Technological Literacy for All

Technological Literacy for All

A Rationaleand Structure for the Study of Technology

SECOND EDITION

Technology ishuman innovation

in action

Technological Literacy for All:A Rationale and Structure forthe Study of Technology

International TechnologyEducation Association

Technology forAll Americans Project

This material is based upon work supported by the following:

National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers ESI-9355826 and0000897 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administrationunder Grant Numbers NCCW-0064 and NCCS-591. Any opinions,findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Science Foundation or the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration.

Copyright © 2006 by the International Technology EducationAssociation. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publicationmay be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, orstored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior writtenpermission of the publisher.

This document is being disseminated by the International TechnologyEducation Association

1914 Association DriveReston, Virginia 20191(703) 860-2100 (voice)(703) 860-0353 (fax)[email protected] (e-mail)http://www.iteaconnect.org (home page)

Contents

P R E F A C E 1

THE POWER AND THE PROMISE OF TECHNOLOGY 2

The Need for Technological Literacy 4

Confusion About Technology 5

What Is Technology? 5

Other Definitions Relevant to Technology 6

Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Person 8

Developing Technological Literacy Through Formal Education 9

The Goal of Technological Literacy for All 10

A STRUCTURE FOR THE CONTENT OF TECHNOLOGY 11

The Evolution of Taxometric Organizers of Technology 12

Overview of STL 17

Features of STL 17

Format of STL 17

Standards 19

Benchmarks in STL 20

Other Standards and Publications 21

TEACHING TECHNOLOGY 23

A Study of Technology During the Elementary School Years 24

A Study of Technology During the Middle School Years 25

A Study of Technology During the High School Years and Beyond 27

A CALL TO ACTION 29

R E F E R E N C E S A N D R E S O U R C E S 31

A P P E N D I C E S 36International Technology Education Association 36Technology for All Americans Project 37Center to Advance the Teaching of Technology and Science (CATTS) 39Acknowledgments 40Reviewers 42

This document is about educa-tion and a subject vital tohuman welfare and economicprosperity. It is about invigorat-

ing the entire educational systemwith high interest, student-focusedcontent and methods. It is aboutdeveloping a measure of technologi-cal literacy within each graduate sothat every American can understand

the natureof tech-nology,appropri-ately usetechnologi-cal devicesand

processes, and participate in society’sdecisions on technological issues.

Technological literacy is muchmore than just knowledge aboutcomputers and their application. Itinvolves a vision where each citizenhas a degree of knowledge aboutthe nature, behavior, power, andconsequences of technology from a broad perspective. Inherently, itinvolves educational programswhere learners become engaged in critical thinking as they designand develop products, systems, andenvironments to solve practicalproblems.

From 1994–1996, the Inter-national Technology EducationAssociation (ITEA) received grantsfrom the National Science Foun-dation (NSF) and the National

Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration (NASA) to develop the firstedition of this document (ITEA,1996). The first edition ofTechnology for All Americans: ARationale and Structure for theStudy of Technology (R&S) (ITEA,1996) was revised in 2005 to reflectthe work of ITEA’s Technology forAll Americans Project (TfAAP) indeveloping Standards forTechnological Literacy: Content forthe Study of Technology (STL)(ITEA, 2000/2002), AdvancingExcellence in TechnologicalLiteracy: Student Assessment,Professional Development, andProgram Standards (AETL), andthe four companion addenda tothese standards documents (ITEA,2004; ITEA, 2005a; ITEA, 2005b;ITEA, 2005c).

Technology for All Americans: A Rationale and Structure for theStudy of Technology is the firstpublication in a series envisioned tohelp educators improve andstrengthen the preparation of eachlearner. Subsequent work builtupon this background and isincluded in STL and AETL. Thestandards provide a general framework from which schools can develop curricula and programs. This material provides the criteria for studentassessment, curricula content,professional development, and program enhancement.

1

PrefaceThe first part of this document

discusses the power and thepromise of technology and the needfor technological literacy. The nextsection provides a transition of uni-versal processes, knowledge, andcontexts of technology generated inthe First edition of R&S to STLand AETL. The third part describeshow technology should be integrat-ed into the core of the curriculumfrom kindergarten through sec-ondary and post secondary educa-tion. The fourth and final section of this document challenges all concerned to make technological literacy a national priority.

This document has been pre-pared by ITEA’s Technology for AllAmericans Project through assis-tance from writing consultants. Ithas been reviewed by hundreds ofpractitioners of technology, engi-neering, science, mathematics, andother areas at all levels. Input hasbeen gathered from a group ofwriting consultants, a NationalCommission for TechnologyEducation, and educators acrossthe country. Please read the docu-ment, study it, and join theInternational Technology EducationAssociation in calling for andimplementing the educationalreform necessary to ensure tech-nological literacy for all.

Technological literacy

is much more than

just knowledge about

computers and their

application.

Through technology, people havechanged the world. In the driveto satisfy needs and wants,people have developed and

improved ways to communicate,travel, build structures, makeproducts, cure disease, and providefood, among thousands of otherinnovations. This has created aworld of technological productsand machines, roadways andbuildings, and data and globalcommunications. It has resulted in acomplex world of constant change.

Each technological advancebuilds on prior developments. Each advance leads to additional

potentials, problems, and moreadvances in an accelerating spiralof development and complexity.The acceleration of technologicalchange, and the greater potentialand power that it brings, inspires,and thrills some people butconfuses—even alienates—others.Many people embrace technologi-cal change, believing that throughtechnology their lives will be madeeasier. They see the growing abilityto solve age-old problems rangingfrom food supply to education andpollution. Others see a confusinginterconnection of impersonaldevices and fear social, ecological,or military catastrophe. Some peo-ple find that through communica-tion and transportation technology,they can more easily maintain theirpersonal relationships; others dis-cover that the same technologiescan strain relationships. Some

2

The Power and the Promise of Technology

believe that through technologicaladvances people create new jobsand new industries; others seeautomation replacing skilled laborand changing their way of life.

There is truth in all of theseviews, for technology is created,managed, and used by societies,governments, industries, andindividuals according to their goalsand values. For example, biotec-nological developments caneradicate a plague or cause one.Industrial plants can be used toclean water or to pollute it. Nuclearenergy can be used to providepower to heat millions of homes or to destroy millions of lives.

Technological systems havebecome so interrelated with oneanother and with today’s social sys-tems that any new development canhave far reaching effects. Recentlypeople have seen that one develop-ment in microwave technology canalter the eating habits of millions;that an advance in radio telecom-munications can create a multi-bil-lion-dollar industry almostovernight; and that a commonrefrigerant can damage the Earth’sprotective atmosphere.

The promise of the future liesnot in technology alone, but inpeople’s ability to use, manage,evaluate, and understand it.

3

Cour

tesy o

f Bob

Veltr

i

Amajor consequence of acceler-ated technological change is adifference in levels of techno-logical ability and understand-

ing. There is a widening gapbetween the knowledge, capability,and confidence of the average citi-zen and that of the inventors,researchers, and implementers whocontinually revolutionize the tech-nological world. While it is logicaland necessary for the developers to have advanced technologicalcapability, it is senseless for thegeneral public to be technologicallyilliterate.

Because of the power of today’stechnological processes, society andindividuals need to decide what,how, and when to develop or usevarious technological systems. Sincetechnological issues and problemshave more than one viable solution,decision making should reflect thevalues of the people and help themreach their goals. Such decisionmaking depends upon all citizensacquiring a basic level of tech-nological literacy, which is definedas: the ability to use, manage, eval-uate, and understand technology.

Indeed, technological literacy is vital to individual, community,and national economic prosperity.Beyond economic vitality is therealization that how people developand apply technology has becomecritical to future generations,society, and even the Earth’scontinued ability to sustain life.

❚ The ability to use technol-ogy involves the successfuloperation of the key prod-ucts and systems of thetime. This includes know-ing the components ofexisting macro-systems, orhuman adaptive systems,and how the systemsbehave.

❚ The ability to managetechnology involves ensur-ing that all technologicalactivities are efficient andappropriate.

❚ The ability to evaluatetechnology involves beingable to make judgmentsand decisions about tech-nology on an informedbasis rather than anemotional one.

❚ Understanding technologyinvolves more than factsand information, but alsothe ability to synthesizethe information into newinsights.

4

Practically every job today depends upon people learning new technological processes and systems.

The Need for Technological Literacy

Technological LiteracyTechnological literacy is the ability to use, manage, evaluate, andunderstand technology.


Cour

tesy o

f Bob

Veltr

i

5

Confusion About TechnologyUnfortunately, a majority ofpeople do not know what technol-ogy is. In 2002 and 2004, theInternational Technology Edu-cation Association (ITEA) con-ducted Gallup Polls on “WhatAmericans Think About Tech-nology” (Rose & Dugger, 2002;Rose, Gallup, Dugger, & Stark-weather, 2004). In both polls, theGallup Organization found thatthe public had a very narrowdefinition of technology as beingcomputers rather than the broaderview of technology held by expertsin technology, engineering, andscience. Another major findingwas there was near total consensusamong the public sampled that

schools should include the study oftechnology in the curriculum.

What Is Technology?There are many definitions oftechnology. ITEA’s Standards forTechnological Literacy: Contentfor the Study of Technology (STL)defines technology as “the innova-tion, change, or modification ofthe natural environment in orderto satisfy perceived human wantsand needs” (ITEA, 2000/2002, p.242). This is compatible with thedefinition provided in the NationalScience Education Standards,which states, “…the goal of tech-nology is to make modifications inthe world to meet human needs”(NRC, 1996, p. 24). Similar tothese definitions, the American

ITEA’s Standards for Tech-

nological Literacy: Content for the

Study of Technology (STL) defines

technology as “the innovation,

change, or modification of the

natural environment in order to

satisfy perceived human wants

and needs” (ITEA, 2000/2002,

p. 242).

Technological activities require resources, suchas energy—whether it comes from the sun,electricity, or other sources.

6


Association for the Advancementof Science’s (AAAS) Benchmarksfor Science Literacy presents thefollowing: “In the broadest sense,technology extends our abilities tochange the world: to cut, shape, orput together materials; to movethings from one place to another;to reach farther with our hands,voices, and senses” (1993, p. 41).In the National Academy ofEngineering (NAE) and NationalResearch Council (NRC) publica-tion, Technically Speaking, tech-nology is described as “…theprocess by which humans modifynature to meet their needs andwants” (2002, p. 2). All four ofthese nationally recognized defini-tions of technology are very simi-lar and reinforce each other.

Other Definitions Relevant toTechnologyThe principal discipline beingadvocated in this document istechnology, which is closely relatedto science, mathematics, and engi-neering. In literature, it is commonfor these four areas to be groupedtogether as science, technology,engineering, and mathematics(STEM) (ITEA, 2003).

Science, which deals with“…understand[ing] the naturalworld” (NRC, 1996, p. 24), is theunderpinning of technology.Science is concerned with “whatis” in the natural world, whiletechnology deals with “what canbe” invented, innovated, ordesigned from the natural world.

