Technological Literacy

for All

A Rationale
and Structure for
the Study of Technology

SECOND EDITION
 Technology is
human innovation
in action
Technological Literacy for All:
A Rationale and Structure for
the Study of Technology

International Technology
Education Association

Technology for
All Americans Project
This material is based upon work supported by the following:

National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers ESI-9355826 and

0000897 and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
under Grant Numbers NCCW-0064 and NCCS-591. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation or the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.

Copyright © 2006 by the International Technology Education

Association. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under
the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication
may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or
stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

This document is being disseminated by the International Technology

Education Association
1914 Association Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191
(703) 860-2100 (voice)
(703) 860-0353 (fax)
[email protected] (e-mail)
http://www.iteaconnect.org (home page)
Contents
P R E FA 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 36
International Technology Education Association 36
Technology for All Americans Project 37
Center to Advance the Teaching of Technology and Science (CATTS) 39
Acknowledgments 40
Reviewers 42
Preface

T
his document is about educa- Aeronautics and Space Adminis- The first part of this document
tion and a subject vital to tration (NASA) to develop the first discusses the power and the
human welfare and economic edition of this document (ITEA, promise of technology and the need
prosperity. It is about invigorat- 1996). The first edition of for technological literacy. The next
ing the entire educational system Technology for All Americans: A section provides a transition of uni-
with high interest, student-focused Rationale and Structure for the versal processes, knowledge, and
content and methods. It is about Study of Technology (R&S) (ITEA, contexts of technology generated in
developing a measure of technologi- 1996) was revised in 2005 to reflect the First edition of R&S to STL
cal literacy within each graduate so the work of ITEA’s Technology for and AETL. The third part describes
that every American can understand All Americans Project (TfAAP) in how technology should be integrat-
the nature developing Standards for ed into the core of the curriculum
Technological literacy of tech- Technological Literacy: Content for from kindergarten through sec-
nology, the Study of Technology (STL) ondary and post secondary educa-
is much more than
appropri- (ITEA, 2000/2002), Advancing tion. The fourth and final section
just knowledge about ately use Excellence in Technological of this document challenges all
computers and their technologi- Literacy: Student Assessment, concerned to make technological
application. cal devices Professional Development, and literacy a national priority.
and Program Standards (AETL), and This document has been pre-
processes, and participate in society’s the four companion addenda to pared by ITEA’s Technology for All
decisions on technological issues. these standards documents (ITEA, Americans Project through assis-
Technological literacy is much 2004; ITEA, 2005a; ITEA, 2005b; tance from writing consultants. It
more than just knowledge about ITEA, 2005c). has been reviewed by hundreds of
computers and their application. It Technology for All Americans: practitioners of technology, engi-
involves a vision where each citizen A Rationale and Structure for the neering, science, mathematics, and
has a degree of knowledge about Study of Technology is the first other areas at all levels. Input has
the nature, behavior, power, and publication in a series envisioned to been gathered from a group of
consequences of technology from help educators improve and writing consultants, a National
a broad perspective. Inherently, it strengthen the preparation of each Commission for Technology
involves educational programs learner. Subsequent work built Education, and educators across
where learners become engaged upon this background and is the country. Please read the docu-
in critical thinking as they design included in STL and AETL. The ment, study it, and join the
and develop products, systems, and standards provide a general International Technology Education
environments to solve practical framework from which Association in calling for and
problems. schools can develop curricula implementing the educational
From 1994–1996, the Inter- and programs. This material reform necessary to ensure tech-
national Technology Education provides the criteria for student nological literacy for all.
Association (ITEA) received grants assessment, curricula content,
from the National Science Foun- professional development, and
dation (NSF) and the National program enhancement.

1
 The Power and the Promise of Technology

T hrough technology, people have

changed the world. In the drive
to satisfy needs and wants,
people have developed and
improved ways to communicate,
travel, build structures, make
products, cure disease, and provide
food, among thousands of other
potentials, problems, and more
advances in an accelerating spiral
of development and complexity.
The acceleration of technological
change, and the greater potential
and power that it brings, inspires,
and thrills some people but
confuses—even alienates—others.
innovations. This has created a Many people embrace technologi-
world of technological products cal change, believing that through
and machines, roadways and technology their lives will be made
buildings, and data and global easier. They see the growing ability
communications. It has resulted in a to solve age-old problems ranging
complex world of constant change. from food supply to education and
Each technological advance pollution. Others see a confusing
builds on prior developments. interconnection of impersonal
Each advance leads to additional devices and fear social, ecological,
or military catastrophe. Some peo-
ple find that through communica-
tion and transportation technology,
they can more easily maintain their
personal relationships; others dis-
cover that the same technologies
can strain relationships. Some

2
 Courtesy of Bob Veltri
believe that through technological Technological systems have
advances people create new jobs become so interrelated with one
and new industries; others see another and with today’s social sys-
automation replacing skilled labor tems that any new development can
and changing their way of life. have far reaching effects. Recently
There is truth in all of these people have seen that one develop-
views, for technology is created, ment in microwave technology can
managed, and used by societies, alter the eating habits of millions;
governments, industries, and that an advance in radio telecom-
individuals according to their goals munications can create a multi-bil-
and values. For example, biotec- lion-dollar industry almost
nological developments can overnight; and that a common
eradicate a plague or cause one. refrigerant can damage the Earth’s
Industrial plants can be used to protective atmosphere.
clean water or to pollute it. Nuclear The promise of the future lies
energy can be used to provide not in technology alone, but in
power to heat millions of homes people’s ability to use, manage,
or to destroy millions of lives. evaluate, and understand it.

3
The Power and the Promise of Technology

The Need for Technological Literacy

A
major consequence of acceler-
ated technological change is a Technological Literacy
difference in levels of techno-
logical ability and understand- Technological literacy is the ability to use, manage, evaluate, and
ing. There is a widening gap understand technology.
between the knowledge, capability, ❚ The ability to use technol- ❚ The ability to evaluate
and confidence of the average citi- ogy involves the successful technology involves being
zen and that of the inventors, operation of the key prod- able to make judgments
researchers, and implementers who ucts and systems of the and decisions about tech-
continually revolutionize the tech- time. This includes know- nology on an informed
nological world. While it is logical ing the components of basis rather than an
and necessary for the developers existing macro-systems, or emotional one.
to have advanced technological human adaptive systems, ❚ Understanding technology
capability, it is senseless for the and how the systems
involves more than facts
general public to be technologically behave.
and information, but also
illiterate.
❚ The ability to manage the ability to synthesize
Because of the power of today’s
technology involves ensur- the information into new
technological processes, society and
ing that all technological insights.
individuals need to decide what,
activities are efficient and
how, and when to develop or use
appropriate.
various technological systems. Since
technological issues and problems
have more than one viable solution,
decision making should reflect the
values of the people and help them
reach their goals. Such decision
making depends upon all citizens
acquiring a basic level of tech-
nological literacy, which is defined
as: 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 the
realization that how people develop
and apply technology has become
critical to future generations,
Courtesy of Bob Veltri

society, and even the Earth’s

continued ability to sustain life.

Practically every job today depends upon people learning new technological processes and systems.
4
 Technological activities require resources, such
as energy—whether it comes from the sun,
electricity, or other sources.

ITEA’s Standards for Tech- Confusion About Technology schools should include the study of
technology in the curriculum.
nological Literacy: Content for the Unfortunately, a majority of
people do not know what technol- What Is Technology?
Study of Technology (STL) defines
ogy is. In 2002 and 2004, the There are many definitions of
technology as “the innovation, International Technology Edu- technology. ITEA’s Standards for
change, or modification of the cation Association (ITEA) con- Technological Literacy: Content
natural environment in order to ducted Gallup Polls on “What for the Study of Technology (STL)
Americans Think About Tech- defines technology as “the innova-
satisfy perceived human wants nology” (Rose & Dugger, 2002; tion, change, or modification of
and needs” (ITEA, 2000/2002, Rose, Gallup, Dugger, & Stark- the natural environment in order
p. 242). weather, 2004). In both polls, the to satisfy perceived human wants
Gallup Organization found that and needs” (ITEA, 2000/2002, p.
the public had a very narrow 242). This is compatible with the
definition of technology as being definition provided in the National
computers rather than the broader Science Education Standards,
view of technology held by experts which states, “…the goal of tech-
in technology, engineering, and nology is to make modifications in
science. Another major finding the world to meet human needs”
was there was near total consensus (NRC, 1996, p. 24). Similar to
among the public sampled that these definitions, the American

5
The Power and the Promise of Technology

Systems have been developed

by people to help them
communicate across long
distances. The first satellite was
launched in 1959, and within 10
years satellites had become a
standard method of transmitting
voice, data, and video.

Association for the Advancement Other Definitions Relevant to

of Science’s (AAAS) Benchmarks Technology
for Science Literacy presents the
following: “In the broadest sense, The principal discipline being
Science, which deals
technology extends our abilities to advocated in this document is
technology, which is closely related with “…understand[ing]
change the world: to cut, shape, or
put together materials; to move to science, mathematics, and engi- the natural world” (NRC,
things from one place to another; neering. In literature, it is common
1996, p. 24), is the under-
to reach farther with our hands, for these four areas to be grouped
together as science, technology, pinning of technology.
voices, and senses” (1993, p. 41).
In the National Academy of engineering, and mathematics Science is concerned with
Engineering (NAE) and National (STEM) (ITEA, 2003). “what is” in the natural
Research Council (NRC) publica- Science, which deals with
world, while technology
tion, Technically Speaking, tech- “…understand[ing] the natural
world” (NRC, 1996, p. 24), is the deals with “what can be”
nology is described as “…the
process by which humans modify underpinning of technology. invented, innovated, or
nature to meet their needs and Science is concerned with “what
designed from the natural
wants” (2002, p. 2). All four of is” in the natural world, while
technology deals with “what can world.
these nationally recognized defini-
tions of technology are very simi- be” invented, innovated, or
lar and reinforce each other. designed from the natural world.

