The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm

The impact of
The impact of learning culture on learning culture
worker response to new
technology
201
Robert F. Reardon
Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, Texas, USA Received 19 December 2008
Revised 12 October 2009
Accepted 6 November 2009
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to provide a framework to measure the response of blue-collar
workers to new technology in manufacturing and to establish the relationship between learning
culture and that response.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected with a survey questionnaire from
12 manufacturing sites that were implementing a number of diverse new technologies. The dimensions
of worker response were identified with exploratory factor analysis and the relationship between these
factors and learning culture was established with path analysis.
Findings – Factor analysis identified seven dimensions of worker response: disgruntlement,
job-security concerns, accommodation, informal learning, resistance, discussion, and formal learning.
Learning culture had a large, statistically significant relationship with disgruntlement and medium,
statistically significant relationships with job-security concerns, accommodation, informal learning,
and formal learning.
Research limitations/implications – The sample was limited to manufacturing locations in the
southeastern USA and the respondents were almost all male and either White or African-American.
Practical implications – These findings establish a strong positive relationship between learning
culture and behavioral, affective and cognitive responses of workers to new technology. This is key for
supporting learning culture in organizations that naturally are inclined to worker isolation and
independence.
Originality/value – Empirical work of this nature is limited in manufacturing facilities. These
organizations tend to be closed to research because of concerns regarding the security of proprietary
information or the personal safety of the researcher.
Keywords Manufacturing systems, Blue collar workers, Learning, Factor analysis,
United States of America
Paper type Research paper

In the USA, the viability of manufacturing companies is challenged by high capital

investment and low returns on that investment. Despite this, companies invest in new
technology for a number of reasons. Companies look to increase productivity, improve
product quality, respond more quickly to the marketplace, and decrease operating
costs, while complying with governmental safety and environmental regulations.
Managers often invest in new or improved technologies to meet one or more of these
goals, and technological change is happening at unprecedented rates in many
manufacturing sectors.
Many factors impact the acceptance and success of new technology in Journal of Workplace Learning
Vol. 22 No. 4, 2010
manufacturing. Characteristics on an innovation can slow or impede its acceptance. pp. 201-211
Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) identified several characteristics that have a positive q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1366-5626
relationship with the success of an innovation. These included efficacy, robustness, DOI 10.1108/13665621011040662
JWL scope, and adaptability. Rogers (1995) named five attributes that would speed the
22,4 adoption of innovations; amount of benefit, compatibility with existing technology,
simplicity, trialability, and visibility of the benefits.
Scholars also describe the interaction between the user (in the case of the current
study, the blue-collar worker on the manufacturing floor) and the new innovation.
Davis (1986) developed the technology acceptance model to describe the response of
202 users to new computer technology. In his model, the construct of design features had a
causal relationship to the potential users’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use. These two cognitive constructs had a direct relationship to the constructs of
attitude towards use and actual use. Davis’s (1986) model has been modified in other
studies (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000, Venkatesh and Morris, 2000) to find that age and
gender can moderator the relationship between the features of an innovation and the
employee’s response to the technology.
Errors, misapplication, and frustration can slow the acceptance and reduce the
benefit of innovations. Zaltman et al. (1973) describes a model of how employees
respond negatively to innovations. According to them, the response depends on
characteristics of the innovation as well as the characteristics of the employee. Rogers
(1995) asserts that negative responses to innovations can slow or stop the adoption of
new technology. In a manufacturing environment, the adoption is not optional and the
results can be expressed as resistance to change (Levine, 1980).
With new technology in manufacturing, the stakes can be quite high. In some cases
(for example, petroleum refineries), mistakes can cost millions, result in public outcry,
or injure employees. Therefore, it is in the interest of companies to take steps to
facilitate the transition to the new technology. Some researchers (Havelock and
Havelock, 1973; Rogers, 1995; Tornatzky and Fleischer, 1990) call for skilled change
agents or champions to facilitate acceptance of innovation. Rogers (1995) asserts that
the change agent is responsible for two-way communications that stabilizes adoptions
and prevents discontinuance. The primary mechanism for success by the change agent
is effective communications.
Use of change agents for each innovation is not the norm in American
manufacturing today. Change occurs rapidly and companies work hard to reduce
staffing. In lieu of a formal change agent, companies often rely on organizational
learning to quickly adopt new technology. According to Marsick and Watkins (1999),
learning organizations work by facilitating communications within and among all the
levels of the organization. This improves performance by keeping employees on focus
towards the goals of the organization (Senge, 1990). In manufacturing, attempts to
implement learning organizations include the creation of teams or project networks to
improve two-way communications (Ayas, 1996; Barton and Delbridge, 2006). These
authors assume that learning organizations facilitate the success of manufacturing.
Shipton et al. (2002) attempted to demonstrate this by linking learning mechanisms
with profitability. The authors demonstrated a significant correlation between
established quality programs such as TQM, and learning mechanisms. However, the
research did not investigate the impact of learning mechanisms on the financial
performance of manufacturing organizations.
Presumably, a strong learning culture, such as that found in a learning organization,
would increase the social networking associated with new technology (Wenger, 1998).
According to Rogers (1995) the rate of adoption is directly related to positive social The impact of
networking about the new technology. learning culture
With some degree of extrapolation, we might assume that creating a climate of
learning should speed the smooth transition to the new technology. This would result
in higher efficiency, fewer errors and a more positive experience for the worker. This,
in turn, would lead to improved return on the capital expended for new technology.
The purpose of this study is to establish a relationship between the response of 203
blue-collar workers to new technology and the nature of the learning culture in their
organization.