Systems have been developed by people to help themcommunicate across longdistances. The first satellite waslaunched in 1959, and within 10years satellites had become astandard method of transmittingvoice, data, and video.

Science, which deals

with “…understand[ing]

the natural world” (NRC,

1996, p. 24), is the under-

pinning of technology.

Science is concerned with

“what is” in the natural

world, while technology

deals with “what can be”

invented, innovated, or

designed from the natural

world.

7


Rodger Bybee, President ofBiological Science CurriculumStudy (BSCS), explains more aboutscience and technology:

The lack of technologicalliteracy is compounded by oneprevalent misconception. Whenasked to define technology,most individuals reply with thearchaic, and mostly erroneous,idea that technology is appliedscience. Although this definitionof technology has a long stand-ing in this country, it is wellpast time to establish a newunderstanding about technolo-gy…it is in the interest ofscience, science education, andsociety to help students and allcitizens develop a greater under-standing and appreciation forsome of the fundamental con-cepts and processes of tech-nology and engineering. (2000,pp. 23-24)“Mathematics is the science of

patterns and relationships”(AAAS, 1993, p. 23). It providesan exact language for technology,science, and engineering. Develop-ments in technology, such as thecomputer, stimulate mathematics,just as developments in mathemat-ics often enhance innovations intechnology. One example of this is

mathematical modeling that canassist technological design bysimulating how a proposed systemmight operate.

According to the AccreditationBoard for Engineering and Tech-nology (ABET), “engineering is theprofession in which a knowledgeof the mathematical and naturalsciences gained by study, experi-ence, and practice is applied withjudgment to develop ways to uti-lize economically the materials andforces of nature for the benefit ofmankind” (ABET, 2002, backcover). There are strong philo-sophical connections between tech-nology and engineering. Theengineering profession has begunto work with educators of technol-ogy to develop alliances for infus-ing engineering concepts intoK–12 education. The alliances willprovide a mechanism for greaterappreciation and understanding ofengineering and technology. TheNational Academy of Engineeringis an avid supporter of technologi-cal literacy.

The need for technologicalliteracy, science literacy, andmathematical literacy is an everimportant goal for schools nowand in the future.

Mathematics is the

science of patterns and

relationships.

Engineering is the

profession in which a

knowledge of the mathe-

matical and natural

sciences gained by study,

experience, and practice is

applied with judgment to

develop ways to utilize

economically the materials

and forces of nature for the

benefit of mankind.

8


Technological literacy is

more of a capacity to

understand the broader

technological world

rather than an ability to

work with specific pieces

of it. (NAE & NRC,

2002, p. 22)

Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Person

Technologically literate per-sons are capable problemsolvers who consider techno-logical issues from different

points of view and in relationshipto a variety of contexts. Theyunderstand technological impactsand consequences, acknowledg-ing that the solution to one prob-lem may create others. They alsounderstand that solutions ofteninvolve trade-offs, which necessi-tate accepting less of one qualityin order to gain more of another.They appreciate the interrelation-ships between technology andindividuals, society, and theenvironment.

Technologically literate personsunderstand that technologyinvolves systems, which aregroups of interrelated com-ponents designed to collectivelyachieve a desired goal or goals.No single component or devicecan be considered without under-standing its relationships to allother components, devices, andprocesses in the system. Thosewho are technologically literatehave the ability to use conceptsfrom science, mathematics, socialstudies, language arts, and othercontent areas as tools for under-standing and managing techno-logical systems. Therefore,technologically literate people use a strong systems-oriented, cre-ative, and productive approach tothinking about and solving tech-nological problems.

Technologically literate per-sons can identify appropriatesolutions and assess and forecastthe results of implementing thechosen solution. As managers oftechnology, they consider theimpacts of each alternative, anddetermine which is the mostappropriate course of action forthe situation.

Technologically literate per-sons understand the major tech-nological concepts behind thecurrent issues. They also areskilled in the safe use of the tech-nological processes that may beprerequisites for their careers,health, and enjoyment.

Technologically literatepersons incorporate variouscharacteristics from engineers,artists, designers, craftspersons,technicians, mechanics, and soci-ologists that are interwoven andact synergistically. These charac-teristics involve systems-orientedthinking, the creative process, the aspect of producing, and theconsideration of impacts andconsequences.

Technologically literate per-sons understand and appreciatethe importance of fundamentaltechnological developments.They have the ability to use deci-sion-making tools in their livesand work. Most importantly,they understand that technologyis the result of human activity. Itis the result of combining inge-nuity and resources to meethuman needs and wants.

9

Developing Technological LiteracyThrough Formal EducationSchools that encourage the studyof technology should provide allstudents with concepts and experi-ences necessary to develop under-standing and abilities for theconstantly changing technologicalworld. The study of technologycan enhance student learning byhighlighting the relationshipsamong technologies and the con-nections between technology andother fields of study, including sci-ence, mathematics, social studies,language arts, and other contentareas (ITEA, 2000/2002). Studentswho are engaged in activities thatpromote technological literacythrough the development ofknowledge and abilities becomeable to make informed decisionsregarding the use and managementof technology. Comprehensivetechnological study, incorporating

content identified in STL, shouldbe provided by technology teach-ers as well as learning opportuni-ties that focus on the content inSTL. The study of technologyshould begin in kindergarten andprogress through Grade 12, pro-viding continuous learning oppor-tunities to students.

While the study of technologyshould occur in a continuous,cross-curricular fashion, it shouldalso be promoted in classroomsspecifically charged to developtechnologically literate students.Technology education plays a cru-cial role in advancing studentstoward technological literacybecause it is the only school sub-ject dedicated to technological lit-eracy. Students engage in cognitiveand psychomotor activities thatfoster critical thinking, decisionmaking, and problem solvingrelated to the use, management,

evaluation, and understanding ofthe designed world.

Technology education is theschool subject specifically designedto help students develop techno-logical literacy. Technology educa-tion is not the same as educationaltechnology. Sometimes referred toas instructional technology, educa-tional technology involves thestudy of computers and the use oftechnological developments, suchas computers, audiovisual equip-ment, and mass media, as tools toenhance and optimize the teachingand learning process and environ-ment in all school subjects.

10

The Goal of Technological Literacy for All

How widespread is technologicalliteracy among Americanstoday? Levels of technologicalliteracy vary from person to

person and depend upon one’sbackground, education, interests,attitudes, and abilities. As ITEA’sGallup polls revealed (ITEA, 2002Insert and ITEA, 2004 Insert), mostpeople do not even begin to com-prehend the basic concepts oftoday’s technological society. Fewcan fully comprehend the techno-logical issues in the daily news,perform routine technologicalactivities, or appreciate anengineer’s breakthrough.

Understanding of and capabilityin technology have been ignored,except for those pursuing educationand training in engineering andtechnological fields. For mostAmericans, technological literacyhas been left for individuals to gain

through their daily activities.However, technological processesand systems have become so com-plex that the ad hoc approach hasclearly failed most Americans.

A massive effort is needed inorder to achieve technologicalliteracy. This should involve theschools, the mass media and enter-tainment outlets, book publishers,and museums. The country’sschools must bear the bulk of thiseffort, for the educational system isthe only means by which each childcan be guaranteed participation inan articulated, comprehensive tech-nology education program.

A study of technology providesan opportunity for students to learnabout the processes and knowledgerelated to technology that are need-ed to solve problems and extendhuman capabilities. Incorporating astudy of technology into every

school system will require curricu-lum development, teacher enhance-ment, and dedicated teaching andlaboratory space. A number ofstates and school systems havealready established technology pro-grams. These programs provide ahigh-quality study of technology atall levels. The next part of this doc-ument describes the structure forthe content that should be learnedin technology as presented in STL.Later in this book, a discussion isgiven on how the study of technol-ogy can be incorporated into theeducational programs of all stu-dents from kindergarten throughhigh school and beyond.

Cour

tesy o

f Bob

Veltr

i


11

In the original edition of ITEA’sTechnology for All Americans:A Rationale and Structure forthe Study of Technology (R&S)

(ITEA, 1996), developed in Phase Iof the project (1994-1996), theuniversals of technology werepresented as the fundamentalconcepts for the structure oftechnology. At the time of theirdevelopment, the universals oftechnology were viewed as theinitial organizers for the content(what every student should knowand be able to do) in developingthe technological literacy of allstudents in Grades K–12.

In Phase II of ITEA’s Technologyfor All Americans Project (TfAAP)(1996-2000), Standards forTechnological Literacy: Contentfor the Study of Technology (STL)was created. The universals of

technology from the R&S docu-ment were key in developing thetwenty standards in STL as well asthe five major categories underwhich these standards were orga-nized. The development of STLwas also very much influenced byits Advisory Committee, theStandards Team (made up of edu-cators from elementary, middleschool, and high school levels), theNational Research CouncilStandards Review Committee, theNational Academy of EngineeringFocus Group, the NationalAcademy of Engineering SpecialReview Committee, the NationalResearch Council’s TechnicalReview Panel, the field review sitesin numerous schools nationwide,and hundreds of reviewers whogave input to the various drafts ofthe standards.

A Structure for the Content of Technology

12

The 1996 R&S publicationpresented the “Universals ofTechnology” (see Figure 1). Note that around the triangle,

there were three major organizersaround which 10 universals weredisplayed. The three major orga-nizers were based upon the princi-ples that all technological systemsare comprised of:

❚ Knowledge❚ Processes❚ Contexts

Under each of the three organi-zers, there were universals given asfollows:

The Evolution of Taxometric Organizers ofTechnology (From R&S to STL)


Cour

tesy o

f Virg

inia T

ech

Many times the best way to determine what is happening in a systemis to take it apart.

13


KnowledgeA. Nature and Evolution of

TechnologyB. LinkagesC. Technological Concepts and

Principles

ProcessesD. Designing and Developing

Technological Processes andSystems

E. Determining andControlling the Behavior ofTechnological Systems

F. Utilizing TechnologicalSystems

G. Assessing the Impacts andConsequences ofTechnological Systems

ContextsH. Biological and Chemical

SystemsI. Informational SystemsJ. Physical Systems

Note the placement of the 10universals around the triangle inFigure l. The crossing lines in thecenter part of the triangle depictthe overlapping nature of all theuniversals in technology.

These universals form the basisfor continuous learning of tech-nology throughout a person’s life-time. They constitute thefundamental concepts that allowindividuals to continually learn asconditions change. From this pro-posed structure, content elementsfor the study of technologyappropriate for students of

different locations and places weredeveloped in STL.

Knowledge Organizer UniversalsEvolution into STL StandardsThe transition of the 10 universalsinto the 20 STL standards andtheir five organizing categories areillustrated in Figure 2 by the solidlines (with arrows) and the dottedlines. The solid lines show directcorrelations between the universalsand the standards/categories. Thedotted lines show potential corre-lations between the universals andstandards (categories). For exam-ple, under the Knowledge organiz-er, the universal “Nature andEvolution of Technology” wasused to provide the category “TheNature of Technology” asStandard 1, “The Characteristicsand Scope of Technology,” in STL.The “Linkages” universal wasused as the basis for Standard 3,“Relationships Among Technologyand the Connections BetweenTechnology and Other Fields.”The universal “TechnologicalConcepts and Principles” was thefoundation for Standard 2, “TheCore Concepts of Technology.