6
 The Power and the Promise of Technology

Rodger Bybee, President of mathematical modeling that can

Biological Science Curriculum assist technological design by
Engineering is the Study (BSCS), explains more about simulating how a proposed system
profession in which a science and technology: might operate.
The lack of technological According to the Accreditation
knowledge of the mathe-
literacy is compounded by one Board for Engineering and Tech-
matical and natural prevalent misconception. When nology (ABET), “engineering is the
sciences gained by study, asked to define technology, profession in which a knowledge
most individuals reply with the of the mathematical and natural
experience, and practice is
archaic, and mostly erroneous, sciences gained by study, experi-
applied with judgment to idea that technology is applied ence, and practice is applied with
develop ways to utilize science. Although this definition judgment to develop ways to uti-
economically the materials of technology has a long stand- lize economically the materials and
ing in this country, it is well forces of nature for the benefit of
and forces of nature for the
past time to establish a new mankind” (ABET, 2002, back
benefit of mankind. understanding about technolo- cover). There are strong philo-
gy…it is in the interest of sophical connections between tech-
science, science education, and nology and engineering. The
society to help students and all engineering profession has begun
citizens develop a greater under- to work with educators of technol-
Mathematics is the standing and appreciation for ogy to develop alliances for infus-
science of patterns and some of the fundamental con- ing engineering concepts into
cepts and processes of tech- K–12 education. The alliances will
relationships.
nology and engineering. (2000, provide a mechanism for greater
pp. 23-24) appreciation and understanding of
“Mathematics is the science of engineering and technology. The
patterns and relationships” National Academy of Engineering
(AAAS, 1993, p. 23). It provides is an avid supporter of technologi-
an exact language for technology, cal literacy.
science, and engineering. Develop- The need for technological
ments in technology, such as the literacy, science literacy, and
computer, stimulate mathematics, mathematical literacy is an ever
just as developments in mathemat- important goal for schools now
ics often enhance innovations in and in the future.
technology. One example of this is

7
The Power and the Promise of Technology

Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Person

T
echnologically literate per- Technologically literate per-
sons are capable problem sons can identify appropriate
solvers who consider techno- solutions and assess and forecast
logical issues from different the results of implementing the
points of view and in relationship chosen solution. As managers of
to a variety of contexts. They technology, they consider the
understand technological impacts impacts of each alternative, and
and consequences, acknowledg- determine which is the most
ing that the solution to one prob- appropriate course of action for Technological literacy is
lem may create others. They also the situation. more of a capacity to
understand that solutions often Technologically literate per- understand the broader
involve trade-offs, which necessi- sons understand the major tech-
technological world
tate accepting less of one quality nological concepts behind the
in order to gain more of another. current issues. They also are rather than an ability to
They appreciate the interrelation- skilled in the safe use of the tech- work with specific pieces
ships between technology and nological processes that may be of it. (NAE & NRC,
individuals, society, and the prerequisites for their careers,
environment. health, and enjoyment. 2002, p. 22)
Technologically literate persons Technologically literate
understand that technology persons incorporate various
involves systems, which are characteristics from engineers,
groups of interrelated com- artists, designers, craftspersons,
ponents designed to collectively technicians, mechanics, and soci-
achieve a desired goal or goals. ologists that are interwoven and
No single component or device act synergistically. These charac-
can be considered without under- teristics involve systems-oriented
standing its relationships to all thinking, the creative process,
other components, devices, and the aspect of producing, and the
processes in the system. Those consideration of impacts and
who are technologically literate consequences.
have the ability to use concepts Technologically literate per-
from science, mathematics, social sons understand and appreciate
studies, language arts, and other the importance of fundamental
content areas as tools for under- technological developments.
standing and managing techno- They have the ability to use deci-
logical systems. Therefore, sion-making tools in their lives
technologically literate people and work. Most importantly,
use a strong systems-oriented, cre- they understand that technology
ative, and productive approach to is the result of human activity. It
thinking about and solving tech- is the result of combining inge-
nological problems. nuity and resources to meet
human needs and wants.

8
Developing Technological Literacy content identified in STL, should evaluation, and understanding of
Through Formal Education be provided by technology teach- the designed world.
ers as well as learning opportuni- Technology education is the
Schools that encourage the study ties that focus on the content in school subject specifically designed
of technology should provide all STL. The study of technology to help students develop techno-
students with concepts and experi- should begin in kindergarten and logical literacy. Technology educa-
ences necessary to develop under- progress through Grade 12, pro- tion is not the same as educational
standing and abilities for the viding continuous learning oppor- technology. Sometimes referred to
constantly changing technological tunities to students. as instructional technology, educa-
world. The study of technology While the study of technology tional technology involves the
can enhance student learning by should occur in a continuous, study of computers and the use of
highlighting the relationships cross-curricular fashion, it should technological developments, such
among technologies and the con- also be promoted in classrooms as computers, audiovisual equip-
nections between technology and specifically charged to develop ment, and mass media, as tools to
other fields of study, including sci- technologically literate students. enhance and optimize the teaching
ence, mathematics, social studies, Technology education plays a cru- and learning process and environ-
language arts, and other content cial role in advancing students ment in all school subjects.
areas (ITEA, 2000/2002). Students toward technological literacy
who are engaged in activities that because it is the only school sub-
promote technological literacy ject dedicated to technological lit-
through the development of eracy. Students engage in cognitive
knowledge and abilities become and psychomotor activities that
able to make informed decisions foster critical thinking, decision
regarding the use and management making, and problem solving
of technology. Comprehensive related to the use, management,
technological study, incorporating
9
The Power and the Promise of Technology

Courtesy of Bob Veltri

The Goal of Technological Literacy for All

H
ow widespread is technological through their daily activities. school system will require curricu-
literacy among Americans However, technological processes lum development, teacher enhance-
today? Levels of technological and systems have become so com- ment, and dedicated teaching and
literacy vary from person to plex that the ad hoc approach has laboratory space. A number of
person and depend upon one’s clearly failed most Americans. states and school systems have
background, education, interests, A massive effort is needed in already established technology pro-
attitudes, and abilities. As ITEA’s order to achieve technological grams. These programs provide a
Gallup polls revealed (ITEA, 2002 literacy. This should involve the high-quality study of technology at
Insert and ITEA, 2004 Insert), most schools, the mass media and enter- all levels. The next part of this doc-
people do not even begin to com- tainment outlets, book publishers, ument describes the structure for
prehend the basic concepts of and museums. The country’s the content that should be learned
today’s technological society. Few schools must bear the bulk of this in technology as presented in STL.
can fully comprehend the techno- effort, for the educational system is Later in this book, a discussion is
logical issues in the daily news, the only means by which each child given on how the study of technol-
perform routine technological can be guaranteed participation in ogy can be incorporated into the
activities, or appreciate an an articulated, comprehensive tech- educational programs of all stu-
engineer’s breakthrough. nology education program. dents from kindergarten through
Understanding of and capability A study of technology provides high school and beyond.
in technology have been ignored, an opportunity for students to learn
except for those pursuing education about the processes and knowledge
and training in engineering and related to technology that are need-
technological fields. For most ed to solve problems and extend
Americans, technological literacy human capabilities. Incorporating a
has been left for individuals to gain study of technology into every

10
A Structure for the Content of Technology

I n the original edition of ITEA’s

Technology for All Americans:
A Rationale and Structure for
the Study of Technology (R&S)
(ITEA, 1996), developed in Phase I
of the project (1994-1996), the
universals of technology were
presented as the fundamental
technology from the R&S docu-
ment were key in developing the
twenty standards in STL as well as
the five major categories under
which these standards were orga-
nized. The development of STL
was also very much influenced by
its Advisory Committee, the
concepts for the structure of Standards Team (made up of edu-
technology. At the time of their cators from elementary, middle
development, the universals of school, and high school levels), the
technology were viewed as the National Research Council
initial organizers for the content Standards Review Committee, the
(what every student should know National Academy of Engineering
and be able to do) in developing Focus Group, the National
the technological literacy of all Academy of Engineering Special
students in Grades K–12. Review Committee, the National
In Phase II of ITEA’s Technology Research Council’s Technical
for All Americans Project (TfAAP) Review Panel, the field review sites
(1996-2000), Standards for in numerous schools nationwide,
Technological Literacy: Content and hundreds of reviewers who
for the Study of Technology (STL) gave input to the various drafts of
was created. The universals of the standards.

11
A Structure for the Content of Technology

The Evolution of Taxometric Organizers of

Technology (From R&S to STL)

T
he 1996 R&S publication ❚ Knowledge
presented the “Universals of ❚ Processes
Technology” (see Figure 1). ❚ Contexts
Note that around the triangle,
there were three major organizers Under each of the three organi-
around which 10 universals were zers, there were universals given as
displayed. The three major orga- follows:
nizers were based upon the princi-
ples that all technological systems
are comprised of:

Courtesy of Virginia Tech

Many times the best way to determine what is happening in a system

is to take it apart.
12
 A Structure for the Content of Technology

Knowledge different locations and places were

A. Nature and Evolution of developed in STL.
Technology
B. Linkages
C. Technological Concepts and
Principles

Processes
D. Designing and Developing
Technological Processes and
Systems
E. Determining and
Controlling the Behavior of
Knowledge Organizer Universals
Technological Systems Evolution into STL Standards
F. Utilizing Technological The transition of the 10 universals
Systems into the 20 STL standards and
G. Assessing the Impacts and their five organizing categories are
Consequences of illustrated in Figure 2 by the solid
Technological Systems lines (with arrows) and the dotted
lines. The solid lines show direct
Contexts correlations between the universals
H. Biological and Chemical and the standards/categories. The
Systems dotted lines show potential corre-
I. Informational Systems lations between the universals and
J. Physical Systems standards (categories). For exam-
ple, under the Knowledge organiz-
Note the placement of the 10 er, the universal “Nature and
universals around the triangle in Evolution of Technology” was
Figure l. The crossing lines in the used to provide the category “The
center part of the triangle depict Nature of Technology” as
the overlapping nature of all the Standard 1, “The Characteristics
universals in technology. and Scope of Technology,” in STL.
These universals form the basis The “Linkages” universal was
for continuous learning of tech- used as the basis for Standard 3,
nology throughout a person’s life- “Relationships Among Technology
time. They constitute the and the Connections Between
fundamental concepts that allow Technology and Other Fields.”
individuals to continually learn as The universal “Technological
conditions change. From this pro- Concepts and Principles” was the
posed structure, content elements foundation for Standard 2, “The
for the study of technology Core Concepts of Technology.
appropriate for students of

13
14
Des
Devigning
Tec elo and
hn pi
PR
Sys ologi ng Det
tem cal
s
A Structure for the Content of Technology

Con ermin
OC
i
Behtrollin ng an
g
Tec avio the d
h r
ESS
Sys nolog of
tem ical

Systems
s
ES

Informational
Tec Utilizi
hn n
Sys ologi g
tem cal Ass
s
Imp essing
C a t
of Tonseq ct and he
ech uen
Sys nolog ces
tem ica
s l

Physical
Systems
Te
Evo chnolo
Nat lution gy
ure of
and

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

CONTEXTS
Link
age
s
KN

Systems
Biological
P
OW
Con rincip
Tec cepts les
hno an
log d
LED
ical
GE
 A Structure for the Content of Technology

Figure 2: Evolution of Taxometric Organizers

15
A Structure for the Content of Technology

Also under the Knowledge orga-

nizer from R&S, the evolution of
technology part of “Nature and
Evolution of Technology” provid-
ed the basis for the content in the
four standards in the “Technology
and Society” category in STL
(Standards 4, 5, 6, and 7).

