyed two teachers from each
school district in Georgia and she got eighty replies.
Lebrum and Harris found modular labs to be motivating in their study results. Harris’ results
showed 32/38 educators studied said modular labs are better than conventional industrial arts
shops. Lebrum found that most educators he studied reported having a more positive

7. 7
Proposal
environment with modular labs. Lebrum’s (2001) study also showed that most teachers felt that
the labs were clean and reduced injuries.
Lien reported that the thought process in creating his pre-engineering course, as mentioned
earlier, was to make the class interesting to both sexes (Lien, 2008). DeGraw and Smallwood
(1997) reported that 57% of the educators they studied said that school boards and administrators
favor modular instruction.
Lab Structure
Lebrum (2001) identified modular labs as a ―high-tech‖ look. The labs he studied tried to avoid
the ―traditional industrial arts‖. The students in this study worked in two or more groups. But, he
observed that when students worked alone the learning increased (Lebrum, 2001). He cites that
the modules had many small parts that were easily damaged. He also mentions that each school
he observed had individual stations that work not in working order (2001). His studied showed
that the instructors served more as facilitators and that they spent most of their time
troubleshooting faulty equipment (2007).
Edger Lister (2004) from Ball State University offers a very brief study on modular technology
education instructional systems by technology education programs. The study organized in a
scholarly way, but, lacks depth and substance. The purpose was to inform readers of the different
vendors that provide modular instruction equipment. Study evaluates three modular instructional
systems from three different companies. The three companies are Paxton-Patterson, Pitsco and
Learning Labs. The student briefly explains the three labs and lists their respective advantages.
The author concludes that The Modular approach holds great promise for improving the public
image of technology education (Ball State University).

8. 8
Proposal
Brian Lien (2008) gives a thorough explanation of his modular lab system in Princeton High
School located in Cincinnati, OH. His article, Model Program: Princeton High School,
Cincinnati, OH provides an example of a model program. The class discussed in this article is an
Engineering class called Engineering Your Future. The content was meant to be interesting to
both sexes and helped students make informed decisions on engineering careers. He goes into
detail explaining the orientation of the system. He explains how all departments in the school
were represented in the decision to implement the system. They collaborated with local
universities to come up with a course outline and a timeline for completing the course. They took
the cost of materials into consideration as well as students interests. The article also discusses
the process for preparing teachers to teach in the modular lab system. Teachers received a three-
day in-service on a best practice way to teach the course. And Lien’s pre-engineering classroom
explains the need to prepare students to be informed decision makers.
This triangulates with my earlier reviews that suggested that the inclusion of teachers in the
implementation of modular labs correlates with its effectiveness. Also found in my previous
studies was the importance of teacher preparedness in creating an environment conducive to
learning.
Curriculum Content
Beverly C. DeGraw and Jim Smallwood (2001) survey on how Kentucky teachers felt about
technology education found interesting results on the curriculum content in some modular labs.
The results of the study found that 80% of the 24 educators surveyed said that the modular labs
broadened the scope of technology education. This in some ways triangulates with the data found
by Kara S. Harris (2005) in Teachers’ Perceptions of Modular Technology Education
Laboratories. Her study showed 31 of the 41 educators surveyed said that modular labs are

9. 9
Proposal
educationally sound while 34 of 40 participants in her study said the labs made it easy to
implement the Georgia curriculum.
Lebrum (2001) found that the labs reflected science, English and art more than skilled-based
disciplines. But, he also observed project-based learning activities. He noticed that the more
difficult modules were avoided (Lebrum, 2001). But, he also noticed that the modules had depth
in their curriculum and had ―strong technology merit‖.
DeGraw and Smallwood (1997) also found that 60% of their respondents felt that modular
instruction does not provide everything necessary to develop skilled thinkers and workers for a
global economy and workforce (1997). And 79% felt that modules reflect current, emerging
technologies. But, 53% of their respondents felt modules were needed to teach industry and
technology and their impacts (1997).
Effects
DeGraw and Smallwood reported that only their studies showed that only 43% of the educators
studied felt that students would be more likely to sign up for a modular-based technology class
that a traditional class in woods or metals (DeGraw/Smallwood, 1997). And only 45% of their
respondents believe parents favor a modular instruction approach to technology education
(1997).
Lubrum (2001) indicates that the schools he studied noticed an increase in enrollment at first
before the numbers went back to normal. He also noticed that the female enrollment in the
modular labs was higher than in traditional shops.
Conducive Environment
I found several sources that helped identify an environment that is conducive to learning.