14


PROC

ESSE

S KNOWLEDGE

CONTEXTS

InformationalSystems

PhysicalSystems

Nature and

Evolution of

Technology

Linkages

Technological

Concepts and

Principles

BiologicalSystems

Desig

ning a

ndDe

velop

ingTe

chnolo

gical

Syste

msDe

termi

ning a

nd

Contr

olling

the

Beha

vior o

f Te

chnolo

gical

Syste

ms

Asse

ssing

the

Impa

ct an

dCo

nseq

uence

sof

Techn

ologic

alSy

stems

Utiliz

ingTe

chnolo

gical

Syste

ms

Figure 1: The Universals of Technology (ITEA, 1996)

15


Figure 2: Evolution of Taxometric Organizers

16


Also under the Knowledge orga-nizer from R&S, the evolution oftechnology part of “Nature andEvolution of Technology” provid-ed the basis for the content in thefour standards in the “Technologyand Society” category in STL(Standards 4, 5, 6, and 7).

Processes Organizer UniversalsEvolution into STL StandardsIn the Processes organizer fromR&S, the “Designing andDeveloping TechnologicalSystems” and “Determining andControlling the Behavior ofTechnological Systems” universalswere used as input in developingStandards 8, 9, 10, and 11 in STL.

Also in the Process organizerfrom R&S, the universal “UtilizingTechnological Systems” wasinstrumental in the formulation ofStandard 12 in STL.

The universal “Assessing theImpacts and Consequences ofProducts and Systems” provided adirect correlation to the STLStandard 13.

Context Organizer UniversalsEvolution into STL StandardsBiological systems use livingorganisms (or parts of organisms)to make or modify products; toimprove humans, plants, or ani-mals; or to develop microorgan-isms for specific use (U.S. Office ofTechnology Assessment, 1988).Biological systems are used infields such as medicine and agri-culture. Many of these systems arereferred to as “biotechnology.” Inthe R&S Contexts organizer, thereare three technological systems

given. The biological systems uni-versal provided the foundation fordeveloping Standard 14 and 15 inthe Designed World in STL.

Informational systems are con-cerned with processing, storing,and using data. Such systems pro-vide the foundation for today’s“information age.” Knowledge ofand experience with these systemsgives people the ability to quantify,qualify, and interpret data as abasis for developing new knowl-edge. Communication technologyis an information system that pro-vides the interface betweenhumans and humans, betweenhumans and machines, andbetween machines and machines.The information systems universalwas used as a basis for creatingStandard 17 in STL.

Physical systems are those thatare tangible and made of physical

Cour

tesy o

f Gar

y Colb

ert

resources. Changing the form ofmaterials to increase their valueand purpose provides the basis forproduction in physical systems.Power is considered a major partof the physical systems, since it isimportant to the operation ofthem. Physical systems also trans-port people and things. The physi-cal systems universal provided thefoundation for the development ofStandards 16, 18, 19, and 20 inthe Designed World category inSTL.

As previously stated, the 10 uni-versals in R&S were very instru-mental in the evolution of the 20standards and five categories inSTL.

17


TL begins with a preface thatsets the stage for the publica-tion. Chapter 1 provides abroad perspective on

preparing students for a techno-logical world while Chapter 2 con-tains the overview of the featuresof STL as well as its format.Chapter 2 provides a section thatdeals with the primary users of thestandards as well as recommenda-tions for using the standards forcurriculum development. Chapter2 also lists administrator guide-lines for resources based on STL.Chapters 3 through 7 containmajor categories under which thestandards were developed. Lastly,Chapter 8 is a call to actionrequesting users to help ITEAimplement STL. The documentalso has an appendix, whichincludes the history of the project,a compendium that provides aquick overview of the standardsand related benchmarks, and anarticulated curriculum example forGrades K–12, as well as refer-ences, acknowledgements, aglossary, and an index.

S Standards for TechnologicalLiteracy: Content for the Studyof Technology (STL) representsthe collective view

of hundreds of people regarding thenecessary content for the study oftechnology in Grades K–12. Inorder to be as broadly valuable aspossible, STL was created with thefollowing basic features:

❚ It offers a common set ofexpectations for what studentsshould learn about technology.

❚ It offers specific content thatevery student should learnabout technology.

❚ It is developmentallyappropriate for students.

❚ It provides a basis for develop-ing meaningful, relevant, andarticulated curricula at the local and state/provincial levels.

❚ It promotes content connec-tions with other fields of studyin Grades K–12.

In laying out the essentials forthe study of technology, STL rep-resents recommendations fromeducators, engineers, scientists,mathematicians, and parents aboutthe skills and knowledge needed tobecome technologically literate. Itis not, however, a federal policy ormandate. STL does not prescribean assessment process for deter-mining how well students aremeeting the standards, although itdoes provide criteria for thisassessment.

he individual standardspresented in STL are orga-nized into five major cate-gories:

❚ The Nature of Technology(Chapter 3)

❚ Technology and Society(Chapter 4)

❚ Design (Chapter 5)❚ Abilities for a Technological

World (Chapter 6)❚ The Designed World

(Chapter 7)Under the five major categories,

there are 20 standards. See Figure3 for a listing of the categories andstandards.

Overview of STL Format of STL

TFeatures of STL

Designers and developers ofwireless communications usecomputer simulations to test thesignals.

Cour

tesy o

f Bob

Veltr

i

18


Taken from International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technologicalliteracy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

The Nature of TechnologyStandard 1. Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics and scope of technology.Standard 2. Students will develop an understanding of the core concepts of technology.Standard 3. Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies and the

connections between technology and other fields of study.

Technology and SocietyStandard 4. Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and political

effects of technology.Standard 5. Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the

environment.Standard 6. Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the development and

use of technology.Standard 7. Students will develop an understanding of the influence of technology on history.

DesignStandard 8. Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design.Standard 9. Students will develop an understanding of engineering design.Standard 10. Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting, research and

development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving.

Abilities for a Technological WorldStandard 11. Students will develop the abilities to apply the design process.Standard 12. Students will develop the abilities to use and maintain technological products and

systems.Standard 13. Students will develop the abilities to assess the impact of products and systems.

The Designed WorldStandard 14. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use medical

technologies.Standard 15. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use agricultural

and related biotechnologies.Standard 16. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use energy and

power technologies.Standard 17. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use information

and communication technologies.Standard 18. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use transportation

technologies.Standard 19. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use manufacturing

technologies.Standard 20. Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use construction

technologies.

Figure 3. Listing of Standards for Technological Literacy

19


tandards for TechnologicalLiteracy: Content for theStudy of Technology (STL)has written statements about

what is valued in the study oftechnology that can be used forjudging quality. The documentspecifies what every studentshould know and be able to do inorder to be technologically literateand offers criteria to judgeprogress toward a vision of tech-nological literacy for all students.STL contains requirements for stu-dents to become technologicallyliterate as a result of their educa-tion from kindergarten throughGrade 12.

STL is not a curriculum. It pro-vides the content, which is thematerial to be taught and learnedin the curriculum. A curriculumprovides the specific details of howthe content (STL) is to be deliv-ered, including organization, bal-ance, and the various ways ofpresenting the content in the class-room, while standards describewhat the content should be.Curriculum developers, teachers,and others should use STL as aguide for developing appropriatecurricula, but the standards do notspecify what should go on in theclassroom.

SStandards

20


enchmarks play a vital role inSTL. They provide thenecessary elaboration of thebroadly stated standards.

Benchmarks, which are statementsthat enable students to meet a givenstandard, are provided for each ofthe 20 standards at the K–2, 3–5,6–8, and 9–12 grade levels. (SeeFigure 4 for a sample of the bench-marks.) The benchmarks are fol-lowed by supporting sentences thatprovide further detail, clarity, andexamples. Like the standards, thebenchmarks are required for stu-dents to meet the standards.Teachers should feel free to add tothe benchmarks to further enhancethe ability of the student to meet agiven standard, but teachers shouldnot eliminate or disregard stan-dards or benchmarks.

Benchmarks in STL

Figure 4. A Representative Standard and Benchmarks

Standard 8 - Students will develop an understanding ofthe attributes of design.

In order to realize the attributes of design, students in Grades3–5 should learn that

C. The design process is a purposeful method of planningpractical solutions to problems. The design process helpsconvert ideas into products and systems. The process isintuitive and includes such things as creating ideas,putting the ideas on paper, using words and sketches,building models of the design, testing out the design, andevaluating the solution.

D. Requirements for a design include such factors as thedesired elements and features of a product or system orthe limits that are placed on the design. Technologicaldesigns typically have to meet requirements to be success-ful. These requirements usually relate to the purpose orfunction of the product or system. Other requirements,such as size and cost, describe the limits of a design.

From research in education, ithas been found that if previouslylearned knowledge is tapped andbuilt upon, it is likely that childrenwill acquire a more coherent andthorough understanding of theseprocesses than if they are taughtthem as isolated abstractions(NRC, 1999). With this in mind,the benchmarks are articulated or“ramped” from Grades K–12 toprogress from very basic ideas at

the early elementary school level tothe more complex and comprehen-sive ideas at the high school level.Certain content “concepts,” such assystems, resources, requirements,optimization, trade-offs, processes,and controls, are found in thebenchmarks, which extend acrossvarious levels to ensure continuallearning of an important topicrelated to a standard.

B

21


AdvancingExcellence inTechnological Literacy: StudentAssessment, ProfessionalDevelopment, and ProgramStandards

n Phase III of TfAAP (2000-2005), Advancing Excellence inTechnological Literacy: StudentAssessment, Professional

Development, and ProgramStandards (AETL) was developed.AETL consists of three separate butinterrelated sets of standards.

❚ Student Assessment Standards❚ Professional Development

Standards ❚ Program Standards The standards in AETL are

based upon STL. AETL is designedto leave specific curricular decisionsto educators. Teachers, professionaldevelopment providers, and admin-istrators should use STL and AETLas guides for advancing technologi-cal literacy for all students.

I

New Technology Standards-BasedAddendaEducational standards provide cri-teria for learning and ensure qualityin educational programs. Standards-based technology programs candeliver technological literacy. Thepurpose of STL and AETL is toadvance the technological literacyof all students. Together, they iden-tify a vision for developing a tech-nologically literate citizenry.