Processes Organizer Universals

Evolution into STL Standards
In the Processes organizer from
R&S, the “Designing and

Courtesy of Gary Colbert

Developing Technological
Systems” and “Determining and
Controlling the Behavior of
Technological Systems” universals
were used as input in developing
Standards 8, 9, 10, and 11 in STL.
Also in the Process organizer
from R&S, the universal “Utilizing
Technological Systems” was
instrumental in the formulation of given. The biological systems uni- resources. Changing the form of
Standard 12 in STL. versal provided the foundation for materials to increase their value
The universal “Assessing the developing Standard 14 and 15 in and purpose provides the basis for
Impacts and Consequences of the Designed World in STL. production in physical systems.
Products and Systems” provided a Informational systems are con- Power is considered a major part
direct correlation to the STL cerned with processing, storing, of the physical systems, since it is
Standard 13. and using data. Such systems pro- important to the operation of
vide the foundation for today’s them. Physical systems also trans-
Context Organizer Universals “information age.” Knowledge of port people and things. The physi-
Evolution into STL Standards and experience with these systems cal systems universal provided the
gives people the ability to quantify, foundation for the development of
Biological systems use living qualify, and interpret data as a Standards 16, 18, 19, and 20 in
organisms (or parts of organisms) basis for developing new knowl- the Designed World category in
to make or modify products; to edge. Communication technology STL.
improve humans, plants, or ani- is an information system that pro- As previously stated, the 10 uni-
mals; or to develop microorgan- vides the interface between versals in R&S were very instru-
isms for specific use (U.S. Office of humans and humans, between mental in the evolution of the 20
Technology Assessment, 1988). humans and machines, and standards and five categories in
Biological systems are used in between machines and machines. STL.
fields such as medicine and agri- The information systems universal
culture. Many of these systems are was used as a basis for creating
referred to as “biotechnology.” In Standard 17 in STL.
the R&S Contexts organizer, there Physical systems are those that
are three technological systems are tangible and made of physical

16
 A Structure for the Content of Technology

Overview of STL Features of STL Format of STL

S S T
TL begins with a preface that tandards for Technological he individual standards
sets the stage for the publica- Literacy: Content for the Study presented in STL are orga-
tion. Chapter 1 provides a of Technology (STL) represents nized into five major cate-
broad perspective on the collective view gories:
preparing students for a techno- of hundreds of people regarding the ❚ The Nature of Technology
logical world while Chapter 2 con- necessary content for the study of (Chapter 3)
tains the overview of the features technology in Grades K–12. In ❚ Technology and Society
of STL as well as its format. order to be as broadly valuable as (Chapter 4)
Chapter 2 provides a section that possible, STL was created with the ❚ Design (Chapter 5)
deals with the primary users of the following basic features: ❚ Abilities for a Technological
standards as well as recommenda- ❚ It offers a common set of World (Chapter 6)
tions for using the standards for expectations for what students ❚ The Designed World
curriculum development. Chapter should learn about technology. (Chapter 7)
2 also lists administrator guide- ❚ It offers specific content that Under the five major categories,
lines for resources based on STL. every student should learn there are 20 standards. See Figure
Chapters 3 through 7 contain about technology. 3 for a listing of the categories and
major categories under which the ❚ It is developmentally standards.
standards were developed. Lastly, appropriate for students.
Chapter 8 is a call to action ❚ It provides a basis for develop-
requesting users to help ITEA ing meaningful, relevant, and
implement STL. The document articulated curricula
also has an appendix, which at the local and state/
includes the history of the project, provincial levels.
a compendium that provides a ❚ It promotes content connec-
quick overview of the standards tions with other fields of study
and related benchmarks, and an in Grades K–12.
articulated curriculum example for In laying out the essentials for
Grades K–12, as well as refer- the study of technology, STL rep-
ences, acknowledgements, a resents recommendations from
glossary, and an index. educators, engineers, scientists,
mathematicians, and parents about
the skills and knowledge needed to Courtesy of Bob Veltri

become technologically literate. It

is not, however, a federal policy or
mandate. STL does not prescribe
an assessment process for deter- Designers and developers of
mining how well students are wireless communications use
meeting the standards, although it computer simulations to test the
does provide criteria for this signals.
assessment.

17
A Structure for the Content of Technology

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

The Nature of Technology

Standard 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 Society
Standard 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.
Design
Standard 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 World
Standard 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 World
Standard 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

18
 A Structure for the Content of Technology

Standards

S
tandards for Technological STL is not a curriculum. It pro-
Literacy: Content for the vides the content, which is the
Study of Technology (STL) material to be taught and learned
has written statements about in the curriculum. A curriculum
what is valued in the study of provides the specific details of how
technology that can be used for the content (STL) is to be deliv-
judging quality. The document ered, including organization, bal-
specifies what every student ance, and the various ways of
should know and be able to do in presenting the content in the class-
order to be technologically literate room, while standards describe
and offers criteria to judge what the content should be.
progress toward a vision of tech- Curriculum developers, teachers,
nological literacy for all students. and others should use STL as a
STL contains requirements for stu- guide for developing appropriate
dents to become technologically curricula, but the standards do not
literate as a result of their educa- specify what should go on in the
tion from kindergarten through classroom.
Grade 12.

19
A Structure for the Content of Technology

Standard 8 - Students will develop an understanding of

the attributes of design.

In order to realize the attributes of design, students in Grades

3–5 should learn that

C. The design process is a purposeful method of planning

practical solutions to problems. The design process helps
convert ideas into products and systems. The process is
intuitive 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, and
evaluating the solution.

D. Requirements for a design include such factors as the

desired elements and features of a product or system or
the limits that are placed on the design. Technological
designs typically have to meet requirements to be success-
ful. These requirements usually relate to the purpose or
function of the product or system. Other requirements,
Benchmarks in STL such as size and cost, describe the limits of a design.

B
enchmarks play a vital role in
STL. They provide the Figure 4. A Representative Standard and Benchmarks
necessary elaboration of the
broadly stated standards.
Benchmarks, which are statements
that enable students to meet a given
standard, are provided for each of
the 20 standards at the K–2, 3–5,
6–8, and 9–12 grade levels. (See
Figure 4 for a sample of the bench-
marks.) The benchmarks are fol- From research in education, it the early elementary school level to
lowed by supporting sentences that has been found that if previously the more complex and comprehen-
provide further detail, clarity, and learned knowledge is tapped and sive ideas at the high school level.
examples. Like the standards, the built upon, it is likely that children Certain content “concepts,” such as
benchmarks are required for stu- will acquire a more coherent and systems, resources, requirements,
dents to meet the standards. thorough understanding of these optimization, trade-offs, processes,
Teachers should feel free to add to processes than if they are taught and controls, are found in the
the benchmarks to further enhance them as isolated abstractions benchmarks, which extend across
the ability of the student to meet a (NRC, 1999). With this in mind, various levels to ensure continual
given standard, but teachers should the benchmarks are articulated or learning of an important topic
not eliminate or disregard stan- “ramped” from Grades K–12 to related to a standard.
dards or benchmarks. progress from very basic ideas at

20
 A Structure for the Content of Technology

Other Standards and Publications

AdvancingExcellence in New Technology Standards-Based
Technological Literacy: Student Addenda
Assessment, Professional Educational standards provide cri-
Development, and Program teria for learning and ensure quality
Standards in educational programs. Standards-
n Phase III of TfAAP (2000- based technology programs can

I 2005), Advancing Excellence in

Technological Literacy: Student
Assessment, Professional
Development, and Program
Standards (AETL) was developed.
deliver technological literacy. The
purpose of STL and AETL is to
advance the technological literacy
of all students. Together, they iden-
tify a vision for developing a tech-
nologically literate citizenry.
AETL consists of three separate but
interrelated sets of standards. The ITEA Addenda series (to
❚ Student Assessment Standards STL and AETL) is part of the
❚ Professional Development standards package for technological
Standards literacy. They were produced by the
❚ Program Standards TfAAP staff with special assistance
The standards in AETL are from ITEA’s Center to Advance the
based upon STL. AETL is designed Teaching of Technology and
to leave specific curricular decisions Science (CATTS). These addenda
to educators. Teachers, professional are based on the standards but
development providers, and admin- include concrete processes or sug-
istrators should use STL and AETL gestions for incorporating national,
as guides for advancing technologi- state, and/or local technological lit-
cal literacy for all students. eracy standards into the programs
of all students throughout Grades
K–12. Additionally, all of the

21
A Structure for the Content of Technology

documents contain worksheets ITEA-TIDE Challenges for the Future

for educators to use to make
changes specific to their locality In 2005, ITEA started using the The closing of TfAAP’s doors did not
and situation. The new addenda new slogan: Technology Education: represent an end, but a beginning. We
series marks another pioneering Technology, Innovation, Design, appreciate the financial support from
effort in educational reform, as it Engineering (TIDE), which reflects NSF and NASA over the duration of
provides a supplement to educa- what the association is all about. It the project. Also we thank all of the
tional standards that focuses on clearly describes what the content, hundreds of people who contributed
the entire picture of program nature, breadth, and scope of the and gave input to us. In other fields of
reformation rather than concen- study of technology is and can be. study, developing standards has often
trating solely on curricula. The This acronym, TIDE, indicates that proven to be the easiest step in a long,
new addenda are: the study of technology is much arduous process. Therefore, getting
more encompassing than computers these technology standards accepted
❚ Measuring Progress: and information technology and implemented in Grades K–12 in
Assessing Students for (although they are still a part of every school will be far more difficult
Technological Literacy technology). TIDE provides a good, and daunting than developing them
(ITEA, 2004) succinct description of what ITEA is was. Only through the combined
❚ Realizing Excellence: trying to accomplish as the associa- efforts of educational decision makers
Structuring Technology tion representing the study of tech- everywhere will we be able to ensure
Programs (ITEA, 2005) nology as a core school subject. that all students develop higher levels
❚ Planning Learning: of technological literacy.
Developing Technology
Curricula (ITEA, 2005)
❚ Developing Professionals:
Preparing Technology
Teachers (ITEA, 2005)

22
 Courtesy of Rick Griffiths, Courtesy of TIES Magazine
Teaching Technology

S chool systems across the

country must establish
effective technological
literacy efforts, beginning in
kindergarten and continuing each
year through high school and
beyond. By using the structure
outlined in STL, communities can
and larger pool of graduates who
are able and motivated to pursue
education and careers in the various
technological professions.
The first priority of a study of
technology is to provide technologi-
cal literacy to all students. This
includes all of those students who
incorporate the necessary concepts traditionally have not been served
and experiences so that all students by technology programs.
have the opportunity to develop the Technology must be a required
necessary knowledge and abilities subject for every student at every
to become technologically literate. level of their education.
By incorporating STL throughout Incorporating a study of technology
the curriculum and in technology into the country’s school systems
courses, schools can provide will require curriculum develop-
experiences that instill insight and ment, teacher training, and in some
problem-solving capabilities. cases, dedicated teaching and labo-
Including the study of technology in ratory space. However, it is an
the core curriculum will not only effort that will reap rewards for
raise the technological literacy of every person in every community,
the community, but also help and society as a whole.
students perform better in other
subjects. In addition, technological
literacy will create a more diverse