Method
The intent of this work was to determine the relationship of learning culture in
manufacturing to the response of blue-collar workers when new technology is
introduced into the workplace. To do this, data were collected from a number of
manufacturing sites with a survey questionnaire.

Survey development
The survey collected data on three different aspects of the context. In one section, the
questionnaire attempted to measure the overall learning culture as perceived by the
worker. The next section collected information about the worker’s response to the new
technology. The final section solicited demographic information from each respondent.
Learning culture. For this, I used the short version of the Dimensions of the
Learning Organization Questionnaireq (DLOQq), developed by Marsick and Watkins
(2003) and validated in subsequent studies (Yang et al., 2004). The short version
consists of one Likert-type item per dimension and produces a unitary measure of
learning culture. According to Yang et al. (2004), there is a strong positive correlation
between this score and the learning culture of an organization.
Worker response. Items for the survey’s central construct, worker response to new
technology, came from three different sources. First, the literature of diffusion of
innovations, informal learning, learning organizations, stages of concern, and
technological change management was carefully reviewed for anything that might be a
response. Next, the researchers reviewed the transcripts of two prior qualitative studies
of change in the workplace. These transcripts were examined for dialogue that could be
a response that blue-collar workers might have to technological change. Finally, a
brainstorming session was held with four blue-collar workers from a manufacturing
facility (three chemical plant operators and one mechanic). The workers were asked to
describe how they dealt with imposed technological change. The session was
audiotaped and transcribed. This transcript was closely examined for responses to
change. These responses were also recorded in the database. The 220 items generated
from this process were reviewed, refined and validated. The final questionnaire
included 54 items related to this construct. The questionnaire was tested in a pilot
study given to 44 blue-collar workers (Reardon, 2004). The pilot study went well and
the questionnaire was not modified.

Survey administration and sample demographics

The intended population for this study was blue-collar workers in manufacturing
throughout the USA. The researcher used personal contacts and referrals to solicit
JWL participation from 30 manufacturing facilities. All of the contacts were in the
22,4 southeastern United States or Texas, and all of them were manufacturing facilities that
maintained 24-hour operations. Several of the locations did not have recent changes,
others had high-priority needs that precluded participation, and others declined to
participate for fear of revealing confidential information. In the end, 12 facilities agreed
to participate (see Table I).
204 The typical respondent was a white male, in his forties, with a high-school
education. Because of the low number of female respondents, gender was not
considered in the following statistical analysis. In addition, ethnicity was considered as
a dichotomous variable (White or African-American) because of the low representation
of other ethnicities in the sample.