The ITEA Addenda series (toSTL and AETL) is part of thestandards package for technologicalliteracy. They were produced by theTfAAP staff with special assistancefrom ITEA’s Center to Advance theTeaching of Technology andScience (CATTS). These addendaare based on the standards butinclude concrete processes or sug-gestions for incorporating national,state, and/or local technological lit-eracy standards into the programsof all students throughout GradesK–12. Additionally, all of the

Other Standards and Publications

22


documents contain worksheetsfor educators to use to makechanges specific to their localityand situation. The new addendaseries marks another pioneeringeffort in educational reform, as itprovides a supplement to educa-tional standards that focuses onthe entire picture of programreformation rather than concen-trating solely on curricula. Thenew addenda are:

❚ Measuring Progress:Assessing Students forTechnological Literacy(ITEA, 2004)

❚ Realizing Excellence:Structuring TechnologyPrograms (ITEA, 2005)

❚ Planning Learning:Developing TechnologyCurricula (ITEA, 2005)

❚ Developing Professionals:Preparing TechnologyTeachers (ITEA, 2005)

ITEA-TIDEIn 2005, ITEA started using the

new slogan: Technology Education:Technology, Innovation, Design,Engineering (TIDE), which reflectswhat the association is all about. Itclearly describes what the content,nature, breadth, and scope of thestudy of technology is and can be.This acronym, TIDE, indicates thatthe study of technology is muchmore encompassing than computersand information technology(although they are still a part oftechnology). TIDE provides a good,succinct description of what ITEA istrying to accomplish as the associa-tion representing the study of tech-nology as a core school subject.

Challenges for the FutureThe closing of TfAAP’s doors did notrepresent an end, but a beginning. Weappreciate the financial support fromNSF and NASA over the duration ofthe project. Also we thank all of thehundreds of people who contributedand gave input to us. In other fields ofstudy, developing standards has oftenproven to be the easiest step in a long,arduous process. Therefore, gettingthese technology standards acceptedand implemented in Grades K–12 inevery school will be far more difficultand daunting than developing themwas. Only through the combinedefforts of educational decision makerseverywhere will we be able to ensurethat all students develop higher levelsof technological literacy.

23

School systems across thecountry must establisheffective technologicalliteracy efforts, beginning in

kindergarten and continuing eachyear through high school andbeyond. By using the structureoutlined in STL, communities canincorporate the necessary conceptsand experiences so that all studentshave the opportunity to develop thenecessary knowledge and abilitiesto become technologically literate.By incorporating STL throughoutthe curriculum and in technologycourses, schools can provideexperiences that instill insight andproblem-solving capabilities.Including the study of technology inthe core curriculum will not onlyraise the technological literacy ofthe community, but also helpstudents perform better in othersubjects. In addition, technologicalliteracy will create a more diverse

and larger pool of graduates whoare able and motivated to pursueeducation and careers in the varioustechnological professions.

The first priority of a study oftechnology is to provide technologi-cal literacy to all students. Thisincludes all of those students whotraditionally have not been servedby technology programs.

Technology must be a requiredsubject for every student at everylevel of their education.Incorporating a study of technologyinto the country’s school systemswill require curriculum develop-ment, teacher training, and in somecases, dedicated teaching and labo-ratory space. However, it is aneffort that will reap rewards forevery person in every community,and society as a whole.

Cour

tesy o

f Rick

Grif

fiths

, Cou

rtesy

of TI

ES M

agaz

ine

Teaching Technology

24

Throughout the elementary years,a study of technology should bedesigned to help pupils learnand achieve the educational

goals of the total elementary cur-riculum. These experiences developthe students’ perceptions andknowledge of technology, psy-chomotor skills, and provide abasis for informed attitudes aboutthe interrelationship of technology,society, and the environment.

Beginning in kindergarten, astudy of technology can help deliv-er the kind of active learning thatchildren need and enjoy. Childrenshould be engaged in the design ofproducts, systems, and environ-ments requiring them to gain newknowledge about technology, andto use the knowledge they havelearned from related subjects.Pupils apply their knowledge whendrawing, planning, designing, prob-lem solving, building, testing, andimproving their solutions to prob-lems. According to research resultsfrom cognitive science, this processof critical thinking and creativeactivity can help children constructwhat they are learning into moremeaningful knowledge structures.Technology activities can be used tointegrate the study of technologywith related concepts from otherdisciplines, such as mathematics,science, social studies, languagearts, and other content areas.

A study of technology should bea part of integrated thematic unitsthat explore the relationship oftechnology to humans, societies, orthe environment, or incorporatedinto the elementary curriculum as avalued subject with designated timeslots. The materials and resourcesrequired for the elementary technol-ogy curricula are minimal andinclude student- and teacher-pre-pared items, along with basicsupplies typically used at thesegrade levels.

Technology can and should betaught in the regular classroom, bya qualified elementary teacher.Initially, many elementary teachersfeel unqualified to teach technolo-gy, but experience has shown thatwith appropriate in-service training,these teachers perform exceptional-ly well and excel at integratingtechnological concepts across thecurriculum. However, if the studyof technology is to enhance whatand how children learn, all elemen-tary teachers will need in-serviceand pre-service opportunities in

A Study of Technology During the Elementary School Years

Technology education provides theactive learning on which studentsthrive at all ages.

The materials and resources required for elementarytechnology education are minimal.

Cour

tesy o

f Bob

Veltr

i

technology education. Further, allteacher preparation institutions willneed to include the study of tech-nology as a part of their undergrad-uate degree requirements.

25

A Study of Technology During the Middle School Years

As middle school students developgreater capability in science,mathematics, and social studies, theyare able to delve deeper into theworkings of technological systems.

Middle school technology pro-grams should be designed toprovide active learning situa-tions that help the early ado-

lescent explore and develop abroader view of technology.Instructional experiences should beorganized in ways that correspondto the distinct developmental needsof learners in grades five througheight.

The study of technology shouldbe a part of the core curriculum forall learners throughout their middleschool years. Middle school pro-grams at this level can be imple-mented through interdisciplinaryteams that include a certificatedtechnology teacher. In some cases,the technology education programwill be taught by a certificatedtechnology teacher in a non-team-teaching environment. Middleschool technology programs assiststudents in learning about theprocesses that apply to the design,problem solving, development, anduse of technological products andsystems. Also, students begin todevelop the ability to assess theimpacts and consequences of tech-nology on society.

In the middle school, the stu-dents gain further understanding ofthe nature of technology. Middleschool students will deepen theirlevel of understanding and increaseabilities related to the technologicalworld. Middle school students con-tinue to be given opportunities tosee how technology has contextualrelationships with all systems in thedesigned world.

Middle school students can pro-duce models and develop real tech-nological products, systems, andenvironments. They learn how toapply principles of engineering,architecture, industrial design, andcomputer science to gain a betterunderstanding of technology. Bytaking core courses in technologyeducation in the middle school,students will discover and developpersonal interests, talents, and abili-ties related to technology.

Teaching Technology

26

Teaching Technology

At the middle school level, activity-based technology education leads to a deeper understanding and capability. Students can better understandthe components of many structures, including bridges and buildings by designing and building trusses. The students can also gain experiences inanalysis, by measuring and comparing the strength of their various structures. Finally, they can explore forecasting by predicting when theirstructure will fail so that they can learn from this and build even better structures in the future.

27

Teaching Technology

Astudy of technology in highschool enhances the learner’sunderstanding of technologyand develops a richer sense of

the relationships between technolo-gy and other school subjects. Thisis especially appropriate with cours-es in which there is a direct applica-tion with technology, such asscience and mathematics. Other rel-evant courses could be languagearts, social studies, geography, art,music, and physical education. Insome applications, a study of tech-nology can assist the high schoolstudent to learn in an interdiscipli-nary nature by providing relevanceto many other school subjects.Curriculum options should allowstudents to choose from sequencesof technology courses that extendtheir studies in the development,integration, and evolution of tech-nological systems. Courses such as“Engineering Design” can be takenby 11th- and 12th-grade students insome schools.

High school students’ needs for astudy of technology are more diver-sified than younger students’ sincetheir interests and potential careerchoices are expanding. As a resultof taking technology, students needto:❚ Evaluate technology’s capabilities,

uses, and consequences onindividuals, society, and theenvironment,

❚ Employ the resources of technolo-gy to analyze the behavior of tech-nological systems,

❚ Apply design concepts to solveproblems and extend humancapability,

❚ Apply scientific principles, engi-neering concepts, and technologi-cal systems in the solution ofeveryday problems, and

❚ Develop personal interests andabilities related to careers intechnology.

High school students engaged indiscussion, problem solving, design,research, and the development andapplication of technological devicesneed to study and learn in a tech-nology laboratory. This will ensurea learning environment for efficientand safe work. The technology pro-gram at the high school levelshould be taught by certificatedtechnology teachers, individually orin a team-teaching environment.

The ultimate goal for everystudent who graduates from highschool is technological literacy.Some students who study tech-nology in high school will pursuetechnological careers after gradua-tion, such as engineering, architec-ture, computer science, engineeringtechnology, and technology teachereducation.

Beyond High SchoolThe technological literacy level ofhigh school graduates should pro-vide the foundation for a lifetime oflearning about technology. As grad-uates pursue post secondary study,they will meet many opportunitiesto delve more extensively into tech-nology studies.

At the community college level,there are specialized engineeringtechnology programs. These pro-grams may consist of electronicstechnology and design technology,

At the high school level, students shouldhave the opportunity to take technologyeducation courses that delve deeply intovarious areas that involve the develop-ment, utilization, and assessment oftechnological systems. Courtesy of Rick Griffiths.

A Study of Technology During the High School Years and Beyond

as well as many other associatedegree programs.

The study of technology at thecollege and university level is exten-sive and multidimensional. Typicalmajors in engineering, architecture,health sciences, and computer sci-ence are directly involved with thestudy of technology. Additionalcourses related to technology mayinclude agriculture, industrialdesign, science-technology-society(STS), and technology teachereducation.

Some universities offer broadcourses in the study of technologyas a part of their liberal arts or coreofferings to undergraduate stu-dents. The courses help to providestudents with technological literacyat the baccalaureate levels. Finally,the preparation of technologyteachers is an important componentof higher education.

Many high school students will pursue technological careers after graduating, such as engineering,architecture, computer science, engineering technology, and technology teacher education.

28

Teaching Technology

Cour

tesy o

f Rick

Grif

fiths

29

Technological literacy mustbecome a central concern ofthe educational system. Thiswill require significant effort

involving the schools, individuals,parents, concerned citizens, businessand industry leaders, governmentagencies, and those in thetechnological professions, such asengineering and architecture, andothers concerned about the study of technology.

A rationale and structure for thestudy of technology has been pre-sented here that should assure thateveryone can gain the foundationthey need to participate in andadapt to today’s ever-changing tech-nological world. These materialsare compatible with STL andAETL. It is hoped that this willencourage technology education

leaders to develop new curriculummaterials at the state and local lev-els. A study of technology, as pre-sented here, must become a valuedsubject at every level.