23
A Study of Technology During
the Elementary School Years

T
hroughout the elementary years, A study of technology should be
a study of technology should be a part of integrated thematic units
designed to help pupils learn that explore the relationship of
and achieve the educational technology to humans, societies, or
goals of the total elementary cur- the environment, or incorporated
riculum. These experiences develop into the elementary curriculum as a
the students’ perceptions and valued subject with designated time
knowledge of technology, psy- slots. The materials and resources
chomotor skills, and provide a required for the elementary technol-
basis for informed attitudes about ogy curricula are minimal and
the interrelationship of technology, include student- and teacher-pre-
society, and the environment. pared items, along with basic
Beginning in kindergarten, a supplies typically used at these
study of technology can help deliv- grade levels.
er the kind of active learning that Technology can and should be
children need and enjoy. Children taught in the regular classroom, by
should be engaged in the design of a qualified elementary teacher.
products, systems, and environ- Initially, many elementary teachers
ments requiring them to gain new feel unqualified to teach technolo-
Technology education provides the
knowledge about technology, and gy, but experience has shown that active learning on which students
to use the knowledge they have with appropriate in-service training, thrive at all ages.
learned from related subjects. these teachers perform exceptional-
Pupils apply their knowledge when ly well and excel at integrating
drawing, planning, designing, prob- technological concepts across the technology education. Further, all
lem solving, building, testing, and curriculum. However, if the study teacher preparation institutions will
improving their solutions to prob- of technology is to enhance what need to include the study of tech-
lems. According to research results and how children learn, all elemen- nology as a part of their undergrad-
from cognitive science, this process tary teachers will need in-service uate degree requirements.
of critical thinking and creative and pre-service opportunities in
activity can help children construct
what they are learning into more

Courtesy of Bob Veltri

meaningful knowledge structures.
Technology activities can be used to
integrate the study of technology
with related concepts from other
disciplines, such as mathematics,
science, social studies, language
arts, and other content areas.

The materials and resources required for elementary

technology education are minimal.

24
 Teaching Technology

A Study of Technology During

the Middle School Years

M
iddle school technology pro- In the middle school, the stu-
grams should be designed to dents gain further understanding of
provide active learning situa- the nature of technology. Middle
tions that help the early ado- school students will deepen their
lescent explore and develop a level of understanding and increase
broader view of technology. abilities related to the technological
Instructional experiences should be world. Middle school students con-
organized in ways that correspond tinue to be given opportunities to
to the distinct developmental needs see how technology has contextual
of learners in grades five through relationships with all systems in the
eight. designed world.
The study of technology should Middle school students can pro-
be a part of the core curriculum for duce models and develop real tech-
all learners throughout their middle nological products, systems, and
school years. Middle school pro- environments. They learn how to
grams at this level can be imple- apply principles of engineering,
mented through interdisciplinary architecture, industrial design, and As middle school students develop
teams that include a certificated computer science to gain a better greater capability in science,
technology teacher. In some cases, understanding of technology. By mathematics, and social studies, they
are able to delve deeper into the
the technology education program taking core courses in technology
workings of technological systems.
will be taught by a certificated education in the middle school,
technology teacher in a non- students will discover and develop
team-teaching environment. Middle personal interests, talents, and abili-
school technology programs assist ties related to technology.
students in learning about the
processes that apply to the design,
problem solving, development, and
use of technological products and
systems. Also, students begin to
develop the ability to assess the
impacts and consequences of tech-
nology on society.

25
Teaching Technology

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

26
 Teaching Technology

A Study of Technology During

the High School Years and Beyond

A
study of technology in high ❚ Employ the resources of technolo-
school enhances the learner’s gy to analyze the behavior of tech-
understanding of technology nological systems,
and develops a richer sense of ❚ Apply design concepts to solve
the relationships between technolo- problems and extend human
capability,
gy and other school subjects. This
❚ Apply scientific principles, engi-
is especially appropriate with cours-
es in which there is a direct applica- neering concepts, and technologi-
cal systems in the solution of
tion with technology, such as everyday problems, and
science and mathematics. Other rel- ❚ Develop personal interests and
evant courses could be language abilities related to careers in
arts, social studies, geography, art, technology.
music, and physical education. In
High school students engaged in
some applications, a study of tech-
discussion, problem solving, design,
nology can assist the high school
research, and the development and
student to learn in an interdiscipli-
application of technological devices At the high school level, students should
nary nature by providing relevance
need to study and learn in a tech- have the opportunity to take technology
to many other school subjects.
nology laboratory. This will ensure education courses that delve deeply into
Curriculum options should allow
a learning environment for efficient various areas that involve the develop-
students to choose from sequences ment, utilization, and assessment of
and safe work. The technology pro-
of technology courses that extend technological systems. Courtesy of Rick Griffiths.
gram at the high school level
their studies in the development,
should be taught by certificated
integration, and evolution of tech-
technology teachers, individually or
nological systems. Courses such as
in a team-teaching environment.
“Engineering Design” can be taken
The ultimate goal for every
by 11th- and 12th-grade students in Beyond High School
student who graduates from high
some schools.
school is technological literacy. The technological literacy level of
High school students’ needs for a
Some students who study tech- high school graduates should pro-
study of technology are more diver-
nology in high school will pursue vide the foundation for a lifetime of
sified than younger students’ since
technological careers after gradua- learning about technology. As grad-
their interests and potential career
tion, such as engineering, architec- uates pursue post secondary study,
choices are expanding. As a result
ture, computer science, engineering they will meet many opportunities
of taking technology, students need
technology, and technology teacher to delve more extensively into tech-
to:
education. nology studies.
❚ Evaluate technology’s capabilities, At the community college level,
uses, and consequences on
there are specialized engineering
individuals, society, and the
environment, technology programs. These pro-
grams may consist of electronics
technology and design technology,

27
Teaching Technology

as well as many other associate

degree programs.
The study of technology at the
college and university level is exten-
sive and multidimensional. Typical
majors in engineering, architecture,
health sciences, and computer sci-
ence are directly involved with the
study of technology. Additional
courses related to technology may
include agriculture, industrial
design, science-technology-society
(STS), and technology teacher
education.
Some universities offer broad
courses in the study of technology
as a part of their liberal arts or core
offerings to undergraduate stu-
dents. The courses help to provide
students with technological literacy
at the baccalaureate levels. Finally,
the preparation of technology
teachers is an important component
of higher education.
Courtesy of Rick Griffiths

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

28
A Call to Action

T
leaders to develop new curriculum
materials at the state and local lev-
echnological literacy must els. A study of technology, as pre-
become a central concern of sented here, must become a valued
the educational system. This subject at every level.
will require significant effort This document addresses tech-
involving the schools, individuals, nology education professionals and
parents, concerned citizens, business other educators. Technology teach-
and industry leaders, government ers must realize their full potential
agencies, and those in the as the key people who can increase
technological professions, such as awareness of the need for a study
engineering and architecture, and of technology within their local
others concerned about the study school system. Technology teachers
of technology. should also work with other teach-
A rationale and structure for the ers in their school to assist them in
study of technology has been pre- teaching the content of technology
sented here that should assure that in their classes (i.e., a social studies
everyone can gain the foundation class could teach a unit on the
they need to participate in and industrial revolution). State and
adapt to today’s ever-changing tech- local school administrators and
nological world. These materials curriculum leaders must also mobi-
are compatible with STL and lize to promote the idea that a
AETL. It is hoped that this will study of technology can become a
encourage technology education liberating force as a new basic and
29
 Photo taken at Arbutus Elementary School
multi-disciplinary form of educa- standards can be used by state and and in STL and AETL, must be
tion. Technology teacher educators local school systems to develop shared by all of those who have a
at the college/university level must high-quality technology curricula stake in the future of all children—
expand their teacher preparation and programs, to prepare teachers, not just teachers, but also adminis-
and research in the field of teaching and to assess whether or not stu- trators, policy makers, parents, and
technology so that many issues can dents are meeting the standards. members of the general public. This
be addressed with knowledge and Parents need to become familiar material represents not an end, but
understanding. Finally, student with the study of technology and a beginning. It is a starting point
organizations, such as the the benefits it can provide their for universal action within states,
Technology Student Association children. They should become districts, and local schools across
(TSA), the Technology Education proactive in promoting the study of the country so that the study of
Collegiate Association (TECA), and technology as a core subject. The technology becomes an essential
Junior Engineering Technical support from the business and subject for all students.
Society (JETS), should provide industry community is crucial for
activities that are available to all the full implementation of the study
students to develop leadership at of technology in the schools.
the local, state, and national levels. Key government decision mak-
These activities should reflect STL ers, from the local to the state and
and AETL. federal levels, need to be informed
Professional associations and about the benefits of the study of
groups both inside and outside the technology for all students so that
technology education profession their support can be obtained.
must work to develop and imple- The vision of the study of tech-
ment STL and AETL. These nology, embodied in this document,
30
References and Resources