Factor analysis
The survey items were intended to represent a relatively complete list of possible
responses to new technology, but the list was not categorized. In order to discover
dimensions of worker response, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 288
completed questionnaires. Factor solutions were run for possible models from two
factors through fourteen factors. All of the factor solutions were compared and reviewed
to identify the solution with the least number of factors that were conceptually
meaningful. With this method, the seven-factor solution was selected. This solution
explained nearly 50 per cent of the variance of responses. Table II lists the factors, their
assigned labels, and the survey items associated with each of the factors.

Number Number Response

Description Innovation targeted returned rate (%)

1 Commodity plastics Process simulator computer for

training 76 33 43
2 Petrochemicals Large process automation
project 62 26 42
3 Specialty papers New process control computer
system 24 5 21
4 Paper mill Process data historian
computer 76 40 53
5 Consumer toiletries Several process modifications 50 28 56
6 Diverse industrial New process control computer
chemicals system 73 22 30
7 Pharmaceuticals New process control computer
system 46 32 69
8 Plastic sheeting Laboratory data system 50 17 34
9 Plastics New line – updated from two
compounding existing lines 30 23 79
10 Plastics New process control computer
manufacturing system 44 26 59
11 Iron foundry Several large changes to the
foundry 41 29 71
12 Plastics New process control computer
Table I. manufacturing system 12 5 42
Participating locations Total 584 288 49
 The impact of
Mean item
Factor mean Responses Loading learning culture
I: Disgruntlement 2.32 I felt that my questions about the change were
unanswered 0.82
I felt that management ignored our concerns about
the change 0.79
I was unhappy with how the change was introduced 0.76
205
I complained about the change with my co-workers 0.75
I complained about the change to my supervisor 0.72
The change made me feel powerless 0.68
I was suspicious about the motives of the people
introducing the change 0.66
I was suspicious of what my company told me about
the change 0.66
I felt that there was too little time for me to learn the
change 0.63
I felt more satisfied with my job because of the
change 20.63
The change confused me 0.63
I was suspicious about the ability of the people
introducing the change 0.61
I felt that some people withheld information about
the change 0.60
I felt stressed because of the change 0.60
I liked the change from the start 20.59
I complained about the change with my friends and
family 0.58
I was concerned that my job performance might drop
because of the change 0.50
I felt angry about the change 0.48
I encouraged my coworkers to make the change 20.46
I have learned ways to make my job easier with the
change 20.45
I was concerned that my job performance might drop
because of the change 0.50
II: Job-security 2.12 I worried that I might lose my job because of the
concerns change 0.80
The change made me lose prestige relative to my co-
workers 0.75
The change made me doubt my ability 0.69
I was concerned that my co-workers might lose their
jobs because of the change 0.58
I was concerned that my job performance might drop
because of the change 0.55
III: Accommodation 2.79 I learned about the change to increase my job
security 0.61
I helped others learn about the change 0.53
I learned about the change so that I could collaborate
with my co-workers 0.52
I tried to visualize how the change would work 0.52
I modified the change to make it fit my work 0.51 Table II.
I have learned ways to make my job easier with the Dimensions of response
change 0.46 to imposed technological
(continued) change
JWL Mean item
22,4 Factor mean Responses Loading
IV: Informal 2.62 I learned about the change with hands-on training 0.68
learning I learned about the change by watching others 0.60
I learned about the change one step at a time 0.47
I relied on my personal notes until I got used to the
206 change 0.46
V: Resistance 1.94 I delayed making the change 0.66
I never made the change 0.66
I did not want to accept the change 0.55
I felt angry about the change 0.55
VI: Discussing the 2.73 I discussed the change with my friends and family 0.69
change I discussed the change with my supervisor 0.62
I discussed the change with my co-workers 0.61
VII: Formal learning 2.43 I learned about the change from printed materials 0.57
I learned about the change by going to classroom
Table II. training 0.50