This document addresses tech-nology education professionals andother educators. Technology teach-ers must realize their full potentialas the key people who can increaseawareness of the need for a studyof technology within their localschool system. Technology teachersshould also work with other teach-ers in their school to assist them inteaching the content of technologyin their classes (i.e., a social studiesclass could teach a unit on theindustrial revolution). State andlocal school administrators andcurriculum leaders must also mobi-lize to promote the idea that astudy of technology can become aliberating force as a new basic and

A Call to Action

multi-disciplinary form of educa-tion. Technology teacher educatorsat the college/university level mustexpand their teacher preparationand research in the field of teachingtechnology so that many issues canbe addressed with knowledge andunderstanding. Finally, studentorganizations, such as theTechnology Student Association(TSA), the Technology EducationCollegiate Association (TECA), andJunior Engineering TechnicalSociety (JETS), should provideactivities that are available to allstudents to develop leadership atthe local, state, and national levels.These activities should reflect STLand AETL.

Professional associations andgroups both inside and outside thetechnology education professionmust work to develop and imple-ment STL and AETL. These

30

standards can be used by state andlocal school systems to develophigh-quality technology curriculaand programs, to prepare teachers,and to assess whether or not stu-dents are meeting the standards.

Parents need to become familiarwith the study of technology andthe benefits it can provide theirchildren. They should becomeproactive in promoting the study oftechnology as a core subject. Thesupport from the business andindustry community is crucial forthe full implementation of the studyof technology in the schools.

Key government decision mak-ers, from the local to the state andfederal levels, need to be informedabout the benefits of the study oftechnology for all students so thattheir support can be obtained.

The vision of the study of tech-nology, embodied in this document,

and in STL and AETL, must beshared by all of those who have astake in the future of all children—not just teachers, but also adminis-trators, policy makers, parents, andmembers of the general public. Thismaterial represents not an end, buta beginning. It is a starting pointfor universal action within states,districts, and local schools acrossthe country so that the study oftechnology becomes an essentialsubject for all students.

Photo

take

n at A

rbutu

s Elem

entar

y Sch

ool

31

Addenborough, D. (1975). Life on earth.Boston: Little and Brown.

American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, Project 2061. (1990).Science for all Americans. New York:Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advance-ment of Science, Project 2061. (1993).Benchmarks for science literacy. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solvingand learning. American Psychologist,48, (1), 35-44.

Ballentyne, D. W. G., & Lovett, D. R.(1970). A dictionary of named effectsand laws. London: Chapman andHall.

Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: Thebasis of cultural change. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Barson, S. L., Ascoli, E. P., DeCroix, & Sindir, M. M. (1995, March).Computational system for rapid CFDanalysis in engineering (NASA TechBriefs p. 22, 24).

Benjamin, A. C. (1965). Science,technology, and human values.Columbia, MO: University ofMissouri Press.

Bensen, M. J. (1993). Positioning andmarketing technology education:Joining forces with the establishment.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Bloch, E. (1986). Scientific and tech-nological literacy: The need and thechallenge. Bulletin of Science,Technology and Society, 6, pp. 138-145.

Booth, D. E. (1994). Valuing nature: The decline and preservation of old-growth forests. Lanham, MD:Rowman and Littlefield.

Bouwman, M. J. (1983). Humandiagnostic reasoning by computer: An illustration from financial analysis.Management Science, 29, (6), 653-672.

Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school.New York: Harper & Row.

Brandt, R. (Ed). (1993). Educationalleadership: The challenges of higherstandards. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Britton, E., De Long-Cotty, B., &Levenson, T. (2005). Bringingtechnology education into K–8classrooms: A guide to curricularresources about the designed world.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Bunge, M. (1983). Technology as appliedscience. In C. Mitcham and R.Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy andtechnology. New York: Free Press.(Original work published in 1974).

Bybee, R. W. (1989). Science andtechnology education for theelementary years: Frameworks forcurriculum and instruction. Andover,MA: The National Center forImproving Science Education.

Bybee, R. (2000). Achievingtechnological literacy: A nationalimperative. The Technology Teacher,60(1), 23–28.

Carin, A. A. (1993). Teaching sciencethrough discovery. New York:Macmillan.

Center for Civic Education. (1994).National standards for civics andgovernment. Calabasas, CA: Author.

Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesianlinguistics. New York: Harper andRow.

Clarke, J. (1990). Patterns of thinking:Integrating learning skills in contentteaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith,D. K. (1992). Psychological testingand assessment: An introduction totests and measurements. MountainView, CA: Mayfield.

Consortium for Policy Research inEducation. (1995, May). Reformingscience, mathematics, and technologyeducation: NSF’s state systemicinitiatives. New Brunswick, NJ:Author.

Conwell, J. C., Catalano, G. D., &Beard, J. E. (1993). A case study increative problem solving inengineering design. Journal ofEngineering Education, (October),227-231.

Desmond, K. (1986). A timetable ofinventions and discoveries. New York:M. Evans.

DeVore, P. W. (1964). Technology: Anintellectual discipline. [Bulletin No.5]. Washington DC: AmericanIndustrial Arts Association.

DeVore, P. W. (1980). Technology: Anintroduction. Worcester, MA: Davis.

DeVore, P. W. (1987). Technology and science. Conducting technicalresearch. 36th Yearbook Council on Technology Teacher Education.Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-capitalistsociety. New York: Harper-Collins.

Dugger, W. E., Jr. (1988). Technology—The discipline. The TechnologyTeacher, 48, (1), 3-6.

Dugger, W. E., Jr., Bame, A. E., Pinder, C.A., & Miller, D. C. (1985). Standardsfor technology education programs.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Dugger, W.E., Jr., Bame, A.E., Pinder,C.A., & Miller, D.C. (1981).Standards for industrial artsprograms. Blacksburg, VA: IndustrialArts Program, Virginia Tech.

Dugger, W.E., Jr., Bame, A.E., Pinder,C.A., & Miller, D.C. (1985).Standards for technology educationprograms. Reston, VA: InternationalTechnology Education Association.

Dunlap, D. D. (1990). Comparingattitudes toward technology of thirdand fourth grade students in Virginiarelative to their exposure totechnology. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Virginia Tech,Blacksburg, Virginia.

Dyrenfurth, M. J., & Kozak, M. R.(Eds.). (1991). Technological literacy.40th Yearbook Council of TechnologyTeacher Education. Peoria, IL:Macmillan-McGraw.

References and Resources

Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L.H., & Northup, L. L. (1986).Engineering fundamentals andproblem solving. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Federal Coordinating Council forScience, Engineering, and Technology(FCCSET). (1992). Pathways toexcellence: A federal strategy forscience, mathematics, engineering,and technology education.Washington, DC: NationalAeronautics and SpaceAdministration.

Fiebleman, J. K. (1966). Importance of technology. Nature, 209, (5019), 122-125.

Ford, G. W., & Pugno, L. (Eds.). (1964).The structure of knowledge and thecurriculum. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Forman, S. (1987). The civilizedengineer. New York: St. Martin’sPress.

Fowler, W. S. (1962). The developmentof scientific method. London:Pergamon Press.

French, M. J. (1988). Invention andevolution: Design in nature andengineering. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Geography Education Standards Project.(1994). Geography for life: Nationalgeography standards. Washington,DC: National Geographic Society.

Glimm, J. G. (1991). Mathematicalsciences, technology, and economiccompetitiveness. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Gradwell, J., Welch, M., & Martin, E.(1991). Technology shaping ourworld. South Holland, IL: Goodheart-Willcox.

Grayson, L. P. (1993). The making of anengineer. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: Aprocess approach. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown.

Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought andknowledge: An introduction to criticalthinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harvey, G. (1995, April). Status report ofvoluntary national standards ineducation. Andover, MA: TheRegional Laboratory.

Householder, D. (1979). Curriculummovements of the 1960’s. Industrialarts education: retrospect, prospect.28th Yearbook American Council ofIndustrial Arts Teacher Education.Bloomington, IL: McKnight.

Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. R. (1994).Design and problem-solving intechnology. Albany, NY: Delmar.

Hyde, A. A., & Bizar, M. (1989).Thinking in context: Teachingcognitive processes across theelementary school curriculum. NewYork: Longman.

International Society for Technology inEducation. (2000). Nationaleducational technology standards forstudents: Connecting curriculum andtechnology. Retrieved November 7,2002 from http://cnets.iste.org/.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (1988). Technology: A national imperative. Reston, VA:Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (1985). Technologyeducation: A perspective onimplementation. Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (1996/2005). Technologyfor all Americans: A rationale andstructure for the study of technology.Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2000). Teaching tech-nology: Middle school, Strategies forstandards-based instruction. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2000/2002). Standardsfor technological literacy: Content forthe study of technology. Reston, VA:Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2001). Exploring tech-nology: A standards-based middleschool model course guide. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2001). Teaching tech-nology: High school, Strategies forstandards-based instruction. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2002). Technologystarters: A standards-based guide.Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2003). Advancing excel-lence in technological literacy:Student assessment, professionaldevelopment, and program standards.Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2003). Models for intro-ducing technology: A standards-basedguide. Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2003). Foundations oftechnology: A standards-based highschool model course guide. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2004). Measuringprogress: Assessing students for tech-nological literacy. Reston, VA:Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2004). Engineeringdesign: A standards-based high schoolmodel course guide. Reston, VA:Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005). Invention andinnovation: A standards-based middleschool model course guide. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005). Technologicalsystems: A standards-based middleschool model course guide. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005). Impacts of tech-nology: A standards-based highschool model course guide. Reston,VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005a). Developingprofessionals: Preparing technologyteachers. Reston, VA: Author.

32


33


International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005b). Realizing excel-lence: Structuring technology pro-grams. Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology EducationAssociation. (2005c). Planning learn-ing: Developing technology curricula.Reston, VA: Author. Johnson, J. R.(Ed.). (1989). Technology: A project2061 panel report. Washington, DC:American Association for theAdvancement of Science.

Johnson, S. D. (1996, January). Learningconcepts and developing intellectualskills in technical and vocationaleducation. In Learning in Technicaland Vocational Education.Symposium 12 conducted at thesecond Jerusalem InternationalScience and Technology EducationConference, Jerusalem, Israel.

Johnson, S. D., Foster W. T., &Satchwell, R. (1989, July).Sophisticated technology, theworkforce, and vocational education.Springfield, IL: Department of Adult,Vocational and Technical Education,Illinois State Board of Education.

Johnson S. D., & Satchwell, R. E.(1993). The effect of functional flowdiagrams on apprentice aircraftmechanics’ technical systemunderstanding. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 6, (4), 73-91.

Jones, R. E., Salinger, G. L., Wright, J.R., Foster, W. T., & Scarborough, J.D. (1995) Technology educationoutcomes. Chicago: Chicago PublicSchools.

Keefe, J. W., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.).(1992). Teaching for thinking. Reston,VA: National Association ofSecondary School Principals.

Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1995).The systematic identification andarticulation of content standards and benchmarks. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional EducationLaboratory.

Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984). Therole of a mental model in learning tooperate a device. Cognitive Science, 8,255-273.

Kimbell, R. (1993). Technology in theschool curriculum (a contractor reportprepared for the U.S. Congress, Officeof Technology Assessment). London:Author.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure ofscientific revolutions. In O. Neurath,R. Carnap, & C. Morris (Eds.),Foundations of the unity of science(pp. 53-272). Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press.