Addenborough, D. (1975). Life on earth. Brandt, R. (Ed). (1993). Educational Conwell, J. C., Catalano, G. D., &
Boston: Little and Brown. leadership: The challenges of higher Beard, J. E. (1993). A case study in
standards. Alexandria, VA: creative problem solving in
American Association for the Advance-
Association for Supervision and engineering design. Journal of
ment of Science, Project 2061. (1990).
Curriculum Development. Engineering Education, (October),
Science for all Americans. New York:
227-231.
Oxford University Press. Britton, E., De Long-Cotty, B., &
Levenson, T. (2005). Bringing Desmond, K. (1986). A timetable of
American Association for the Advance-
technology education into K–8 inventions and discoveries. New York:
ment of Science, Project 2061. (1993).
classrooms: A guide to curricular M. Evans.
Benchmarks for science literacy. New
resources about the designed world.
York: Oxford University Press. DeVore, P. W. (1964). Technology: An
Reston, VA: International Technology
intellectual discipline. [Bulletin No.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving Education Association.
5]. Washington DC: American
and learning. American Psychologist,
Bunge, M. (1983). Technology as applied Industrial Arts Association.
48, (1), 35-44.
science. In C. Mitcham and R.
DeVore, P. W. (1980). Technology: An
Ballentyne, D. W. G., & Lovett, D. R. Mackey (Eds.), Philosophy and
introduction. Worcester, MA: Davis.
(1970). A dictionary of named effects technology. New York: Free Press.
and laws. London: Chapman and (Original work published in 1974). DeVore, P. W. (1987). Technology
Hall. and science. Conducting technical
Bybee, R. W. (1989). Science and
research. 36th Yearbook Council
Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The technology education for the
on Technology Teacher Education.
basis of cultural change. New York: elementary years: Frameworks for
Mission Hills, CA: Glencoe.
McGraw-Hill. curriculum and instruction. Andover,
MA: The National Center for Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-capitalist
Barson, S. L., Ascoli, E. P., DeCroix, Improving Science Education. society. New York: Harper-Collins.
& Sindir, M. M. (1995, March).
Computational system for rapid CFD Bybee, R. (2000). Achieving Dugger, W. E., Jr. (1988). Technology—
analysis in engineering (NASA Tech technological literacy: A national The discipline. The Technology
Briefs p. 22, 24). imperative. The Technology Teacher, Teacher, 48, (1), 3-6.
60(1), 23–28.
Benjamin, A. C. (1965). Science, Dugger, W. E., Jr., Bame, A. E., Pinder, C.
technology, and human values. Carin, A. A. (1993). Teaching science A., & Miller, D. C. (1985). Standards
Columbia, MO: University of through discovery. New York: for technology education programs.
Missouri Press. Macmillan. Reston, VA: International Technology
Education Association.
Bensen, M. J. (1993). Positioning and Center for Civic Education. (1994).
marketing technology education: National standards for civics and Dugger, W.E., Jr., Bame, A.E., Pinder,
Joining forces with the establishment. government. Calabasas, CA: Author. C.A., & Miller, D.C. (1981).
Reston, VA: International Technology Standards for industrial arts
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian
Education Association. programs. Blacksburg, VA: Industrial
linguistics. New York: Harper and
Arts Program, Virginia Tech.
Bloch, E. (1986). Scientific and tech- Row.
nological literacy: The need and the Dugger, W.E., Jr., Bame, A.E., Pinder,
Clarke, J. (1990). Patterns of thinking:
challenge. Bulletin of Science, C.A., & Miller, D.C. (1985).
Integrating learning skills in content
Technology and Society, 6, pp. 138- Standards for technology education
teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
145. programs. Reston, VA: International
Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Smith, Technology Education Association.
Booth, D. E. (1994). Valuing nature:
D. K. (1992). Psychological testing
The decline and preservation of old- Dunlap, D. D. (1990). Comparing
and assessment: An introduction to
growth forests. Lanham, MD: attitudes toward technology of third
tests and measurements. Mountain
Rowman and Littlefield. and fourth grade students in Virginia
View, CA: Mayfield.
relative to their exposure to
Bouwman, M. J. (1983). Human
Consortium for Policy Research in technology. Unpublished doctoral
diagnostic reasoning by computer:
Education. (1995, May). Reforming dissertation, Virginia Tech,
An illustration from financial analysis.
science, mathematics, and technology Blacksburg, Virginia.
Management Science, 29, (6), 653-
education: NSF’s state systemic
672. Dyrenfurth, M. J., & Kozak, M. R.
initiatives. New Brunswick, NJ:
(Eds.). (1991). Technological literacy.
Boyer, E. L. (1983). High school. Author.
40th Yearbook Council of Technology
New York: Harper & Row.
Teacher Education. Peoria, IL:
Macmillan-McGraw.

31
References and Resources

Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L. Harvey, G. (1995, April). Status report of International Technology Education
H., & Northup, L. L. (1986). voluntary national standards in Association. (2001). Teaching tech-
Engineering fundamentals and education. Andover, MA: The nology: High school, Strategies for
problem solving. New York: Regional Laboratory. standards-based instruction. Reston,
McGraw-Hill. VA: Author.
Householder, D. (1979). Curriculum
Federal Coordinating Council for movements of the 1960’s. Industrial International Technology Education
Science, Engineering, and Technology arts education: retrospect, prospect. Association. (2002). Technology
(FCCSET). (1992). Pathways to 28th Yearbook American Council of starters: A standards-based guide.
excellence: A federal strategy for Industrial Arts Teacher Education. Reston, VA: Author.
science, mathematics, engineering, Bloomington, IL: McKnight.
International Technology Education
and technology education.
Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. R. (1994). Association. (2003). Advancing excel-
Washington, DC: National
Design and problem-solving in lence in technological literacy:
Aeronautics and Space
technology. Albany, NY: Delmar. Student assessment, professional
Administration.
development, and program standards.
Hyde, A. A., & Bizar, M. (1989).
Fiebleman, J. K. (1966). Importance Reston, VA: Author.
Thinking in context: Teaching
of technology. Nature, 209, (5019),
cognitive processes across the International Technology Education
122-125.
elementary school curriculum. New Association. (2003). Models for intro-
Ford, G. W., & Pugno, L. (Eds.). (1964). York: Longman. ducing technology: A standards-based
The structure of knowledge and the guide. Reston, VA: Author.
International Society for Technology in
curriculum. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Education. (2000). National International Technology Education
Forman, S. (1987). The civilized educational technology standards for Association. (2003). Foundations of
engineer. New York: St. Martin’s students: Connecting curriculum and technology: A standards-based high
Press. technology. Retrieved November 7, school model course guide. Reston,
2002 from http://cnets.iste.org/. VA: Author.
Fowler, W. S. (1962). The development
of scientific method. London: International Technology Education International Technology Education
Pergamon Press. Association. (1988). Technology: Association. (2004). Measuring
A national imperative. Reston, VA: progress: Assessing students for tech-
French, M. J. (1988). Invention and
Author. nological literacy. Reston, VA:
evolution: Design in nature and
Author.
engineering. Cambridge, MA: International Technology Education
Cambridge University Press. Association. (1985). Technology International Technology Education
education: A perspective on Association. (2004). Engineering
Geography Education Standards Project.
implementation. Reston, VA: Author. design: A standards-based high school
(1994). Geography for life: National
model course guide. Reston, VA:
geography standards. Washington, International Technology Education
Author.
DC: National Geographic Society. Association. (1996/2005). Technology
for all Americans: A rationale and International Technology Education
Glimm, J. G. (1991). Mathematical
structure for the study of technology. Association. (2005). Invention and
sciences, technology, and economic
Reston, VA: Author. innovation: A standards-based middle
competitiveness. Washington, DC:
school model course guide. Reston,
National Academy Press. International Technology Education
VA: Author.
Association. (2000). Teaching tech-
Gradwell, J., Welch, M., & Martin, E.
nology: Middle school, Strategies for International Technology Education
(1991). Technology shaping our
standards-based instruction. Reston, Association. (2005). Technological
world. South Holland, IL: Goodheart-
VA: Author. systems: A standards-based middle
Willcox.
school model course guide. Reston,
International Technology Education
Grayson, L. P. (1993). The making of an VA: Author.
Association. (2000/2002). Standards
engineer. New York: John Wiley &
for technological literacy: Content for International Technology Education
Sons.
the study of technology. Reston, VA: Association. (2005). Impacts of tech-
Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A Author. nology: A standards-based high
process approach. Unpublished school model course guide. Reston,
International Technology Education
doctoral dissertation, West Virginia VA: Author.
Association. (2001). Exploring tech-
University, Morgantown.
nology: A standards-based middle International Technology Education
Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and school model course guide. Reston, Association. (2005a). Developing
knowledge: An introduction to critical VA: Author. professionals: Preparing technology
thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. teachers. Reston, VA: Author.

32
 References and Resources

International Technology Education Kimbell, R. (1993). Technology in the Marzano, R., Brandt, R., Hughes, C.,
Association. (2005b). Realizing excel- school curriculum (a contractor report Jones, B., Presseisen, B., Rankin, S.,
lence: Structuring technology pro- prepared for the U.S. Congress, Office & Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of
grams. Reston, VA: Author. of Technology Assessment). London: thinking: A framework for curriculum
Author. and instruction. Alexandria, VA:
International Technology Education
Association for Supervision and
Association. (2005c). Planning learn- Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of
Curriculum Development.
ing: Developing technology curricula. scientific revolutions. In O. Neurath,
Reston, VA: Author. Johnson, J. R. R. Carnap, & C. Morris (Eds.), McLaughlin, M. W., Shepard, L. A.,
(Ed.). (1989). Technology: A project Foundations of the unity of science & O’Day, J. A. (1995). Improving
2061 panel report. Washington, DC: (pp. 53-272). Chicago: The University education through standards-based
American Association for the of Chicago Press. reform. Stanford, CA: The National
Advancement of Science. Academy of Education.
Lajoie, S. P. (1986). Cognitive task
Johnson, S. D. (1996, January). Learning analysis: Implications for intelligent Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through
concepts and developing intellectual tutor development. Paper presented at technology. Chicago: The University
skills in technical and vocational the annual meeting of the American of Chicago Press.
education. In Learning in Technical Educational Research Association,
Morgall, J. M. (1993). Technology
and Vocational Education. San Francisco, CA.
assessment: A feminist perspective.
Symposium 12 conducted at the
Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
second Jerusalem International
Rational consensus in science and Press.
Science and Technology Education
society: A philosophical and
Conference, Jerusalem, Israel. Mottier, I., Raat, J. H., & deVries, M. J.
mathematical study. Dordrecht,
(Eds.). (1993). Technology education
Johnson, S. D., Foster W. T., & Holland: D. Reidel.
and the environment: Improving our
Satchwell, R. (1989, July).
Lemann, N. (1991). The promised land. environment through technology
Sophisticated technology, the
New York: Alfred A. Knopf. education, Proceedings of PATT-6
workforce, and vocational education.
Conference. Eindhoven, The
Springfield, IL: Department of Adult, Logan, D. G., & Eastman, R. W. (1986,
Netherlands: PATT Foundation.
Vocational and Technical Education, April). Mental models of electronic
Illinois State Board of Education. troubleshooting. Paper presented at Mumford, Lewis. (1966). The myth of
the annual meeting of the American the machine: Technics and human
Johnson S. D., & Satchwell, R. E.
Educational Research Association, development. Harcourt, Brace and
(1993). The effect of functional flow
San Francisco, CA. World.
diagrams on apprentice aircraft
mechanics’ technical system Lux, D. (1981). Industrial arts Music Educators National Conference.
understanding. Performance redirected. An interpretative history (1994). National standards for arts
Improvement Quarterly, 6, (4), 73-91. of industrial arts. 30th Yearbook education. Reston, VA: Author.
American Council on Industrial Arts
Jones, R. E., Salinger, G. L., Wright, J. Music Educators National Conference.
Teacher Education. Bloomington, IL:
R., Foster, W. T., & Scarborough, J. (1994). The vision for arts education
McKnight.
D. (1995) Technology education in the 21st century. Reston, VA:
outcomes. Chicago: Chicago Public Maley, D. (1985). Author.
Schools. Math/science/technology projects.
National Academy of Engineering &
Reston, VA: International Technology
Keefe, J. W., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). National Research Council. (2002).
Education Association.
(1992). Teaching for thinking. Reston, Technically speaking: Why all
VA: National Association of Markert, L. M. (1993). Contemporary Americans need to know more about
Secondary School Principals. technology, innovations, issues, and technology. (G. Pearson & A.T.
perspectives. South Holland, IL: Young, Eds.). Washington, DC:
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1995).
Goodheart-Willcox. National Academy Press.
The systematic identification and
articulation of content standards Maryland State Board of Education. National Aeronautics and Space
and benchmarks. Aurora, CO: (1995). Quality indicators for Administration. (1993). NASA’s
Mid-continent Regional Education technology education programs in strategic plan for education—A
Laboratory. Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Author. strategy for change: 1993-1998.
Washington, DC: Author.
Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984). The
role of a mental model in learning to National Council for History Standards.
operate a device. Cognitive Science, 8, (1996). National standards for
255-273. history. Los Angeles, CA: National
Center for History in the Schools.