Factor I: disgruntlement. The first factor included 20 items with loading at or above
0.45. These employee responses seem to share disgruntlement as a theme and reflect
the anger, dissatisfaction, discontent and frustration of the employee. Therefore, these
responses might be seen (from the viewpoint of the employee and the company) as
undesirable responses.
Factor II: job-security concerns. The second factor grouped responses related to
employees’ sense of security. These items mention concern over the ability to do the
job, losing prestige relative to coworkers, and coworkers losing their jobs.
Factor III: accommodation. The employee responses found in Factor III were labeled
Accommodation because they seem to describe the employees’ attempts to relate the
imposed technological change to their environment. They describe the employees’
attempts to teach others how to use the imposed technological change, or how they
modified the change to fit their situation.
Factor IV: informal learning. Factor IV grouped employee responses that described
some forms of experiential or informal learning. The high means for these items
indicated that they were some of the strongest employee responses to imposed
technological changes.
Factor V: resistance. A common theme that cuts across the employee responses of
Factor V is resistance to the imposed technological change. Some employees did not
want to adopt the imposed technological change and took steps to delay or avoid
adoption. These employee responses are different from Factor I: Disgruntlement since
these employee responses reflect an action taken against the imposed technological
change.
Factor VI: discussing the change. Factor VI included items related to the discussion
of the imposed technological change. In the literature, this discussion is reported as
social networking.
Factor VII: formal learning. These employee responses are actions of the employees
to take part in training or learning opportunities sponsored by the company or the
implementers of the imposed technological change.
Path analysis The impact of
Path analysis allows simultaneous multivariate analysis of the relationships between learning culture
exogenous and endogenous variables as well as the covariance among the exogenous
variables. In this study, the path model for each factor was independently analyzed.
Figure 1 shows the path model for FI: Disgruntlement.
The single-headed arrows between the exogenous variables and the response (FI:
Disgruntlement) indicate the relationship. The double-headed arrows indicate 207
covariance among the exogenous variables. The circle, labeled “e”, is the
unaccounted variance, also called error or residual. Figure 2 shows the standardized
results for this model.

Figure 1.
Path model for Factor I:
Disgruntlement

Figure 2.
Standardized results for
FI: Disgruntlement
JWL The numbers next to the single-headed arrows are the standardized path coefficients, r.
22,4 These values can range from 0 to 1 or 2 1 to 0. The value 2 0.32 indicates a strong
negative relationship between learning culture (dloq) and FI: disgruntlement. That is,
as organizations with a strong learning culture have employees that are less
disgruntled with technological change. The standardized coefficients on the
double-headed arrows indicate the strength of covariance between the exogenous
208 variables. Finally, the 0.19 is the squared multiple correlation coefficient and is the
percentage of variance explained by the model (the effect size). Table III shows the
value of all covariances.
In this Table, CR stands for critical ratio, which is the test statistic for each
relationship. It is calculated by dividing the unstandardized estimate by the standard
error and is similar to the t statistic. The r statistic is the standardized coefficient and
r 2 is an effect size for each individual covariance. As a general rule, 0.001 is considered
a small effect size, 0.06 is medium, and 0.14 or higher is large. In this study, the
supervisors had a significantly more positive perspective on the learning cultures of
their organizations than their employees. In addition, African Americans were
significantly younger (on average) than their white co-workers. This can probably be
attributed to changes in hiring practices of the last 30 years. Likewise, African
Americans were underrepresented in the supervisory roles. Although these
covariances were significant, their practical significance was small.
Table IV shows only the significant relationships between exogenous and
endogenous variables for each factor.