Lajoie, S. P. (1986). Cognitive taskanalysis: Implications for intelligenttutor development. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association,San Francisco, CA.

Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981).Rational consensus in science andsociety: A philosophical andmathematical study. Dordrecht,Holland: D. Reidel.

Lemann, N. (1991). The promised land.New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Logan, D. G., & Eastman, R. W. (1986,April). Mental models of electronictroubleshooting. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association,San Francisco, CA.

Lux, D. (1981). Industrial artsredirected. An interpretative history of industrial arts. 30th YearbookAmerican Council on Industrial ArtsTeacher Education. Bloomington, IL:McKnight.

Maley, D. (1985).Math/science/technology projects.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Markert, L. M. (1993). Contemporarytechnology, innovations, issues, andperspectives. South Holland, IL:Goodheart-Willcox.

Maryland State Board of Education.(1995). Quality indicators fortechnology education programs inMaryland. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Marzano, R., Brandt, R., Hughes, C.,Jones, B., Presseisen, B., Rankin, S., & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions ofthinking: A framework for curriculumand instruction. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

McLaughlin, M. W., Shepard, L. A., & O’Day, J. A. (1995). Improvingeducation through standards-basedreform. Stanford, CA: The NationalAcademy of Education.

Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking throughtechnology. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press.

Morgall, J. M. (1993). Technologyassessment: A feminist perspective.Philadelphia, PA: Temple UniversityPress.

Mottier, I., Raat, J. H., & deVries, M. J.(Eds.). (1993). Technology educationand the environment: Improving ourenvironment through technologyeducation, Proceedings of PATT-6Conference. Eindhoven, TheNetherlands: PATT Foundation.

Mumford, Lewis. (1966). The myth ofthe machine: Technics and humandevelopment. Harcourt, Brace andWorld.

Music Educators National Conference.(1994). National standards for artseducation. Reston, VA: Author.

Music Educators National Conference.(1994). The vision for arts educationin the 21st century. Reston, VA:Author.

National Academy of Engineering &National Research Council. (2002).Technically speaking: Why allAmericans need to know more abouttechnology. (G. Pearson & A.T.Young, Eds.). Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration. (1993). NASA’sstrategic plan for education—Astrategy for change: 1993-1998.Washington, DC: Author.

National Council for History Standards.(1996). National standards forhistory. Los Angeles, CA: NationalCenter for History in the Schools.

National Council for the Social Studies.(1994). Curriculum standards forsocial studies: Expectations ofexcellence. Washington, DC: Author.

National Council of Teachers of English.(1996). Standards for the Englishlanguage arts. Urbana, IL:International Reading Association andthe National Council of Teachers ofEnglish.

National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (1989). Curriculum andevaluation standards for schoolmathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (2000). Principles andstandards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (1991). Professionalstandards for teaching mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.

National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (1995). Assessmentstandards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.

National Education Goals Report.(1994). Building a nation oflearners—1994. Washington, DC:National Education Goals Panel.

National Education Standards andImprovement Council. (1993).Promises to keep: Creating highstandards for American students.Washington, DC: National GoalsPanel.

National Research Council. (1999).Designing mathematics or sciencecurriculum programs: A guide forusing mathematics and scienceeducation standards. Washington,DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2001a).Educating teachers of science,mathematics, and technology.Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (2000). Howpeople learn: Brain, mind, experience,and school (J.D. Bransford, A.L.Brown, & R.R. Cocking, Eds.).Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (1999). Howpeople learn: Bridging research andpractice (M.S. Donovan, J.D.Bransford, & J.W. Pellegrino, Eds.).Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (2001b).Knowing what students know: Thescience and design of educationalassessment. (J. Pellegrino, N.Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, Eds.).Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Research Council. (1995).National science education standards.Washington, DC: National AcademyPress.

National Science Foundation. (1995).NSF in a changing world: Thenational science foundation’s strategicplan. Washington, DC: Author.

Neuroth, O., Carnap, R., & Morris, C.(Eds.). (1939). Foundations of theunity of science. Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

New York State Department ofEducation. (1994). Curriculuminstruction and assessment frameworkfor mathematics, science andtechnology. Albany, NY: Author.

New Zealand Ministry of Education.(1995). Technology in the NewZealand curriculum. Wellington, NewZealand: Learning Media Limited.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).Human problem solving. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ornstein, R. (1991). The evolution ofconsciousness. New York: PrenticeHall.

Orpwood, G. (1995). Assessment ofscience and technology achievementproject. North Zonk, Ontario: YorkUniversity.

Owen, C. (1994). Interview. Journal ofTechnology Studies, 20, (2).

Pacey, A. (1990). Technology in worldcivilization. Cambridge: The MITPress.

Parker, J. C. (1964). The structure ofknowledge and the curriculum.Chicago: Rand McNally.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct.New York: William Morrow.

Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skillacquisition and human performance.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D.,& Vickers, M. (1995.) Technologyeducation in the classroom:Understanding the designed world.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rapp, F. (Ed.). (1974). Contributions toa philosophy of technology: Studies in the structure of thinking in thetechnological sciences. Holland: D.Reidel.

Ravitch, D. (1995). National standardsin American education. Washington,DC: The Brookings Institution.

Reif, F. (1985). Acquiring an effectiveunderstanding of scientific concepts.In L. H. T. West, & A. L. Pines (Eds.),Cognitive structure and conceptualchange (pp. 133-150). New York:Academic Press.

Rennie, J. (Ed.). (1995, September). Key technologies for the 21st century.Scientific American, 273, (3).

Ritz, J. M., & Swail, W. S. (1992).Design and technology II—Technology assessment. Richmond,VA: Virginia Department ofEducation.

Ropohl, G. (in press). What technologistsknow and how they know it. In M. J.deVries and A. Tamir (Eds.) Shapingconcepts of technology. Dordreche,The Netherlands. Kluwer AcademicPublications.

Rose, L.C., & Dugger, W.E. (2002).ITEA/Gallup poll reveals whatAmericans think about technology.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Rose, L.C., Gallup, A.M., Dugger, W.E.,& Starkweather, K.N. (2004). Thesecond installment of theITEA/Gallup poll and what it revealsas to how Americans think abouttechnology. Reston, VA: InternationalTechnology Education Association.

34


35


Rosenberg, N., & Birdzell, L. E. (1990).Science, technology, and the westernmiracle. Scientific American, 262, (5),42-54.

Saunders, P., & Gilliard, J. (1989). Aframework for teaching the basicconcepts. New York: NationalCouncil on Economic Education.

Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (1991). Aconceptual framework for technologyeducation. Reston, VA: InternationalTechnology Education Association.

Scientific American, (1995). Keytechnologies for the 21st century. 273,(3). New York: Scientific American,Incorporated.

Scottish Consultative Council on theCurriculum. (1994). A framework fortechnology education in Scottishschools: A paper for consultation anddiscussion. Dundee, Scotland: ScottishCCC.

Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994).Instructional technology: Thedefinition and domains of the field.Washington, DC: Association forEducational Communications.

Smith, D. (1981). Industrial artsfounded. An interpretative history of industrial arts. 30th YearbookAmerican Council on Industrial ArtsTeacher Education. Bloomington, IL:McKnight.

Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (Eds.).(1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial artscurriculum theory. Reston, VA:International Technology EducationAssociation.

Swerdlow, J. L. (1995, October).Information Revolution. The NationalGeographic. Washington, DC.

Tidewater Technology Associates. (1992,March). Forecasting for the future.The Technology Teacher, 23-29.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor Statistics. (1992, August).Work and family: jobs held and weeksworked by young adults (Report No.827). Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor Statistics. (1994, April). TheAmerican work force: 1992-2005(Bulletin No. 2452). Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Labor, TheSecretary’s Commission on AchievingNecessary Skills. (1992). Skills andtasks for jobs, A SCANS report forAmerica 2000. (DOL Publication No.1992 0-307-898 QL3). Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Labor, TheSecretary’s Commission on AchievingNecessary Skills, Pelavin Associates,Inc. (1992). SCANS in the schools.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, TheSecretary’s Commission on AchievingNecessary Skills. (1991). What workrequires of schools, A SCANS reportfor America 2000, A letter to parents,employers, and educators.Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, TheSecretary’s Commission on AchievingNecessary Skills. (1991). What workrequires of schools, A SCANS reportfor America 2000, Executivesummary. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment(1988). U.S. investment inbiotechnology - special report.Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

Usher, A. P. (1959). A history ofmechanical inventions. Boston:Beacon Press.

Vela, C. E. (1995, September), On theNature of Technology. TIESMagazine, 1, 33.

Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineersknow and how they know it:Analytical studies from aeronauticalhistory. Baltimore, MD: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Waetjen, W. B. (1995). Language:Technology in another dimension.Journal of Technology Studies, 21,(2).

Waetjen, W. B. (1992). Shaping thefuture of the profession. Critical issuesin technology education, camelbacksymposium, a compilation of papers.Reston, VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Waetjen, W. B. (1989). Technologicalproblem solving: A proposal. Reston,VA: International TechnologyEducation Association.

Waetjen, W. B. (1990). Technology and human behavior. Reston, VA:International Technology EducationAssociation.

Walton, J. W. (1991). Engineeringdesign: From art to practice. St. Paul,MN: West.

Welsh Office Education Department.(1995). Design and technology in the national curriculum. London,England: HMSO

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R.(1987). Causal model progressions asa foundation for intelligent learningenvironments (Report No. 6686).Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories.

Wiens, A. E. (Taskforce Chairperson)(1994). Technology as liberaleducation. Reston, VA: InternationalTechnology Education Association.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998).Understanding by design. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.

Wright, R. T., Israel, E. N., & Lauda, D.P. (1993). A decision maker’s guide totechnology education. Reston, VA:International Technology EducationAssociation.

Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum principlesand foundations. New York: ThomasY. Crowell.

Zwicky, F., & Wilson, A. G. (Eds.).(1967). New methods of thought and procedure. New York: Springer-Verlag.

36

Appendices

HistoryThe International Technology

Education Association (ITEA) wascreated in 1939 by a group of edu-cators who sought to promote theirprofession and to provide a nation-al forum for their ideas. Today, theITEA pursues that same purpose onthe international level and hasbecome a powerful voice acrossNorth America and around theworld.

Since its beginning, the ITEA hasbeen dedicated to ensuring that allchildren get the best education pos-sible. It serves the professionalinterests of elementary through uni-versity technology educators andpromotes the highest standards.

OrganizationThe Delegate Assembly is the

ITEA’s basic governing body.Delegates are selected by affiliatedstate/province/national associationsand meet annually at the ITEAInternational Conference. A 12-member Board of Directors, elected

by the membership, oversees thefiscal and program management ofthe association and adopts policiesand procedures accordingly. Aprofessional headquarters staff,located in Reston, Virginia, carriesout the day-to-day operations ofthe association.

MissionThe ITEA’s mission is to advance

everyone’s technological capabilitiesand to nurture and promote theprofessionalism of those engaged inthese pursuits. The ITEA seeks tomeet the professional needs andinterests of its members, and toimprove public understanding ofthe profession and its contributions.