33
References and Resources

National Council for the Social Studies. National Research Council. (1999). How Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct.
(1994). Curriculum standards for people learn: Bridging research and New York: William Morrow.
social studies: Expectations of practice (M.S. Donovan, J.D.
Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. (1995). Skill
excellence. Washington, DC: Author. Bransford, & J.W. Pellegrino, Eds.).
acquisition and human performance.
Washington, DC: National Academy
National Council of Teachers of English. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Press.
(1996). Standards for the English
Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D.,
language arts. Urbana, IL: National Research Council. (2001b).
& Vickers, M. (1995.) Technology
International Reading Association and Knowing what students know: The
education in the classroom:
the National Council of Teachers of science and design of educational
Understanding the designed world.
English. assessment. (J. Pellegrino, N.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, Eds.).
National Council of Teachers of
Washington, DC: National Academy Rapp, F. (Ed.). (1974). Contributions to
Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and
Press. a philosophy of technology: Studies
evaluation standards for school
in the structure of thinking in the
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Research Council. (1995).
technological sciences. Holland: D.
National science education standards.
National Council of Teachers of Reidel.
Washington, DC: National Academy
Mathematics. (2000). Principles and
Press. Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards
standards for school mathematics.
in American education. Washington,
Reston, VA: Author. National Science Foundation. (1995).
DC: The Brookings Institution.
NSF in a changing world: The
National Council of Teachers of
national science foundation’s strategic Reif, F. (1985). Acquiring an effective
Mathematics. (1991). Professional
plan. Washington, DC: Author. understanding of scientific concepts.
standards for teaching mathematics.
In L. H. T. West, & A. L. Pines (Eds.),
Reston, VA: Author. Neuroth, O., Carnap, R., & Morris, C.
Cognitive structure and conceptual
(Eds.). (1939). Foundations of the
National Council of Teachers of change (pp. 133-150). New York:
unity of science. Chicago, IL: The
Mathematics. (1995). Assessment Academic Press.
University of Chicago Press.
standards for school mathematics.
Rennie, J. (Ed.). (1995, September).
Reston, VA: Author. New York State Department of
Key technologies for the 21st century.
Education. (1994). Curriculum
National Education Goals Report. Scientific American, 273, (3).
instruction and assessment framework
(1994). Building a nation of
for mathematics, science and Ritz, J. M., & Swail, W. S. (1992).
learners—1994. Washington, DC:
technology. Albany, NY: Author. Design and technology II—
National Education Goals Panel.
Technology assessment. Richmond,
New Zealand Ministry of Education.
National Education Standards and VA: Virginia Department of
(1995). Technology in the New
Improvement Council. (1993). Education.
Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New
Promises to keep: Creating high
Zealand: Learning Media Limited. Ropohl, G. (in press). What technologists
standards for American students.
know and how they know it. In M. J.
Washington, DC: National Goals Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972).
deVries and A. Tamir (Eds.) Shaping
Panel. Human problem solving. Englewood
concepts of technology. Dordreche,
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
National Research Council. (1999). The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic
Designing mathematics or science Ornstein, R. (1991). The evolution of Publications.
curriculum programs: A guide for consciousness. New York: Prentice
Rose, L.C., & Dugger, W.E. (2002).
using mathematics and science Hall.
ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what
education standards. Washington,
Orpwood, G. (1995). Assessment of Americans think about technology.
DC: National Academy Press.
science and technology achievement Reston, VA: International Technology
National Research Council. (2001a). project. North Zonk, Ontario: York Education Association.
Educating teachers of science, University.
Rose, L.C., Gallup, A.M., Dugger, W.E.,
mathematics, and technology.
Owen, C. (1994). Interview. Journal of & Starkweather, K.N. (2004). The
Washington, DC: National Academy
Technology Studies, 20, (2). second installment of the
Press.
ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals
Pacey, A. (1990). Technology in world
National Research Council. (2000). How as to how Americans think about
civilization. Cambridge: The MIT
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, technology. Reston, VA: International
Press.
and school (J.D. Bransford, A.L. Technology Education Association.
Brown, & R.R. Cocking, Eds.). Parker, J. C. (1964). The structure of
Washington, DC: National Academy knowledge and the curriculum.
Press. Chicago: Rand McNally.

34
 References and Resources

Rosenberg, N., & Birdzell, L. E. (1990). U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Waetjen, W. B. (1992). Shaping the
Science, technology, and the western Labor Statistics. (1994, April). The future of the profession. Critical issues
miracle. Scientific American, 262, (5), American work force: 1992-2005 in technology education, camelback
42-54. (Bulletin No. 2452). Washington, DC: symposium, a compilation of papers.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Reston, VA: International Technology
Saunders, P., & Gilliard, J. (1989). A
Education Association.
framework for teaching the basic U.S. Department of Labor, The
concepts. New York: National Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Waetjen, W. B. (1989). Technological
Council on Economic Education. Necessary Skills. (1992). Skills and problem solving: A proposal. Reston,
tasks for jobs, A SCANS report for VA: International Technology
Savage, E., & Sterry, L. (1991). A
America 2000. (DOL Publication No. Education Association.
conceptual framework for technology
1992 0-307-898 QL3). Washington,
education. Reston, VA: International Waetjen, W. B. (1990). Technology
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Technology Education Association. and human behavior. Reston, VA:
U.S. Department of Labor, The International Technology Education
Scientific American, (1995). Key
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Association.
technologies for the 21st century. 273,
Necessary Skills, Pelavin Associates,
(3). New York: Scientific American, Walton, J. W. (1991). Engineering
Inc. (1992). SCANS in the schools.
Incorporated. design: From art to practice. St. Paul,
Washington, DC: Author.
MN: West.
Scottish Consultative Council on the
U.S. Department of Labor, The
Curriculum. (1994). A framework for Welsh Office Education Department.
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving
technology education in Scottish (1995). Design and technology in
Necessary Skills. (1991). What work
schools: A paper for consultation and the national curriculum. London,
requires of schools, A SCANS report
discussion. Dundee, Scotland: Scottish England: HMSO
for America 2000, A letter to parents,
CCC.
employers, and educators. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R.
Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Washington, DC: Author. (1987). Causal model progressions as
Instructional technology: The a foundation for intelligent learning
U.S. Department of Labor, The
definition and domains of the field. environments (Report No. 6686).
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving
Washington, DC: Association for Cambridge, MA: BBN Laboratories.
Necessary Skills. (1991). What work
Educational Communications.
requires of schools, A SCANS report Wiens, A. E. (Taskforce Chairperson)
Smith, D. (1981). Industrial arts for America 2000, Executive (1994). Technology as liberal
founded. An interpretative history summary. Washington, DC: Author. education. Reston, VA: International
of industrial arts. 30th Yearbook Technology Education Association.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment
American Council on Industrial Arts
(1988). U.S. investment in Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998).
Teacher Education. Bloomington, IL:
biotechnology - special report. Understanding by design. Alexandria,
McKnight.
Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press. VA: Association for Supervision and
Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (Eds.). Curriculum Development.
Usher, A. P. (1959). A history of
(1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial arts
mechanical inventions. Boston: Wright, R. T., Israel, E. N., & Lauda, D.
curriculum theory. Reston, VA:
Beacon Press. P. (1993). A decision maker’s guide to
International Technology Education
technology education. Reston, VA:
Association. Vela, C. E. (1995, September), On the
International Technology Education
Nature of Technology. TIES
Swerdlow, J. L. (1995, October). Association.
Magazine, 1, 33.
Information Revolution. The National
Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum principles
Geographic. Washington, DC. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers
and foundations. New York: Thomas
know and how they know it:
Tidewater Technology Associates. (1992, Y. Crowell.
Analytical studies from aeronautical
March). Forecasting for the future.
history. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Zwicky, F., & Wilson, A. G. (Eds.).
The Technology Teacher, 23-29.
Hopkins University Press. (1967). New methods of thought
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of and procedure. New York: Springer-
Waetjen, W. B. (1995). Language:
Labor Statistics. (1992, August). Verlag.
Technology in another dimension.
Work and family: jobs held and weeks
Journal of Technology Studies, 21,
worked by young adults (Report No.
(2).
827). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

35
Appendices

International
Technology
Education
Association

History by the membership, oversees the The ITEA strives to:

The International Technology fiscal and program management of ❚ Provide a philosophical founda-
Education Association (ITEA) was the association and adopts policies tion for the study of technology
created in 1939 by a group of edu- and procedures accordingly. A that emphasizes technological
cators who sought to promote their professional headquarters staff, literacy.
profession and to provide a nation- located in Reston, Virginia, carries ❚ Provide teaching and learning
al forum for their ideas. Today, the out the day-to-day operations of systems for developing
ITEA pursues that same purpose on the association. technological literacy.
the international level and has
Mission ❚ Serve as the catalyst in establishing
become a powerful voice across
The ITEA’s mission is to advance technology education as the
North America and around the
everyone’s technological capabilities primary discipline for the
world.
and to nurture and promote the advancement of technological
Since its beginning, the ITEA has
professionalism of those engaged in literacy.
been dedicated to ensuring that all
these pursuits. The ITEA seeks to ❚
children get the best education pos- Increase the number and quality
meet the professional needs and
sible. It serves the professional of people teaching technology.
interests of its members, and to
interests of elementary through uni- ❚ Receive enrichment and
improve public understanding of
versity technology educators and reinforcement on the concepts
the profession and its contributions.
promotes the highest standards. in the sciences, mathematics,
No generation of educators has
Organization ever needed to be as up-to-date on language arts, and other subject
The Delegate Assembly is the technology trends as today’s practi- areas.
ITEA’s basic governing body. tioners. The ever-accelerating ❚ Work with tools, materials,
Delegates are selected by affiliated changes in current technologies and technological concepts
state/province/national associations and the influx of new technologies and processes.
and meet annually at the ITEA present major challenges to those ❚ Use design, engineering, and
International Conference. A 12- teaching about technology. technology in solving societal
member Board of Directors, elected problems.