10. 10
Proposal
They each discussed the importance of student centered learning, setting a high standard for
learning and creating an atmosphere that allows every learner to succeed. They also each
discussed the need for group learning activities and student interaction.
Charlotte Danielson’s research on teaching practices provided me with clear definition of a
learning environment (Danielson, 2007). She creates a ―framework‖ for teaching by breaking
down into four domains. Planning and Preparation, The Classroom Environment, Instruction and
Professional Responsibilities were the four domain areas that she describes. Each of these
domains reflects a conducive learning environment in some way. Especially relevant was The
Classroom Environment Domain. It provides a clearly defined explanation of a conducive
learning environment. She mentions ―engaging students in learning‖ and ― providing feedback to
students‖. She also provides a physical checklist which she says has been adopted by many
school districts.
Blanche W. O`Bannon and Kathleen Puckett (O`Bannon/Puckett, 2007) help to define a
conducive learning environment in Preparing to Use Technology. Chapter 1 in the book
compares traditional learning environments to new learning environments. They link the
environment characteristics to the ISTE (International Society of Technology in Education) and
NETS (National Educational Technology Standards for Administrators) Standards. They explain
proper procedures, selection of materials, classroom layout, adaptations, classroom management
and assessment tools. They identify ―student-centered instruction‖ and ―collaborative work‖ as
well as ―information exchange‖ as components of a New Learning Environment
(O`Bannon/Puckett, 2007). They also mention ―active/exploratory/inquiry-based learning‖ as a
component of this environment. O`Bannon and Puckett (2007) also discuss ―adaptations for
special learners‖ as an integral part of the learning environment.

11. 11
Proposal
Myra Cloer Reynolds (2004) conducted a study for the Southern Regional Educational Board
that generated a list of Ten Strategies For Creating A Classroom Culture Of High Expectations.
The study identifies ―The student as worker-implement instructional activities that actively
engage students‖ to bring students together and engage in learning. The study also encourages
―frequent and relevant feedback that works‖ to invoke a higher level of thinking.
Consistency With The Standards
Len S. Litowitz (2008) provides a definition of technology education in his article in Phi
Delta Kappen called Technology Education: A Contemporary Perspective. His article contrasts
Technology Education from traditional Industrial Arts and Vocational Education. He cites the
Standards for Technological Literacy to define technology as ―a study of technology, which
provides an opportunity for students to learn about the processes and knowledge related to
technology that are needed to solve problems and extend human capabilities‖. His article
contrasts Technology Education from traditional Industrial Arts and Vocational Education.
James Howlett (2008) writes how the change from Industrial Arts to the more modern
Technology Education Concept does not change the fact that the workplace still demands skilled
workers that vocational education can provide. Howlett does not cite any specific sources. He
argues Litowitz’s discussion on the need for technology literacy by saying that the world still
needs skilled workers.
Litowitz (2008) explains the transition of industrial arts to technology education. He cites
Charles Richards, editor of Manual Traning Magazine as the pioneer of industrial arts. He
explains how industrial arts was created in response to ―the second Industrial Revolution‖ which
was taking place in the early 20th Century. It was influenced by industry. According to Litowitz

12. 12
Proposal
the transition finally took place in the early 1980s. His definition of technology closely matches
the studies on curriculum content in modular labs.
Since the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and the advent of standardized test
scores as a means of evaluating high schools meeting standards of education has become very
important if not vital for all programs. The Pennsylvania Standards For Science And Technology
reflects a holistic approach to teach real-world problem solving skills to students. The standards
are broad and encompass the teaching of technology systems, processes and as well as high level
concepts. Technology systems include Construction, Manufacturing, Transportation,
Communication and Biotechnology.
The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) reflects the dire need for students to be proficient in
math, reading, writing, science and technology education. Since technology education classes are
usually elective courses they must continually prove how they are meeting the standards.
Broadening the scope of their curriculum and integration of state standards are evident in
modular labs according to these studies.
Aaron C. Clark and Jeremy V. Ernst (2007) studied the concept of integrating Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). In their study A Model for the Integration
of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics they found the need to prepare students to
solve real-world problems combining these disciplines into each activity. In their study they
report
Technology education has the means of becoming the catalyst for integrated curricula,
especially in areas where mathematics and science are difficult to incorporate into other
subject matter. (Clark and Ernst, 2007)