No generation of educators hasever needed to be as up-to-date ontechnology trends as today’s practi-tioners. The ever-acceleratingchanges in current technologies and the influx of new technologiespresent major challenges to thoseteaching about technology.

The ITEA strives to:❚ Provide a philosophical founda-

tion for the study of technologythat emphasizes technologicalliteracy.

❚ Provide teaching and learningsystems for developingtechnological literacy.

❚ Serve as the catalyst in establishingtechnology education as theprimary discipline for theadvancement of technologicalliteracy.

❚ Increase the number and qualityof people teaching technology.

❚ Receive enrichment andreinforcement on the concepts in the sciences, mathematics,language arts, and other subjectareas.

❚ Work with tools, materials, and technological concepts and processes.

❚ Use design, engineering, andtechnology in solving societalproblems.

InternationalTechnologyEducationAssociation

37

IntroductionIn an effort to increase the tech-

nological literacy of all Americans,the National Science Foundation(NSF) and the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration(NASA) funded this project todevelop a nationally viable ratio-nale and structure for technologyeducation. This effort was spear-headed by the InternationalTechnology Education Association(ITEA) and was called “Technologyfor All Americans (TfAAP).” Theproject’s goal was to offer thosewho are interested in technologyeducation a clear vision of what itmeans to be technologically literate,how this can be achieved at anational level, and why it is impor-tant for the nation. The goal inPhase I (1994-96) of TfAAP was toproduce this document (Tech-nological Literacy for All: ARationale and Structure for theStudy of Technology) (R&S).

Development of 1996 Edition of R&SThe Technology for All Ameri-

cans Project set out in Phase I toachieve this goal by establishing aNational Commission composed of

persons who were especially awareof the need for a technologically lit-erate society. Members representedthe fields of engineering, science,mathematics, the humanities,education, government, profession-al associations, and industry. The25-member Commission served inan advisory capacity to the projectstaff and functioned independentlyof both the project and the ITEA.The Commission served as a vitalresource of experts knowledgeableabout technology and its interfacewith science, mathematics, engi-neering, and education.

A team of six writing consultantswas formed from the NationalCommission. Throughout theprocess, the writing consultantsrepresented a wealth of knowledge,extensive background, and aunique diversity that played animportant role in the developmentof this document.

Building ConsensusThis document, in draft form,

went through a dynamic develop-ment evolution as a result of a verystructured consensus process. The consensus process involved aseries of workshops, along with

individual reviews and comments,that ultimately involved the scruti-ny of more than 500 reviewersinside and outside the profession oftechnology education.

The first workshop was held atthe ITEA Conference in March,1995 in Nashville to gain inputfrom the profession on the forma-tive items in this document. Duringthe initial review process, that tookplace during August 1995, a draftdocument was mailed to andreviewed by more than 150 profes-sionals, who were selected via anomination process. Each statesupervisor for technology educationand president of state associationsfor technology education wereasked to nominate mathematics,science, and technology educatorsfrom elementary through highschool levels to participate in aseries of consensus-building work-shops. The workshops were hostedby seven NASA field centersaround the country. The draft doc-ument was disseminated to the par-ticipants prior to the consensus-building workshop. They wereasked to review the draft docu-ment, respond to several prepared

Technologyfor All AmericansProject

Appendices

questions, and provide commentsdirectly on their copy of the draft.At the workshops, participantsfrom 38 states and one territorywere divided into heterogeneousgroups that represented the interestgroups of those involved (i.e., ele-mentary school, middle school,high school, mathematics, science,technology). These small groupswere then asked to respond to pre-pared questions as a group andcome to consensus on the contentof the draft document.

Input and reactions from thefield were very valuable during theconsensus process. Perspectiveswere shared that had not been dis-cussed in prior writing consultants’meetings. Ideas for improving thedraft document were generatedfrom the group synergism andregional philosophies or viewpointswere acknowledged. This input wasanalyzed to determine the neededchanges for its content. Changesthen were made to reflect the datafrom the summer workshops. Inaddition, these changes were “triedout” with groups throughout thefall of 1995 at state and regional

conferences. The project staff foundthat by focusing on areas of con-cern identified from the summerreview process, the changes thatwere made in subsequent versionsof the draft document were wellreceived.

Changes and revisions go hand-in-hand with the consensus process.This process continued throughoutthe fall until a second version of thedraft document was disseminatedfor review in October–December,1995. This second draft was dis-seminated to more than 250 peopleat eight regional locations in theUnited States. This group containeda large number of administrators. Itwas felt that an important part ofthe consensus process includes a“buy-in” component. In otherwords, if technology education is to become a core subject in thenation’s schools, then those whohold the power to enable this visionto become real must be involved inthe front end of this process.

Additional efforts were made toexpand the audience that reviewedthis document by making it avail-able to anyone having access to the

Internet. Throughout this project, aWorld Wide Web home page wasmaintained in an effort to dissemi-nate timely material. Access to thedraft document became part of thehome page in December 1995, andreviewers were invited to fill out acomment and review form on-lineand submit it to the project forconsideration prior to the final revi-sions. The 1996 version of thisdocument represents the broad sup-port and input that was providedthroughout this consensus process.

Revision of R&S in 2006This revised edition of R&S was

accomplished to reflect changespursuant to publications created byITEA/TfAAP since 1996 (when theoriginal version of R&S waspublished). TfAAP staff made therevision in the summer of 2005 fora 2006 copyright of R&S.

38

Appendices

39

Appendices

Center to Advance the Teaching ofTechnology & Science (CATTS)

The Center to Advance theTeaching of Technology & Science(CATTS) was established by theInternational TechnologyEducation Association to improvestudent achievement in technologyeducation, science, and mathemat-ics at all grade levels, and tostrengthen, broaden, and deepenthe disciplinary and pedagogicalknowledge of teachers.

The Center’s mission is to pro-vide teachers with professionaldevelopment support that enablesthe pursuit of technologically liter-ate citizens. Thus, the goal ofCATTS is to engage in significantresearch, development of stan-dards-based curricular materials,and standards-based teacherenhancement through planned pro-fessional learning communities.

CATTS provides leadership andsupport to improve the results oflearners studying technology andscience as it engages in four contin-uing goals:

1. Research on Teaching andLearning

2. Standards-based curriculumdevelopment

3. Standards-based professionallearning communities

4. Standards-based curriculumimplementation anddiffusion

CATTS ConsortiumThe CATTS Corsortium has pro-vided the Center with leadershipthrough the collaboration of Statesthat are committed to the develop-ment of curriculum, professionaldevelopment, and the pursuit ofpertinent research projects to pro-mote technological literacy.

The Consortium leadership isresponsible for development of theEngineering By Design — ANational Standards-based Modelfor the implementation ofStandards for TechnologicalLiteracy (STL). It has also beenresponsible for the development ofprofessional learning communitiescreated through eTIDEonline.net, ateacher’s web-based professionaldevelopment opportunity.

The Engineering By Design,Standards-based Program consistsof a vertically and horizontallydeveloped set of resources forteachers based on STL:

Engineering By Design ModelProgram SeriesK–2 Integrated units and

lessons3–5 Integrated units and

lessonsGrade 6 Exploring

TechnologyGrade 7 Invention and

InnovationGrade 8 Technological

SystemsGrade 9 Foundations of

TechnologyGrades 10–12 Technological IssuesGrades 10–12 Impacts of

TechnologyGrades 11–12 Engineering Design

(Capstone)

These resources are available to theprofession by visitinghttp://www.iteaconnect.org

40

Appendices

The National Commission forTechnology Education (1994-96)

G. Eugene MartinChairperson

Dean of the School of AppliedArts and TechnologySouthwest Texas State University

J. Myron AtkinProfessor of EducationStanford University

E. Allen BameAssociate Professor ofTechnology EducationVirginia Tech

M. James BensenPresidentBemidji State University

Gene R. CarterExecutive DirectorAssociation for Supervision andCurriculum Development

Robert A. Daiber*Technology Education TeacherTriad High School—Illinois

James E. DavisProfessor of EnglishOhio University

Paul W. DeVore*PresidentPWD Associates

Ismael DiazEducational ConsultantFordham University

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTEProject DirectorTechnology for All AmericansProject

Frank L. HubandExecutive DirectorThe American Society forEngineering Education

Thomas A. Hughes, Jr.Director of DevelopmentFoundation for TechnologyEducation

Patricia A. HutchinsonEditorTIES MagazineTrenton State College

Thomas T. LiaoProfessor and ChairpersonDepartment of Technology andSocietyState University of New York atStony Brook

Franzie L. Loepp*Co-DirectorCenter for Mathematics,Science, and Technology

Elizabeth D. PhillipsSpecialistDepartment of MathematicsMichigan State University

Charles A. PinderProfessor and Chairperson ofTechnologyNorthern Kentucky University

William S. Pretzer*Technology for All AmericansWriting Consultants CoordinatorDirector of School ProgramsHenry Ford Museum andGreenfield Village

John M. RitzProfessor and ChairpersonOccupational and TechnicalStudies DepartmentOld Dominion University

Richard E. SatchwellAssistant DirectorTechnology for All AmericansProject

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTEExecutive DirectorInternational TechnologyEducation Association

Charles E. VelaTechnical Support StaffMITRE Corporation

Walter B. Waetjen*President EmeritusCleveland State University

John G. WirtSenior Research AssociateInstitute for Education and theEconomyTeachers CollegeColumbia University

Michael D. Wright, DTE*Assistant Professor ofTechnology EducationUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

*Technology for All AmericansWriting Consultants

Acknowledgements

41

Appendices

Technology for All Americans Project Staff

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTEProject Director

Richard E. SatchwellAssistant Project Director

Support Staff

Jodie AlticeElizabeth ChabalaLisa DriscollMichelle GriffithJeff MeideLisa Thorne

Visiting Scholars

Laverne Young-HawkinsAssociate Professor, Texas A&MUniversity

Hidetoshi Miyakawa, DTEAssociate Professor, AichiUniversity of EducationAichi, Japan

ITEA and the Technology for AllAmericans Project (TfAAP) would like tothank Kathleen Sheehan and LindaRothstein of ITEA and John Flanagan, JackKlasey, and Mike Kopf of Goodheart-Willcox Publisher for their editorial assis-tance on the first edition of this document.

TfAAP Staff (2006 Edition)

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTEDirector

Shelli MeadeAssistant Project Manager andEditor

Crystal NicholsAdministrative Assistant

Reviewers of 2006 Edition

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTEBarry N. Burke, DTEKatie de la Paz

International Technology EducationAssociation Board of Directors

William “Ed” BallR. Thomas Wright, DTEJohn Monroe, DTEThomas A. D’Apolito, DTEBarry N. Burke, DTEJeffrey E. GrimmerJay C. Hicken, DTETina E. HaydenDavid H. Devier, DTELemuel E. “Chip” MillerEverett N. Israel, DTEWilliam WargoHarold E. Holley, DTEGerald G. LovedahlMichael D. Wright, DTEKendall N. Starkweather, DTE

The ITEA and the TfAA Project wish tothank the National Science Foundation(NSF) and the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA) for theirsupport during the project. Special appreci-ation is given to Gerhard Salinger, ColeenHill, Franzie Loepp, and Rodney Custerwho provided help from NSF in Phase I.Also, we would like to thank FrankOwens, Pam Mountjoy, and MalcolmPhelps from NASA for their advice andinput. ITEA would also like to expressappreciation to the Technical Foundationof America for their assistance in fundingcertain activities during Phase I of theproject.