36
 Appendices

Technology
for All Americans
Project

Introduction persons who were especially aware individual reviews and comments,
In an effort to increase the tech- of the need for a technologically lit- that ultimately involved the scruti-
nological literacy of all Americans, erate society. Members represented ny of more than 500 reviewers
the National Science Foundation the fields of engineering, science, inside and outside the profession of
(NSF) and the National Aero- mathematics, the humanities, technology education.
nautics and Space Administration education, government, profession- The first workshop was held at
(NASA) funded this project to al associations, and industry. The the ITEA Conference in March,
develop a nationally viable ratio- 25-member Commission served in 1995 in Nashville to gain input
nale and structure for technology an advisory capacity to the project from the profession on the forma-
education. This effort was spear- staff and functioned independently tive items in this document. During
headed by the International of both the project and the ITEA. the initial review process, that took
Technology Education Association The Commission served as a vital place during August 1995, a draft
(ITEA) and was called “Technology resource of experts knowledgeable document was mailed to and
for All Americans (TfAAP).” The about technology and its interface reviewed by more than 150 profes-
project’s goal was to offer those with science, mathematics, engi- sionals, who were selected via a
who are interested in technology neering, and education. nomination process. Each state
education a clear vision of what it A team of six writing consultants supervisor for technology education
means to be technologically literate, was formed from the National and president of state associations
how this can be achieved at a Commission. Throughout the for technology education were
national level, and why it is impor- process, the writing consultants asked to nominate mathematics,
tant for the nation. The goal in represented a wealth of knowledge, science, and technology educators
Phase I (1994-96) of TfAAP was to extensive background, and a from elementary through high
produce this document (Tech- unique diversity that played an school levels to participate in a
nological Literacy for All: A important role in the development series of consensus-building work-
Rationale and Structure for the of this document. shops. The workshops were hosted
Study of Technology) (R&S). by seven NASA field centers
Building Consensus
around the country. The draft doc-
Development of 1996 Edition of R&S This document, in draft form,
ument was disseminated to the par-
The Technology for All Ameri- went through a dynamic develop-
ticipants prior to the consensus-
cans Project set out in Phase I to ment evolution as a result of a very
building workshop. They were
achieve this goal by establishing a structured consensus process.
asked to review the draft docu-
National Commission composed of The consensus process involved a
ment, respond to several prepared
series of workshops, along with
37
Appendices

questions, and provide comments conferences. The project staff found Internet. Throughout this project, a
directly on their copy of the draft. that by focusing on areas of con- World Wide Web home page was
At the workshops, participants cern identified from the summer maintained in an effort to dissemi-
from 38 states and one territory review process, the changes that nate timely material. Access to the
were divided into heterogeneous were made in subsequent versions draft document became part of the
groups that represented the interest of the draft document were well home page in December 1995, and
groups of those involved (i.e., ele- received. reviewers were invited to fill out a
mentary school, middle school, Changes and revisions go hand- comment and review form on-line
high school, mathematics, science, in-hand with the consensus process. and submit it to the project for
technology). These small groups This process continued throughout consideration prior to the final revi-
were then asked to respond to pre- the fall until a second version of the sions. The 1996 version of this
pared questions as a group and draft document was disseminated document represents the broad sup-
come to consensus on the content for review in October–December, port and input that was provided
of the draft document. 1995. This second draft was dis- throughout this consensus process.
Input and reactions from the seminated to more than 250 people
Revision of R&S in 2006
field were very valuable during the at eight regional locations in the
This revised edition of R&S was
consensus process. Perspectives United States. This group contained
accomplished to reflect changes
were shared that had not been dis- a large number of administrators. It
pursuant to publications created by
cussed in prior writing consultants’ was felt that an important part of
ITEA/TfAAP since 1996 (when the
meetings. Ideas for improving the the consensus process includes a
original version of R&S was
draft document were generated “buy-in” component. In other
published). TfAAP staff made the
from the group synergism and words, if technology education is
revision in the summer of 2005 for
regional philosophies or viewpoints to become a core subject in the
a 2006 copyright of R&S.
were acknowledged. This input was nation’s schools, then those who
analyzed to determine the needed hold the power to enable this vision
changes for its content. Changes to become real must be involved in
then were made to reflect the data the front end of this process.
from the summer workshops. In Additional efforts were made to
addition, these changes were “tried expand the audience that reviewed
out” with groups throughout the this document by making it avail-
fall of 1995 at state and regional able to anyone having access to the

38
 Appendices

Center to Advance the Teaching of

Technology & Science (CATTS)

The Center to Advance the 4. Standards-based curriculum Engineering By Design Model

Teaching of Technology & Science implementation and Program Series
(CATTS) was established by the diffusion K–2 Integrated units and
International Technology lessons
Education Association to improve CATTS Consortium 3–5 Integrated units and
student achievement in technology lessons
The CATTS Corsortium has pro-
education, science, and mathemat- Grade 6 Exploring
vided the Center with leadership
ics at all grade levels, and to Technology
through the collaboration of States
strengthen, broaden, and deepen Grade 7 Invention and
that are committed to the develop-
the disciplinary and pedagogical Innovation
ment of curriculum, professional
knowledge of teachers. Grade 8 Technological
development, and the pursuit of
The Center’s mission is to pro- Systems
pertinent research projects to pro-
vide teachers with professional Grade 9 Foundations of
mote technological literacy.
development support that enables Technology
The Consortium leadership is
the pursuit of technologically liter- Grades 10–12 Technological Issues
responsible for development of the
ate citizens. Thus, the goal of Grades 10–12 Impacts of
Engineering By Design — A
CATTS is to engage in significant Technology
National Standards-based Model
research, development of stan- Grades 11–12 Engineering Design
for the implementation of
dards-based curricular materials, (Capstone)
Standards for Technological
and standards-based teacher
Literacy (STL). It has also been
enhancement through planned pro- These resources are available to the
responsible for the development of
fessional learning communities. profession by visiting
professional learning communities
CATTS provides leadership and http://www.iteaconnect.org
created through eTIDEonline.net, a
support to improve the results of
teacher’s web-based professional
learners studying technology and
development opportunity.
science as it engages in four contin-
The Engineering By Design,
uing goals:
Standards-based Program consists
1. Research on Teaching and
of a vertically and horizontally
Learning
developed set of resources for
2. Standards-based curriculum
teachers based on STL:
development
3. Standards-based professional
learning communities
39
Appendices

Acknowledgements
The National Commission for William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE William S. Pretzer*
Technology Education (1994-96) Project Director Technology for All Americans
Technology for All Americans Writing Consultants Coordinator
Project Director of School Programs
G. Eugene Martin
Henry Ford Museum and
Chairperson Frank L. Huband Greenfield Village
Dean of the School of Applied Executive Director
Arts and Technology The American Society for John M. Ritz
Southwest Texas State University Engineering Education Professor and Chairperson
Occupational and Technical
J. Myron Atkin Thomas A. Hughes, Jr. Studies Department
Professor of Education Director of Development Old Dominion University
Stanford University Foundation for Technology
Education Richard E. Satchwell
E. Allen Bame
Assistant Director
Associate Professor of Patricia A. Hutchinson Technology for All Americans
Technology Education Editor Project
Virginia Tech TIES Magazine
Trenton State College Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE
M. James Bensen
Executive Director
President Thomas T. Liao International Technology
Bemidji State University Professor and Chairperson Education Association
Department of Technology and
Gene R. Carter
Society Charles E. Vela
Executive Director
State University of New York at Technical Support Staff
Association for Supervision and
Stony Brook MITRE Corporation
Curriculum Development
Franzie L. Loepp* Walter B. Waetjen*
Robert A. Daiber*
Co-Director President Emeritus
Technology Education Teacher
Center for Mathematics, Cleveland State University
Triad High School—Illinois
Science, and Technology
John G. Wirt
James E. Davis
Elizabeth D. Phillips Senior Research Associate
Professor of English
Specialist Institute for Education and the
Ohio University
Department of Mathematics Economy
Michigan State University Teachers College
Paul W. DeVore*
Columbia University
President
Charles A. Pinder
PWD Associates
Professor and Chairperson of Michael D. Wright, DTE*
Technology Assistant Professor of
Ismael Diaz
Northern Kentucky University Technology Education
Educational Consultant
University of Missouri-Columbia
Fordham University

*Technology for All Americans

Writing Consultants
40
 Appendices

Technology for International Technology Education International Technology Education

All Americans Project Staff Association Board of Directors Association Staff (1994-96)

William “Ed” Ball Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE R. Thomas Wright, DTE
Project Director Executive Director
John Monroe, DTE
Richard E. Satchwell Thomas A. D’Apolito, DTE Thomas A. Hughes, Jr.
Assistant Project Director Barry N. Burke, DTE Director of Development
Jeffrey E. Grimmer Foundation for Technology
Jay C. Hicken, DTE Education
Support Staff Tina E. Hayden
Jodie Altice David H. Devier, DTE
Elizabeth Chabala Lemuel E. “Chip” Miller Support Staff
Lisa Driscoll Everett N. Israel, DTE
Michelle Griffith William Wargo Janice Bruns
Jeff Meide Harold E. Holley, DTE Linda DeFranco
Lisa Thorne Gerald G. Lovedahl Maureen Heenan
Michael D. Wright, DTE Catherine James
Visiting Scholars Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE Jayne Newton
Laverne Young-Hawkins The ITEA and the TfAA Project wish to Lari Price
Associate Professor, Texas A&M thank the National Science Foundation Karen Ulatowski
University (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and
Lorena Vasquez
Space Administration (NASA) for their
support during the project. Special appreci-
Hidetoshi Miyakawa, DTE ation is given to Gerhard Salinger, Coleen
Associate Professor, Aichi Hill, Franzie Loepp, and Rodney Custer
University of Education who provided help from NSF in Phase I.
Aichi, Japan Also, we would like to thank Frank
Owens, Pam Mountjoy, and Malcolm
ITEA and the Technology for All Phelps from NASA for their advice and Evaluators (1994-96)
Americans Project (TfAAP) would like to input. ITEA would also like to express
thank Kathleen Sheehan and Linda appreciation to the Technical Foundation Jack R. Frymier
Rothstein of ITEA and John Flanagan, Jack of America for their assistance in funding
Klasey, and Mike Kopf of Goodheart- certain activities during Phase I of the Senior Fellow
Willcox Publisher for their editorial assis- project. Phi Delta Kappa
tance on the first edition of this document.
Special thanks are given to Ottobine
Elementary School, Rockingham County Jill F. Russell
(Virginia) Schools; Hidden Valley Junior Assistant Professor
TfAAP Staff (2006 Edition) High School, Roanoke County (Virginia)
Schools; and Christiansburg Middle College of Education
William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE
Director School, Montgomery County (Virginia) University of Nebraska at
Schools for photographs. Omaha
Shelli Meade
The project would like to thank Eileen
Assistant Project Manager and Baumann, Susanna Kibler, and John Evaluation Administrator
Editor O’Connor for initial editing and prepara- Larry W. Barber
tion and Ed Scott of Harlowe Typography
Crystal Nichols for the design of this document. It would Director, Center for Evaluation,
Administrative Assistant also like to express special appreciation to Development and Research
Maureen Heenan of the ITEA staff for all
Reviewers of 2006 Edition of the editorial and publishing assistance Phi Delta Kappa International
Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE she provided in the production of the final
copy of this doument.
Barry N. Burke, DTE
Katie de la Paz
41
Appendices