13. 13
Proposal
The study suggests cohorts of teachers from all academic areas work together to integrate
English, mathematics, science, history and technology education with technology educators
leading the way (Clark, Earnst, 2007).
Brain Lien (2008) reports using modular labs to integrate engineering concepts into his
technology education program. Princeton High School in Cincinnati, Ohio collaborated with The
University of Cincinnati to start this pre-engineering program. The planning process included
teachers of technology education, math, science, and computer science departments from
Princeton and two surrounding high schools. The curriculum was based on preparing students of
both sexes for careers in engineering.
Improving Test Scores
W.J. Haynie, III (2008) offers a thorough study on the importance of the use of tests as
assessment in his article in The Technology Teacher Magazine entitled Maximizing the Learning
Value of Tests in Technology Education Classes: A Summary of Research Findings. This article
apposes traditional thinking in technology education in that it suggests that test taking is
necessary in the assessment of student learning in technology. The study analyzes a meta-
analysis done from 1990 to 2004 (Haynie, press b). While there was no quantitative data
documented in this article it gives a thorough summary of the research. The study used 11 public
schools, 2 universities, 21 teachers, and 2,208 students. The students were involved in the time-
series study for 20 years. The study and methodology was peer-reviewed by over 24 experts in
the field. It showed that taking a test invokes a deeper level of retention by students. The studies
reviewed also found study questions, pre-test reviews and post-test reviews to increase retention
of content (Haynie, 2008).

14. 14
Proposal
Haynie (2008) concludes that, based on the studies he reviewed, taking a test on material and
increased time on task increased retention by students (Haynie, 2008). He suggests that
technology teachers seek professional development in test-making to improve their test-making
ability. He recommends the use of rubrics to evaluate projects, group problems, research papers
and presentations. But, overall Haynie recommends the use of tests by technology teachers to
evaluate cognitive learning.
Mary M. Kennedy (2000) did a study on teaching qualities that correlate with student learning
in her article, Sorting Out Teacher Quality in Phi Delta Kappan magazines September 2000
issue. Of most importance to my research was Kennedy’s list of ―personal resources‖ that good
teachers possess (2000). The list included traits that related to teachers knowledge of content,
skill and expertise, credentials, organization, efficient management of classroom, keeping
students on task, clear goals and standards, student motivation, fostering personal responsibility
and social concerns (2000). This list is not comprehensive as there were other traits that she
discussed that were not relevant to my topic. The traits I listed can be found in Charlotte
Danielson’s framework for teaching. This also creates a triangulation in my resources and can
therefore strengthen the validity of my resources.
Integration Of Disciplines
In The Technology Teacher, Aaron C. Clark and Jeremy V. Ernst (2007) do a study on the
integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics content (STEM) in their article
entitled A Model for the Integration of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The
two authors discuss the importance of cohort groups in the aforementioned disciplines in creating
a holistic-style approach to learning. They suggest that technology education is conducive to
integration because of its broad scope and its diverse content areas. Furthermore, they suggest

15. 15
Proposal
technology educators assume a leadership role in these cohort groups since they are applying
these subjects in their daily teachings. They suggest that technology educators understand and
see the application for science, math and engineering and can therefore better understand the
holistic approach (2007). The article uses graphic organizers to give a visual representation of
the integration of technology, math, science, and engineering. These studies seemed to parallel
Litowitz’s definition of technology education.
Summary
The need for further study on Modular Instructional Lab exists because these labs are being
used across the country and with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act it is important that
they are meeting the standards of education and technology. Modular labs are expensive and are
time consuming to install. Lebrum (2001) found costs ranging from $69,000 - $250, 000 with a
yearly operation cost of $500 - $2,000 and a repair and replace budget of $2,000 - $5,000.
School districts do not want to spend the time and money only to realize the labs are not meeting
the student’s educational needs.
Despite the popularity of modular labs I could not find sufficient studies that evaluated their
effectiveness. The few studies I found reflected great potential with the labs, but, also mentioned
some major problems such as lack of basic skills, vandalism, poor training of instructors and
poor facilities (Lebrum 2007). The potential for meeting the requirements for a learning
environment exists, but, their costs may be too great and the condition of the equipment may
pose serious problems. And teachers may not have the time to get familiar with the curriculum,
lessons, activities and assessments that come with the modular labs.

16. 16
Proposal
Modular labs could be the answer to school districts’ growing concerns with meeting the NO
Child Left Behind Standards. They may be worth the time and money if it results in proficient
test scores. But, these questions need to be answered with further study. The question, ―Are
modular labs conducive to learning?‖ could also lead to the answer to the question, ―How do we
make are students proficient in science, technology, math, reading and writing?‖ We can find
this out through a well-planned, scholarly study of modular instructional labs.