Special thanks are given to OttobineElementary School, Rockingham County(Virginia) Schools; Hidden Valley JuniorHigh School, Roanoke County (Virginia)Schools; and Christiansburg MiddleSchool, Montgomery County (Virginia)Schools for photographs.

The project would like to thank EileenBaumann, Susanna Kibler, and JohnO’Connor for initial editing and prepara-tion and Ed Scott of Harlowe Typographyfor the design of this document. It wouldalso like to express special appreciation toMaureen Heenan of the ITEA staff for allof the editorial and publishing assistanceshe provided in the production of the finalcopy of this doument.

International Technology EducationAssociation Staff (1994-96)

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTEExecutive Director

Thomas A. Hughes, Jr.Director of DevelopmentFoundation for TechnologyEducation

Support Staff

Janice BrunsLinda DeFrancoMaureen HeenanCatherine JamesJayne NewtonLari PriceKaren UlatowskiLorena Vasquez

Evaluators (1994-96)

Jack R. FrymierSenior FellowPhi Delta Kappa

Jill F. RussellAssistant ProfessorCollege of EducationUniversity of Nebraska atOmaha

Evaluation AdministratorLarry W. BarberDirector, Center for Evaluation,Development and ResearchPhi Delta Kappa International

42

Appendices

Reviewers (1996Edition)

Demetrio AcevedoAmbrose AdamsShawn AgnewDaniel AiroldiRobert AlbertCreighton AlexanderCynthia AllenChris AlmeidaFrederick AlmquistMeredith AltshulerRichard AlvidrezRichard AmbacherAndrea AndersonJack AndersonJohn AntrimHarry ArmenThomas AsplinEric AustinRick AvondetLarry BacchiBecky BakerJoe BakerJerry BalistreriWilliam BallDeborah BallardGary BaltozerMarilyn BannonKim BaranyRonald BarkerHilda BarnettTimothy BarrettJoe BarrySandra BarryLynn BashamBrad BasilRobert BatemanThomas BaughmanJohn BearMac BeatonCharles BeattyHeinz BeierGary BellMyron BenderRoger BenedictChristine BengstonRussell BennettBarbara BernardDavid BernsAl Birkholz

Joseph BlumDel BoedekerCarlalee BoettgerBarbara BolinPaul BondBarry BorakovePauline BottrillNiki BourkeDavid BouvierDonovan BowersDebra BozarthFrank BramanJohn BreckLillian BrinkleyDan BrookCharles BrooksSharon BrusicStanley BucholcWalter BuczynskiNancy BuglerJames BujakDebra BurdickBarry BurkeVerner BurkettStephen BurkholderJohn BurnsTed BurtonDonna BushJeffrey BushRobert CaldwellKristin CallenderNick CammaranoJohn CaseyKevin CastnerJodi CavanaughApril CaveChristopher ChamurisJonathan CharlesArlene ChasekDennis CheekEldon ChlumskyBrad ChristensenDean ChristensenJim ChristensenKaren ChristophersonCraig ClarkMarcus ClarkeThomas ClineSam CobbinsGeanea ColemanThomas CollinsSyliva ConnollyCharles Cook

Steve CookCharles CorleySteve CottrellDale CoulsonJodie CoulsonWes CoulterAlan CoxDouglas CraigTerry CrisseyPaul CuetaraDavid CulverScott CurrieRodney CusterThomas D’ApolitoRichard DahlMichael DaughertySara De CarloJohn DecaireKenneth DeLuccaEd DentonWilliam DerryDavid DevierMary DevinRichard DieffenderferFrank DiNotoDennis DirksenJohn DoylePasquale DragoLarry DunekackRobert DunnLorraine DurrillRobert DwyerMichael DyrenfurthGlenn EdmondsonJane EisemannJohn EmmonsNeil EnglishThomas EreksonNeil EshelmanCindy EtchisonRichard FeinVictor FelicianoDennis FerrariKeith FinkralEdward FitzgeraldJohn FlanaganMichael FlanaganE. P. FlemyngGioia FormanAlice FosterTad FosterGary FoveauxMarilyn Fowler

Philip FrankenfeldDavid FrankenhauserKathy FrancoHarold FullamDennis GalloHervey GallowayWilliam GarzkeCharlie GauldenPerry GemmillMary GenovaBradford GeorgeJohn GibbonsAnthony GilbertiJames GiordanoRoberta GlaserEdward GoldmanJames GoodMary GoodHarold GotwaldRodney GrafGary GraffSandi GraffCarmen GrantoTheodore GrattsGary GrayRobert GrayClark GreeneWalter GreerDavid GreerJames GriffinEdward GrimaldiJeffrey GrimmerRichard GrimsleyShawn GrossJerry GroverJoseph GuidiceLeroy GurnleMark HaasMichael HackerLarry HagmannDoris HammLeo HanifenCindy HannonJohn HansenRobert HansonLinda HarpineEdward HartmannMark HartshorneCraig HaugsnessMaureen HeenanRichard HellthalerMichael HelmickAl Henrion

Barry HessingerTom HessionMark HiendlmayrColleen HillJane HillRoger HillWarren HitzLarry HoelscherMarie HoepflHarold HolleyRich HollidayDavid HolmesSid HolodnickDundee HoltDavid HoodLynn HooverPeter HoroschakDaniel HouseholderKenneth HoytPhilip HublitzJames HudockJeremy HughesVan HughesJeffrey HuntJohn HutchinsonJoseph HuttlinClinton IsbellEverett IsraelLeovincey IwiyisiChuck JacobsPaul JacobsTricia JacobsPatrick JanssenJames JelkinJim JenkinsGerald JenningsMichael JensenWilliam JodzScott JohnsonJames JohnsonCheryl JongJames JusticeJon KahleGregory KaneJohn KarsnitzRalph KilgoreRichard KimbellMichael KlannSuzanne KnapicDonald KneplerLouisa KniivilaStephan KnoblochJane Konirad

Robert KosztownyJohn KovelJohn KraljicCharlie KrenekBenjamin KrotheRichard KruyerGerald KuhnDan KunzThomas LaClairHenry LacyKevin LallyChristine LandryWayne LangJoanne LangabeeJames LaPorteConnie LarsonThomas LatimerDonald LaudaBarry LeBarronTa-Wei LeeHal LefeverJames LevandeTheodore LewisJane LiedtkeJeff LindstromMike LindstromEthan LiptonCharles LittleJolene LittonGerald LovedahlPeter LoweBrian LuceRichard LucePeter LundRon LutzMichael MagliacanoDavid MagnoneGary MahoneyDavid ManardVickie MarkavitchLinda MarkertPeter MartinBenjamin MartinBrian McAlisterJoseph McCadeDave McCreadyDavid McCroryDavid McGeeJack McGinnisRichard McManusScott McMillin

Sean McSheehyJim MeinertJoseph MerodaWilson MewbornMarilyn MeyerPete MeyerAnne MikesellGinney MilbourneChip MillerDavid MillerDavid W. MillerJonathan MillerJudy MillerKevin MillerDave MillikenMichael MinoCarl MitchamJohn MitchellWilliam Moats, IIIMike MonaghanRichard MondragonJohn MonroeJim MoonHarvielee MooreSteve MoorheadMike MosleyAl MotherseleRoger MousseauJames MundyHeidi MunzCynthia NavaCarolyn NewsomeGail NiedernhoferChris NielsenDiane NovakJ. T. NuzzoDon O’ConnorTimothy ObermierThomas OgleLinda OrganElaine OstermanBob OzgaMatthew PagnaniCarll PallokatJohn PannabeckerScott PapenfusKevin PendergastJames PetzoldRandal PierceTommy PitchfordJohn Plias

Douglas PloeserPaul PostNeil PostmanTheresa PoweRoger PrewittBeth PriceSteven PriceCrystal PriestSusan PryorDavid PucelDavid PuringtonNathaniel QuintanaSid RaderSenta RaizenFelix RamirezGene RangerRobert RansomeKathy RaymondEldon RebhornCherry RedusCharlotte RiceBetty RiderJerry RidgewayJohn RigdenSam RittsGene RitzKenneth RobinsonDwight RogersGeorge RogersKevin RoseRon RossmanThomas RothackerJames RussettJames RutherfordSharon RyanThomas RyersonGerhard SalingerJoseph Samela, Jr.Mark SandersDavid SawyerErnest SavageLaurie SchmittMax SchoenhalsTonia SchofieldTodd SchollJohn SchumacherAnthony SchwallerDavid SeidelRichard SeymourEdward ShineThomas Shown

Deborah ShumateJeffrey SicherRon SiebachJohn SingerBernard SingerAlfred SkolnickDennis SkurulskyRoy SlaterLee SmalleyDave SmithHarley SmithKenneth SmithOra SmithLoren SmittGreg SmothersRichard SouterJoseph SpadavecchiaGari SpagnolettiEmilio SpinoDonatus St. AimeeWilliam StamanJohn StaudenmaierGregg SteeleLeonard SterryGary StevensonGary StewardsonHoward StobColleen StoneJohn StoudtHenry StradaArnold StrassenburgJerry StreichlerLarry StromDouglas SullivanKaye SullivanLaura SullivanDonald SupleeDarlina SwartzRobert Swisher, Jr.Dennis SwytEd TaylorArmand TaylorTom TermesDennis TesolowskiDonald TestaJohn ThomasMaurice ThomasDanny ThompsonSylvia TialaRon ToddSherri Torkelson

Donna TrautmanLisa TremblayJoan TuckerDennis TurnerJohn VagliaBrigitte ValeseyEric Van DuzerArvid Van DykeDorothy VanLooyBruce VenturaBob ViaraRon VickersFrank ViscardiJohn VogelsangKenneth VolkMarc deVriesCharles WallaceMark WallaceBill WargoScott WarnerGordon WarrenSteve WashJohn WatsonChad WeaverAlfred WeissJack WellmanKen WeltyEdward WenkTed WernerTracy WestraVincent WheatleyJane WheelerRosanne WhiteDoug WickhamRobert WickleinEmerson WiensFlint WildGeorge WillcoxWilliam WolfeDeborah WoodmanWayne WornerJohn WrightTom WrightGary WynnDottie YagerLaVerne Young-HawkinsRon YuillNorman ZaniboniMichael ZapantisDavid ZinnKaren Zuga

Appendices

43

Technology ishuman innovationin action

Technology forAll Americans Project

International TechnologyEducation Association

Documents

Technological Literacy for All