Reviewers (1996 Joseph Blum

Del Boedeker
Steve Cook
Charles Corley
Philip Frankenfeld
David Frankenhauser
Barry Hessinger
Tom Hession
Edition) Carlalee Boettger Steve Cottrell Kathy Franco Mark Hiendlmayr
Barbara Bolin Dale Coulson Harold Fullam Colleen Hill
Demetrio Acevedo Paul Bond Jodie Coulson Dennis Gallo Jane Hill
Ambrose Adams Barry Borakove Wes Coulter Hervey Galloway Roger Hill
Shawn Agnew Pauline Bottrill Alan Cox William Garzke Warren Hitz
Daniel Airoldi Niki Bourke Douglas Craig Charlie Gaulden Larry Hoelscher
Robert Albert David Bouvier Terry Crissey Perry Gemmill Marie Hoepfl
Creighton Alexander Donovan Bowers Paul Cuetara Mary Genova Harold Holley
Cynthia Allen Debra Bozarth David Culver Bradford George Rich Holliday
Chris Almeida Frank Braman Scott Currie John Gibbons David Holmes
Frederick Almquist John Breck Rodney Custer Anthony Gilberti Sid Holodnick
Meredith Altshuler Lillian Brinkley Thomas D’Apolito James Giordano Dundee Holt
Richard Alvidrez Dan Brook Richard Dahl Roberta Glaser David Hood
Richard Ambacher Charles Brooks Michael Daugherty Edward Goldman Lynn Hoover
Andrea Anderson Sharon Brusic Sara De Carlo James Good Peter Horoschak
Jack Anderson Stanley Bucholc John Decaire Mary Good Daniel Householder
John Antrim Walter Buczynski Kenneth DeLucca Harold Gotwald Kenneth Hoyt
Harry Armen Nancy Bugler Ed Denton Rodney Graf Philip Hublitz
Thomas Asplin James Bujak William Derry Gary Graff James Hudock
Eric Austin Debra Burdick David Devier Sandi Graff Jeremy Hughes
Rick Avondet Barry Burke Mary Devin Carmen Granto Van Hughes
Larry Bacchi Verner Burkett Richard Dieffenderfer Theodore Gratts Jeffrey Hunt
Becky Baker Stephen Burkholder Frank DiNoto Gary Gray John Hutchinson
Joe Baker John Burns Dennis Dirksen Robert Gray Joseph Huttlin
Jerry Balistreri Ted Burton John Doyle Clark Greene Clinton Isbell
William Ball Donna Bush Pasquale Drago Walter Greer Everett Israel
Deborah Ballard Jeffrey Bush Larry Dunekack David Greer Leovincey Iwiyisi
Gary Baltozer Robert Caldwell Robert Dunn James Griffin Chuck Jacobs
Marilyn Bannon Kristin Callender Lorraine Durrill Edward Grimaldi Paul Jacobs
Kim Barany Nick Cammarano Robert Dwyer Jeffrey Grimmer Tricia Jacobs
Ronald Barker John Casey Michael Dyrenfurth Richard Grimsley Patrick Janssen
Hilda Barnett Kevin Castner Glenn Edmondson Shawn Gross James Jelkin
Timothy Barrett Jodi Cavanaugh Jane Eisemann Jerry Grover Jim Jenkins
Joe Barry April Cave John Emmons Joseph Guidice Gerald Jennings
Sandra Barry Christopher Chamuris Neil English Leroy Gurnle Michael Jensen
Lynn Basham Jonathan Charles Thomas Erekson Mark Haas William Jodz
Brad Basil Arlene Chasek Neil Eshelman Michael Hacker Scott Johnson
Robert Bateman Dennis Cheek Cindy Etchison Larry Hagmann James Johnson
Thomas Baughman Eldon Chlumsky Richard Fein Doris Hamm Cheryl Jong
John Bear Brad Christensen Victor Feliciano Leo Hanifen James Justice
Mac Beaton Dean Christensen Dennis Ferrari Cindy Hannon Jon Kahle
Charles Beatty Jim Christensen Keith Finkral John Hansen Gregory Kane
Heinz Beier Karen Christopherson Edward Fitzgerald Robert Hanson John Karsnitz
Gary Bell Craig Clark John Flanagan Linda Harpine Ralph Kilgore
Myron Bender Marcus Clarke Michael Flanagan Edward Hartmann Richard Kimbell
Roger Benedict Thomas Cline E. P. Flemyng Mark Hartshorne Michael Klann
Christine Bengston Sam Cobbins Gioia Forman Craig Haugsness Suzanne Knapic
Russell Bennett Geanea Coleman Alice Foster Maureen Heenan Donald Knepler
Barbara Bernard Thomas Collins Tad Foster Richard Hellthaler Louisa Kniivila
David Berns Syliva Connolly Gary Foveaux Michael Helmick Stephan Knobloch
Al Birkholz Charles Cook Marilyn Fowler Al Henrion Jane Konirad

42
 Appendices

Robert Kosztowny Sean McSheehy Douglas Ploeser Deborah Shumate Donna Trautman
John Kovel Jim Meinert Paul Post Jeffrey Sicher Lisa Tremblay
John Kraljic Joseph Meroda Neil Postman Ron Siebach Joan Tucker
Charlie Krenek Wilson Mewborn Theresa Powe John Singer Dennis Turner
Benjamin Krothe Marilyn Meyer Roger Prewitt Bernard Singer John Vaglia
Richard Kruyer Pete Meyer Beth Price Alfred Skolnick Brigitte Valesey
Gerald Kuhn Anne Mikesell Steven Price Dennis Skurulsky Eric Van Duzer
Dan Kunz Ginney Milbourne Crystal Priest Roy Slater Arvid Van Dyke
Thomas LaClair Chip Miller Susan Pryor Lee Smalley Dorothy VanLooy
Henry Lacy David Miller David Pucel Dave Smith Bruce Ventura
Kevin Lally David W. Miller David Purington Harley Smith Bob Viara
Christine Landry Jonathan Miller Nathaniel Quintana Kenneth Smith Ron Vickers
Wayne Lang Judy Miller Sid Rader Ora Smith Frank Viscardi
Joanne Langabee Kevin Miller Senta Raizen Loren Smitt John Vogelsang
James LaPorte Dave Milliken Felix Ramirez Greg Smothers Kenneth Volk
Connie Larson Michael Mino Gene Ranger Richard Souter Marc deVries
Thomas Latimer Carl Mitcham Robert Ransome Joseph Spadavecchia Charles Wallace
Donald Lauda John Mitchell Kathy Raymond Gari Spagnoletti Mark Wallace
Barry LeBarron William Moats, III Eldon Rebhorn Emilio Spino Bill Wargo
Ta-Wei Lee Mike Monaghan Cherry Redus Donatus St. Aimee Scott Warner
Hal Lefever Richard Mondragon Charlotte Rice William Staman Gordon Warren
James Levande John Monroe Betty Rider John Staudenmaier Steve Wash
Theodore Lewis Jim Moon Jerry Ridgeway Gregg Steele John Watson
Jane Liedtke Harvielee Moore John Rigden Leonard Sterry Chad Weaver
Jeff Lindstrom Steve Moorhead Sam Ritts Gary Stevenson Alfred Weiss
Mike Lindstrom Mike Mosley Gene Ritz Gary Stewardson Jack Wellman
Ethan Lipton Al Mothersele Kenneth Robinson Howard Stob Ken Welty
Charles Little Roger Mousseau Dwight Rogers Colleen Stone Edward Wenk
Jolene Litton James Mundy George Rogers John Stoudt Ted Werner
Gerald Lovedahl Heidi Munz Kevin Rose Henry Strada Tracy Westra
Peter Lowe Cynthia Nava Ron Rossman Arnold Strassenburg Vincent Wheatley
Brian Luce Carolyn Newsome Thomas Rothacker Jerry Streichler Jane Wheeler
Richard Luce Gail Niedernhofer James Russett Larry Strom Rosanne White
Peter Lund Chris Nielsen James Rutherford Douglas Sullivan Doug Wickham
Ron Lutz Diane Novak Sharon Ryan Kaye Sullivan Robert Wicklein
Michael Magliacano J. T. Nuzzo Thomas Ryerson Laura Sullivan Emerson Wiens
David Magnone Don O’Connor Gerhard Salinger Donald Suplee Flint Wild
Gary Mahoney Timothy Obermier Joseph Samela, Jr. Darlina Swartz George Willcox
David Manard Thomas Ogle Mark Sanders Robert Swisher, Jr. William Wolfe
Vickie Markavitch Linda Organ David Sawyer Dennis Swyt Deborah Woodman
Linda Markert Elaine Osterman Ernest Savage Ed Taylor Wayne Worner
Peter Martin Bob Ozga Laurie Schmitt Armand Taylor John Wright
Benjamin Martin Matthew Pagnani Max Schoenhals Tom Termes Tom Wright
Brian McAlister Carll Pallokat Tonia Schofield Dennis Tesolowski Gary Wynn
Joseph McCade John Pannabecker Todd Scholl Donald Testa Dottie Yager
Dave McCready Scott Papenfus John Schumacher John Thomas LaVerne Young-Hawkins
David McCrory Kevin Pendergast Anthony Schwaller Maurice Thomas Ron Yuill
David McGee James Petzold David Seidel Danny Thompson Norman Zaniboni
Jack McGinnis Randal Pierce Richard Seymour Sylvia Tiala Michael Zapantis
Richard McManus Tommy Pitchford Edward Shine Ron Todd David Zinn
Scott McMillin John Plias Thomas Shown Sherri Torkelson Karen Zuga

43
Technology for
All Americans Project

International Technology
Education Association

Technology is
human innovation
in action