17. 17
Proposal
Methodology
Design
I will observe several modular labs from nearby schools. I will create a checklist to evaluate
the labs. The checklist will contain components of a learning environment that is conducive to
learning. I will generate this list based on common themes between Charlotte Danielson’s four
domains of teaching responsibility, O`Bannon and Pucketts’ strategies for new learning
environments and The SREB (Southern Regional Education Board’s Ten Strategies For Creating
A Classroom Culture Of High Expectations. The Danielson Model is the model our school uses
to evaluate their teachers. O`Bannon and Pucketts’ strategies come from the ISTE (International
Society for Technology in Education) NETS for Teachers which are standards for integrating
technology into the classroom. And the SREB lays out the most thorough and comprehensive
model for classroom environment that I could find.
Each source discusses the importance of creating a student-centered environment with many
different sources of instruction and sets high expectations for student learning. They also discuss
the importance of having students work together in groups and fostering critical thinking
activities. According to these sources it is also important, especially in today’s educational
world, to have a flexible teaching plan that can be adapted to students with special learning
needs. These common themes will be reflected in my checklist that I will use as a comparison
while I am observing the modular instructional labs. The checklist will serve as a model
classroom that is conducive to student learning.

18. 18
Proposal
Participants/Sampling
The participants in my observation will be the students in the classrooms studied as well as the
teachers in each classroom. I will observe classrooms at nearby High Schools to give it more
relevance our school. I will call and get permission from both the school and the teachers. I will
introduce myself to both the teacher and the students upon entering the room so there is no
anxiety about my presence.
I will observe a class in the morning and afternoon at each school when possible. This will help
me factor out the variable of the time of day. But, this will only be feasible if there are classes
and afternoon in the modular lab. In schools that do not have an afternoon class I will observe a
class close to the afternoon time period. If a school only has one class in the modular classroom
then I will just simply observe that one class and I will not be able to make a comparison based
on time of day. When possible I will choose one class that meets close to lunch and one class
immediately after lunch. This will help limit the time I spend at each school. In between classes I
will try to gain access to the instructor and get feedback on the modular lab. I will ask questions
that relate to the checklist themes that I mentioned earlier.
Setting
I will create a natural setting by standing off to the side to make my observation. I will dress
casual/formal so the students see me as just another teacher. I will attempt to gain access to the
students in a nonintrusive way. I will do this through casual conversation with the students. This
will also help ease the tension about having a stranger in their classroom. I will not participate in
the classroom activities because I do not want to disrupt the natural everyday flow of the
classroom.

19. 19
Proposal
Data Collection
I will take notes and collect data base on the observations I make and the comments made by
the students and teachers. I will use the checklist to keep records of my observations. I will
record comments made by the students and teachers during my informal interviews with them.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to my study that I will have to take into consideration. No
matter how casual or unobtrusive I try to be I understand that the natural flow of the classroom
will inevitably be disrupted having me there. They may straighten up a little and be on better
behavior because I am there.
Some schools may only teach one class in the modular lab. If the class meets in the middle of
the day then this should not pose a big problem. However, if the class meets early in the morning
or late in the afternoon, then, I will have to take that into consideration. Early morning classes
may not be as active whereas afternoon classes may be overactive. Schools that have more than
one class may not have a class that meets in the afternoon. In this case I will try to observe a
class that meets close to the afternoon.
I am also limited by the fact that not every school has a modular lab. That is another reason
why I am observing multiple classes in each school. I can also stretch to further schools without
threaten my validity a great deal.

20. 20
Proposal
Sample Questions
The following are examples of checklist items I will use during my observations:
-Group activities with student interaction
-activities that require high level cognition
-curriculum consistent with state standards
-students actively engaged an appropriate pace to their needs
-multiple instructional tools and aides to foster student learning
The following are sample interview questions I will use during my informal interviews:
To Teacher
Do you feel that modular labs create an environment that is conducive to learning?
Do you feel that the modular lab allows you to meet with each student to help facilitate their
learning?
To Students
How do you feel about working in the modular lab setting?
How well are you able to work through the activities independently and at your own pace?
Test
I will use a Likeart Scale to measure the extent to which each modular lab meets the checklist
requirements. I will rate them 1 – 4. 1 = component is nonexistent; 2 = component is vaguely

21. 21
Proposal
existent; 3 = component is existent; 4 = component is noticeably existent. I will multiply my
number of checklist components by four. The product will serve as a standard for the most
conducive learning environment.
I will compare the test questions to the standards set forth by my sources mentioned in the
literary review. The questions will reflect what my studies have shown to be an atmosphere
conducive to learning. I will try to triangulate the answers to the questions with data from
existing studies.

22. 22
Proposal
Summary
Value For The Study
If schools are to continue using modular lab technology, then, there should be evidence that it
serves as an appropriate learning environment for learners. If schools are going to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars on lab equipment, curriculum and lessons, then, it should prove
to meet state standards and coincide with the No Child Left Behind requirements. We need to
find out if modular labs are worth the planning and preparation time that teachers spend learning
curriculum, installing software and maintaining equipment. These are urgent times for educators
and administrator’s money must be spent wisely.
As of spring 2008 students began taking Science And Technology tests as part of the PSSA
assessments. Schools are now evaluated based on their students’ technical literacy. For this
reason, we have to pay close attention to what is being taught in technology education
classrooms and how it is being taught. So if modular labs are to continue to be a part of our
technology department they must meet the standards for an environment that is conducive to
learning. If our students are being assessed on their technical literacy we have to start taking
technology education more seriously.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 has created a need for schools to start looking closely at
what is being taught in classrooms and how it is being taught. Schools can no longer afford to
spend money on resources that haven’t been proven to aide in student learning. If modular labs
are going to remain a part of our school than we must prove that they create an appropriate
learning environment for our students. The curriculum must meet state standards and the

23. 23
Proposal
activities must invoke a higher level of learning. As of spring 2008 technology education became
a part of our schools assessment and we must take it more serious.
Anticipated Findings
Having taught in a modular lab myself for the past nine years I have developed a hypothesis for
this study. While modular labs have great potential for creating an environment that is conducive
to learning there are many bugs that must still be worked out.
Like most high technology equipment, the equipment in the modular labs will break down.
Lebrum (2001) mentions how vandalism was a concern for each lab he studied. This may leave
students without an activity until the equipment is fixed. Teachers cannot spend valuable class
time fixing equipment. So teachers must have a plan B activity planned for each modular lab
work station.
This is not always feasible so manufacturers of the labs must provide field technicians that are
available on a weekly basis. Schools should also designate a technician who can be available on
a daily basis. We do not have time to send faulty equipment back to the company to be fixed.
This process could take weeks or months. And in the mean time students are left without integral
lab equipment. This can cause a serious barrier to learning. Lebrum (2007) indicated that while
most of the instructors he interviewed were satisfied with the cooperation of their vendors many
felt they were on their own once the lab was installed.
It has also been my experience that students come to the labs lacking a serious attitude towards
learning. Lebrum (2007) observed students spending much of their time talking. In most schools
technology education is an elective. Therefore, students do not take it as seriously as their core
classes. Students will tend to be less focused on what they are doing unless they enjoy what they

24. 24
Proposal
are doing. And creating a joyful activity that also invokes a high level of thinking is not always
feasible. So what you will find is that students in modular labs are less focused and will get off-
task easier. If technology education was made a requirement, this would limit this problem.
References
DeGraw, Beverly/Smallwood, Jim C., 1997, Modular TE Instruction—what Kentucky teachers
think, Tech. Directions, Vol.56 Issue 9, p19, 2p.
Harris, Kara S., 2005, Teachers’ Perceptions of Modular Technology Education Laboratories
Volume 42 p17
Lebrum, David C., 2001, A study Of Modularized Instruction And It’s Role In The
Technology Education Curriculum at Southern Door Schools, August, p18
Lien, Brain, 2008, Model Program: Princeton High School, Cincinnati, OH, The Technology
Teacher, May/June, p3
Haynie, W.J. III., 2008, Maximizing the Learning Value of Tests in Technology Education
Classes: A Summary of Research Findings, The Technology Teacher, March, p5
Clark, Aaron C. /Ernst, Jeremy V., 2007, A Model for the Integration of Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics, The Technology Teacher, December/January, p3
Lista, Edger, ~2004, Modular Instructional Systems, Ball State University, ITEDU 510
Kennedy, Mary M., 2000, Sorting Out Teacher Quality, Phi Delta Kappan, September, Volume
9, Issue 1, p59-63
Howlett, James, 2008, Industrial Arts: Call It What You Want, the Need Still Exists, Phi Delta
Kappan, March, p522-524
Litowitz, Len S. /Warner, Scott A., 2008, Technology Education: A Contemporary Perspective,
Phi Delta Kappan, March, p519-521
Danielson, Charlotte, 2007, Enhancing Professional Practice – A Framework For Teaching,
2nd Edition
O`Bannon, Blance W. /Puckett Kathleen, 2007, Preparing To Use Technology (A Practical
Guide To Curriculum Integration)
Pennsylvania Department Of Education, 2002, Academic Standards For Science And
Technology, 22 Pa Code, Chapter 4, Appendix B

25. 25
Proposal
Technology Education Association Of Pennsylvania, 2008, Grade 9: Design And Systems
(Foundation course in technology education), www.teap-online.org
Reynolds, Myra Cloer, 2004, Ten Strategies For Creating A Classroom Culture Of High
Expectations, Southern Regional Education Board, p8

26. Research Proposal [Type text] Kenneth L. Brewer
EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY
Research Proposal
Are Technology Modular Labs Conducive To
Learning?
Kenneth Brewer
Fall 2009
[Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the contents of
the document. Type the abstract of the document here. The abstract is typically a short summary of the
contents of the document.]

27. Research Proposal [Type text] Kenneth L. Brewer
Abstract
This is a study to determine if modular instructional labs are conducive to learning. Modular
labs, as they are often referred, are self-contained learning centers complete with course
curriculum, lessons plans and assessments. They have become very popular over the two
decades. Many schools are spending anywhere from between $80,000 to $200,000 on modular
classrooms to replace the traditional industrial arts shops.
There has been some debate over the usefulness of these labs and their ability to educate
students and meet the technology standards for education. Between the high costs to install and
maintain these labs to the continuous maintenance required to keep the labs running there is
reason to wonder if they are worth the money. They sound great on paper. And they look good at
first glance. But, in the long run, are modular instructional labs conducive to learning? This is the
question I intend to answer.
Introduction
Modular Las are a trend that has been sweeping technology education over the past few
decades. While they lack a clear-cut operational definition they are generally described as self-
contained learning systems where students work at their own pace to complete lessons, lab
activities, quizzes, tests and other activities. Students may work alone or with a partner or
sometimes two partners and the course content at these modules range from residential plumbing
to computer animation. Some modules integrate science, math and engineering concepts others
explore career opportunities. Then, usually at the end of the course there is a standardized test
that assess the students understanding of the concepts. The modules usually come with state-of-
the-art equipment which includes instructional trainers, software programs, testing equipment
and other high technology gadgets.
School districts all over the nation have adopted this style of instruction for technology. And
many schools have invested a lot of time in money in the installation and upkeep of the labs. The
cost of installing a modular classroom ranges from $80,000 to $200,000. And usually the cost to
maintain the labs ranges from $4,000 to $10,000/year. Some districts have installed these labs
against the will of their technology teachers. This has cost many districts to question their
decision to go with modular labs.
But, are these problems just glitches that can be worked? Are they worth the investment if run
properly? Some schools have found that with proper planning, classroom management and
preparation that these modular labs can be a valuable tool for instruction. They have found the
high technology equipment to be very motivating to students. The self-paced style and multi-
media instruction makes it conducive to many learning styles. The accompaniment of course
curriculum, standardized tests and lesson plans make it very enticing for administrators who are
trying to keep pace with the trends in technology education.
In order to study the effectiveness of these labs a few things must be clarified. Before deciding
if modular labs are conducive to learning we should first define the word “conducive”. Blanche
W. O`Bannon and Kathleen Puckett describe “New Learning Environments” (O`Bannon &
Puckett, 2007). They describe these environments as Student-centered, active, exploratory and
inquiry-based. They prefer multimedia instruction to single media. These ideals are also reflected
2

28. Research Proposal [Type text] Kenneth L. Brewer
in the NCATE Standards for Technology Education accreditation. The standards describes a
conducive learning environment as one that promotes technological literacy, provide varied
instruction, are encouraging and motivating to the student learner (NCATE, 2003). Certainly by
these words modular instruction sounds effective. But, I will review these sources further in my
literature review.
A definition of Technology Education will also be useful to distinguish it from traditional
Industrial Arts or “shop” classes that are now outdated. I will review the definition given by a
few experts in my lit. review, but, Technology Education prepares students to solve real-world
technology problems. It uses a systems approach to teach students high level technology
concepts and processes. The term “technology literacy” is used to explain a holistic
understanding of technology. This concept is much different than the skills/competency based
educational approach common to traditional Industrial Arts classes. But, Technology Education
experts like Len Litowitz, Technology Education Instructor at Millersville University, have tried
hard to erase the “shop” stigma that surrounds this discipline. The Pennsylvania Standards For
Science And Technology explains Technology Education as Technology Education is the use of
accumulated knowledge to process resources to meet human needs and improve the quality of
life (Pennsylvania Standards For Science And Technology, 2002). It is important to understand
technology education in order to decide if the modular instructional labs reflective of the
technology standards.
Is modular instruction conducive to learning? And, if so, is it conducive enough to warrant
spending that much money? This study will help teachers and administrators decide if they
should spend the $80,000 to $200,000 dollars on a new modular lab or explore other options.
And since this seems to be a trend on so many schools in The United States I feel it will greatly
add to the technology body of knowledge. Spending large amounts of money to carelessly can
put a school district and their technology education department in a great financial bind and this
study will try to decide if it is worthwhile.
Methodology
I will observe several modular labs from nearby schools. I will create a checklist to evaluate
the labs. The checklist will contain components of a learning environment that is conducive to
learning. I will generate this list based on common themes between Charlotte Danielson’s four
domains of teaching responsibility, O`Bannon and Pucketts’ strategies for new learning
environments and The SREB (Southern Regional Education Board’s Ten Strategies For Creating
A Classroom Culture Of High Expectations. The Danielson Model is the model our school uses
to evaluate their teachers. O`Bannon and Pucketts’ strategies come from the ISTE (International
Society for Technology in Education) NETS for Teachers which are standards for integrating
technology into the classroom. And the SREB lays out the most thorough and comprehensive
model for classroom environment that I could find.
Each source discusses the importance of creating a student-centered environment with many
different sources of instruction and sets high expectations for student learning. They also discuss
the importance of having students work together in groups and fostering critical thinking
activities. According to these sources it is also important, especially in today’s educational
world, to have a flexible teaching plan that can be adapted to students with special learning
needs. These common themes will be reflected in my checklist that I will use as a comparison
3

29. Research Proposal [Type text] Kenneth L. Brewer
while I am observing the modular instructional labs. The checklist will serve as a model
classroom that is conducive to student learning.
Value For The Study
If schools are to continue using modular lab technology, then, there should be evidence that it
serves as an appropriate learning environment for learners. If schools are going to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars on lab equipment, curriculum and lessons, then, it should prove
to meet state standards and coincide with the No Child Left Behind requirements. We need to
find out if modular labs are worth the planning and preparation time that teachers spend learning
curriculum, installing software and maintaining equipment. These are urgent times for educators
and administrator’s money must be spent wisely.
As of spring 2008 students began taking Science And Technology tests as part of the PSSA
assessments. Schools are now evaluated based on their students’ technical literacy. For this
reason, we have to pay close attention to what is being taught in technology education
classrooms and how it is being taught. So if modular labs are to continue to be a part of our
technology department they must meet the standards for an environment that is conducive to
learning. If our students are being assessed on their technical literacy we have to start taking
technology education more seriously.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 has created a need for schools to start looking closely at
what is being taught in classrooms and how it is being taught. Schools can no longer afford to
spend money on resources that haven’t been proven to aide in student learning. If modular labs
are going to remain a part of our school than we must prove that they create an appropriate
learning environment for our students. The curriculum must meet state standards and the
activities must invoke a higher level of learning. As of spring 2008 technology education became
a part of our schools assessment and we must take it more serious.
References
Harris, K. (2005). Teachers' Perceptions of Modular Technology Education Laboratories.
Journal of Industrial TeacherEducation, 42(4), 52-71. Retrieved from Education
Research Complete database.Schwaller, A. (2002). Technology Education and
Modular Labs. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(2), 135. Retrieved from
Education Research Complete database.
Lebrum, David C., 2001, A Study Of Modularized Instruction And It’s Role In The
Technology Education Curriculum at Southern Door Schools, August, p18
Journell, S., & Cooper, O. (2000). TECHNOLOGY LABS AS DYNAMIC LEARNING
CENTERS. Media & Methods, 37(1), 34. Retrieved from Education Research
Complete database.
de Graw, B., & Smallwood, J. (1997). Modular TE instruction--what Kentucky teachers think.
Tech Directions, 56(9), 19. Retrieved from Vocational and Career Collection database.
4

30. Research Proposal [Type text] Kenneth L. Brewer
(1996). Educators Address Modular Instruction. Technology Teacher, 55(6), 27.
Retrieved from Vocational and Career Collection database.
Gloeckner, G., & Adamsom, G. (1996). Modular technology education. Technology
Teacher, 56(1), 16. Retrieved from Vocational and Career Collection database.
Primack, B., & Hobbs, R. (2009). Association of Various Components of Media Literacy
and Adolescent Smoking. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(2), 192-201.
Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Schittek Janda, M., Tani Botticelli, A., Mattheos, N., Nebel, D., Wagner, A., Nattestad,
A., et al. (2005). Computer-mediated instructional video: a randomised
controlled trial comparing a sequential and a segmented instructional video in
surgical hand wash. European Journal of Dental Education, 9(2), 53-58.
doi:10.1111/j.1600-0579.2004.00366.x
Sildus, T. (2006). The Effect of a Student Video Project on Vocabulary Retention of
First-Year Secondary School German Students. Foreign Language Annals, 39(1),
54-70. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.
Lee, M., McLoughlin, C., & Chan, A. (2008). Talk the talk: Learner-generated podcasts
as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(3), 501-521. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00746.x.
Choi, I., & Lee, K. (2009). Designing and implementing a case-based learning
environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: classroom
management problems for prospective teachers. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 57(1), 99-129. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9089-2.
Papastergiou, M. (2009). Online Computer Games as Collaborative Learning
Haynie III, W. (2008). Maximizing the Learning Value of Tests in Technology
Education Classes: A Summary of Research Findings. Technology Teacher, 67(6),
5-9. Retrieved from Vocational and Career Collection database.
Sildus, T. (2006). The Effect of a Student Video Project on Vocabulary Retention of
First-Year Secondary School German Students. Foreign Language Annals, 39(1),
54-70. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.th
5

31. Are modular instructional labs conducive to student learning?
Ken Brewer
East Stroudsburg University
Research II
Spring 2010

32. To Whom It May Concern,
I am a Graduate Student at East Stroudsburg University. I am conducting a survey on
Modular Instructional Labs to determine whether or not they are conducive to student
learning. Please take a moment and fill out this survey. When you are finished, please hit
finish at the bottom of the page.
You are under no obligation to take this survey. The survey results will be completely
confidential. Your administrators will not have access to your results. You do not have to
put your name on it, and it will be completely anonymous. You may stop taking the
survey at any time, but, once you hit finish on the survey you cannot disregard it.
Thank you,
Kenneth L. Brewer
Instructional Technology Graduate Student
East Stroudsburg University

33. For this survey I am referring to modular labs that meet the following
characteristics:
 Pre-fabricated labs that are bought from a company.
 curriculum, tests, quizzes, hardware and software was put together by the
vendor and sold as a whole to the school.
 Contains multi-media presentation that the students read and navigate at their
own pace
Please circle 1 – 5 for the following statements with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree.
1. Have you ever taught in a modular instructional lab? Y N
-If yes, please keep reading. If no, please stop and return the survey.
__________________________________________________________________
Please circle 1 – 5 for the following statements with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 =
strongly agree
2. I found that students work through the 1 2 3 4 5
modular labs with little or no enticement
from the teacer.
3. Students stay on task throughout the course 1 2 3 4 5
of a module.
4. Students complete all assigned work 1 2 3 4 5
during the course of a module.
5. Modular labs provide adequate lab 1 2 3 4 5
activities for students.
6. Modular labs provide adequate projects 1 2 3 4 5
for students.
7. Modular labs cover high-level technology 1 2 3 4 5
concepts.
8. The content of modular labs relates closely 1 2 3 4 5
To the Pennsylvania State Standards for
Science And Technology
9. Modular labs provide adequate modification 1 2 3 4 5
for students with learning disabilities.
(narration, closed captioning, etc.)
10. Modular labs allow teachers to modify 1 2 3 4 5
portions of the content needs of students
with learning disabilities.

34. 11. Modular labs provide differentiated types 1 2 3 4 5
of instuctions.
(i.e. video clips, audio clips pictures, animations, etc.)
12. Modular labs use instructional technology 1 2 3 4 5
tools appropriately
13. Modular labs are conducive to student 1 2 3 4 5
Learning
_____________________________________________________________________
Feel free to answer the following question with as much detail as you want.
14. Do you feel modular labs are conducive to Learning?
Why or why not?
15. If you said no to #14, how can modular labs be improved to make them conducive
to learning?