Discussion
Learning culture
DLOQ, taken as a measure of learning culture was a significant predictor of four
factors: FI: disgruntlement, FII: job security concerns, FII: accommodation, FIV:
informal learning, and FVII: formal learning. The last two, formal learning
(CR ¼ 2.818, p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.029) and informal learning (CR ¼ 4.622, p , 0.001,

Estimate SE CR P r r2

Dloq ,– . Location 0.319 0.698 0.457 0.648 0.029 0.001

Age ,– . Location 20.807 1.813 20.445 0.656 20.028 0.001
Education ,– . Location 0.036 0.215 0.170 0.865 0.011 , 0.001
Race ,– . Location 20.072 0.088 20.822 0.411 20.052 0.003
Super ,– . Location 0.094 0.056 1.688 0.091 0.107 0.011
Age ,– . Dloq 0.944 1.880 0.502 0.616 0.032 0.001
Education ,– . Dloq 20.050 0.223 20.224 0.823 20.014 , 0.001
Race ,– . Dloq 20.096 0.092 21.050 0.294 20.066 0.004
Super ,– . Dloq 0.123 0.058 2.125 0.034 0.135 0.018
Education ,– . Age 21.055 0.582 21.813 0.070 20.115 0.013
Race ,– . Age 20.736 0.242 23.045 0.002 20.195 0.038
Super ,– . Age 0.136 0.150 0.910 0.363 0.057 0.003
Table III. Race ,– . Education 0.013 0.028 0.479 0.632 0.030 0.001
Strength of covariance for Super ,– . Race 0.015 0.007 2.060 0.039 0.131 0.017
the exogenous variables Super ,– . Education 0.024 0.018 1.348 0.178 0.085 0.007
 The impact of
Factor R2 Significant predictors CR P R r2
learning culture
FI: Disgruntlement 0.189 Supervisor status 22.729 0.006 2 0.156 0.026
Education 2.744 0.006 0.157 0.025
DLOQ 25.552 , 0.001 2 0.319 0.101
FII: Job security concerns 0.111 Race 22.383 0.017 2 0.147 0.022
DLOQ 22.469 0.014 2 0.149 0.022 209
Location 23.831 , 0.001 2 0.236 0.056
FIII: Accommodation 0.071 DLOQ 3.720 , 0.001 0.229 0.052
FIV: Informal learning 0.121 DLOQ 4.622 , 0.001 0.277 0.077
Location 3.315 , 0.001 0.198 0.039
FV: Resistance 0.074 Age 3.284 , 0.001 0.209 0.044
FVI: Discussion 0.021 Table IV.
FVII: Formal learning 0.096 DLOQ 2.818 0.005 0.171 0.029 Significant predictors for
Location 23.432 , 0.001 2 0.207 0.043 each factor

r 2 ¼ 0.077), validate the factor analysis. Higher learning cultures are associated with
more learning among blue-collar workers.
There is a medium to large, statistically significant relationship between learning
culture and FI: disgruntlement (C.R. ¼ 2 5.552, p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.101). In addition,
there is a small, but significant, relationship between learning culture and FII: job
security concerns (C.R. ¼ 2 2.383, p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.022). This indicates that, in a
situation where new technology is being introduced into manufacturing, workers in
organizations with a stronger learning culture have significantly more positive
affective responses. There is less frustration, fear, anger, and resentment. Presumably,
more positive worker attitudes result in other positive manifestations throughout the
workplace.
FIII: accommodation includes behaviors that incorporate the new technology into
the day-to-day work activities. These technologies, like the modern industrial
workplace in which they are situated, are complex and multidimensional. The
blue-collar workers look for ways to make their job easier, more productive, or more
enjoyable. When they find the new technology to be beneficial, they begin to
experiment with ways to maximize its benefits to them and the company. This
accommodation is one way in which a company increases the return on their
investment. The path analysis in this study showed a medium-sized, significant
relationship between learning culture and FIII: accommodation (C.R. ¼ 3.720,
p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.052).
FII: job security concerns, FIV: informal learning, and FVI: formal learning varied
significantly from location to location. This variation is not (necessarily) related to the
situations described in this study, but is a manifestation of the variability of the
businesses and their practices.
Interestingly, education and status as supervisor were small, but significant,
predictors of FI: disgruntlement. Workers with more education were less disgruntled
with the technological changes (C.R. ¼ 2 2.729, p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.026). Supervisors
were more upset about technological change than workers were (C.R. ¼ 2.744,
p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.024). At first, this finding may seem counterintuitive since
supervisors enjoy more power and autonomy (in general) than the people they
supervise. However, in this study, these supervisors were held responsible for many
JWL aspects of the change. In many cases, they had to modify work procedures or train their
22,4 employees. In all cases, the routine work structures were stressed or modified.
Finally, there was a medium significant relationship between age and FV: resistance
(C.R. ¼ 3.284, p , 0.001, r 2 ¼ 0.044). Older people are cited as being resistant to
change and, in this case, they were.

210
Significance
Much has been written about learning organization and its benefit to the success of
organizations (Marsick and Watkins, 1999; Senge, 1990). Scholars such as Haasen and
Slocum (1996) have linked the learning culture of manufacturing organizations with
productivity. Others (Peter and Ross, 2003) have found that learning organizations
have the potential to have more continuous improvement through such processes as
total quality management. However, little has been written about the link between
learning culture and the success of new technology in manufacturing.
In this study, we found that learning culture had an inverse relationship with the
negative employee responses of disgruntlement and job-security concerns.
Additionally, learning culture had a strong positive relationship to the incorporation
of technological innovations into their day-to-day work activities. These relationships
are all beneficial; to the employee, the organization, or both, and should help maximize
the positive consequences associated with implementation of new technologies in
manufacturing. These findings also bring another level of support to the construct of
learning organizations in manufacturing.

References
Ayas, K. (1996), “Design for learning and innovation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 29, pp. 898-901.
Barton, H. and Delbridge, R. (2006), “Delivering the ‘learning factory’? Evidence on HR roles in
contemporary manufacturing”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30,
pp. 385-95.
Davis, F.D. (1986), A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user
Information Systems: Theory and Results, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Haasen, A. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1996), “Opel Eisenach GMBH – creating a high-productivity
workplace”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, pp. 80-5.
Havelock, R.G. and Havelock, M.C. (1973), Training for Change Agents: A Guide to the Design of
Training Programs in Education and Other Fields, The University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Levine, A. (1980), Why Innovations Fail, State University of New York, Albany, NY.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (1999), Facilitating Learning Organizations, Gower, Aldershot.
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2003), “Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning
culture: the dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5, pp. 132-51.
Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Age differences in technology adoption decisions:
implications for a changing workforce”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 375-403.
Peter, M. and Ross, C. (2003), “From continuous improvement to organisational learning:
developmental theory”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, pp. 272-82.
Reardon, R.F. (2004), Responses of Skilled Industrial Workers to Imposed Technological Change, The impact of
Adult Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
learning culture
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Doubleday Currency, New York, NY.
Shipton, H., Dawson, J., West, M. and Patterson, M. (2002), “Learning in manufacturing
organizations: what factors predict effectiveness?”, Human Resource Development 211
International, Vol. 5, pp. 55-72.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Processes of Technological Innovation, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 115-39.
Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Yang, B., Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V. (2004), “The construct of learning organization:
dimensions, measurement, and validation”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 15, pp. 31-55.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973), Innovations and Organizatons, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.

About the author

Robert F. Reardon is an Assistant Professor in the Education PhD Program at Texas State
University – San Marcos, where he teaches research methods, educational philosophy, human
resource development, and leadership. Prior to coming to Texas State, he was an engineer in
polymer manufacturing, working for DuPont, British Petroleum, and Solvay. He continues to
consult, primarily working in the oil industry. In addition, he serves on the Chemical Committee
of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. His research interests
include workplace learning, continuing professional development, and science education. Robert
F. Reardon can be contacted at: rreardon@txstate.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints