September 2004 - Vol 64, No.1 - International Technology and ...

iteaconnect.org

September 2004 - Vol 64, No.1 - International Technology and ...

SEPTEMBER 2004 Volume 64, No. 1

ROBOT

DESIGN

CHALLENGE

Special Insert:

Results from the

follow-up Gallup Poll

www.iteawww.org


SOLIDWORKS EXPERIENCE PREFERRED

SolidWorks 60%

job postings on July 1, 2004*

EDS Ideas 11%

Autodesk Mechanical Desktop 9%

Autodesk Inventor 8%

EDS Solid Edge 6%

Pro/DESKTOP 3%

CADKEY 2%

Iron CAD 1%

WHAT ARE YOUR STUDENTS LEARNING?

QUESTION:

Can my school afford it?

Can my teachers teach it?

Can my students learn it?

Are local industries using it?

Will students find career opportunities

based on these skills?

YES






NO

We know tech-ed budgets are tight. We know purchasing

decisions are hard. We know technology keeps moving

faster, and good teachers are hard to find. That’s why

SolidWorks offers flexible, affordable licensing options

that help overcome budget cuts. That’s why SolidWorks

offers free teacher training workshops with complete

lesson plans and courseware. With SolidWorks, you

can be confident you’ve chosen the leader in 3D CAD.

With SolidWorks, your students can learn how to solve

real-world design problems and gain the experience they

need to compete in today’s job market.

MAKE THE DECISION THAT ENSURES YOUR STUDENTS A PROMISING FUTURE.

TEACH THEM SOLIDWORKS.

SolidWorks Education Edition software is available from authorized SolidWorks

resellers. To locate a SolidWorks reseller in your area, call 1-800-693-9000, or

visit the SolidWorks website at www.solidworks.com/education.

SolidWorks is a registered trademark of SolidWorks Corporation. All other company and product

names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

©2003 SolidWorks Corporation, Monster and the Monster logo are trademarks of TMP Worldwide, Inc.

* Search conducted on 07-01-04 for positions posted within the last 60 days.

Search was conductedfor individual product names and all variations thereof.


SEPTEMBER 2004

Volume 64, No. 1

Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE

Editor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la Paz

Editor, Kathie F. Cluff

ITEA Board of Directors

Anna Sumner, President

George Willcox, Past President

Ethan Lipton, DTE, President-Elect

Doug Wagner, Director, ITEA-CS

Tom Shown, Director, Region 1

Chris Merrill, Director, Region 2

Dale Hanson, Director, Region 3

Doug Walrath, Director, Region 4

Rodney Custer, DTE, Director, CTTE

Michael DeMiranda, Director, TECA

Patrick N. Foster, Director, TECC

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, Executive Director

ITEA is an affiliate of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science.

The Technology Teacher, ISSN: 0746-3537, is published

eight times a year (September through June with combined

December/January and May/June issues) by the

International Technology Education Association,

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191.

Subscriptions are included in member dues. U.S. Library

and nonmember subscriptions are $80; $90 outside the U.S.

Single copies are $8.50 for members; $9.50 for

non-members, plus shipping—domestic @ $6.00 and

outside the U.S. @ $17.00 (surface).

Email: iteacomm@iris.org

World Wide Web: www.iteawww.org

Advertising Sales:

ITEA Publications Department

703-860-2100

Fax: 703-860-0353

Subscription Claims

All subscription claims must be made within 60 days of the

first day of the month appearing on the cover of the journal.

For combined issues, claims will be honored within 60 days

from the first day of the last month on the cover. Because

of repeated delivery problems outside the continental United

States, journals will be shipped only at the customer’s risk.

ITEA will ship the subscription copy, but assumes no

responsibility thereafter.

The Technology Teacher is listed in the Educational Index

and the Current Index to Journal in Education. Volumes are

available on Microfiche from University Microfilm, P.O. Box

1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

Change of Address

Send change of address notification promptly. Provide old

mailing label and new address. Include zip + 4 code.

Allow six weeks for change.

Postmaster

Send address change to: The Technology Teacher, Address

Change, ITEA, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston,

VA 20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at Herndon, VA

and additional mailing offices.

DEPARTMENTS

2 ITEA Online

3 In the News and Calendar

5 You & ITEA

11 IDSA Activity

20 Resources in Technology

FEATURES

6 Informed Design: A Contemporary Approach to

Design Pedagogy as the Core Process in Technology

Discusses the informed design process, which contextualizes learning and applies

the latest constructivist pedagogical practices to enhance student learning.

M. David Burghardt and Michael Hacker

9 Robot Design Challenge

Describes a robot contest that can also be used as a classroom design

challenge.

Harry T. Roman

15 Being a Somebody for Technology Education

Excerpts from the keynote address delivered at the ITEA 2004 Conference Spirit

of Excellence Breakfast in Albuquerque, NM.

Jack W. Wescott, DTE

19 Bush vs. Kerry on Education

25 Standards-Based Technology Teacher Education

Online: An Innovative New Program at Valley City

State University

A question-and-answer-based article, featuring VCSU’s online undergraduate

technology education program.

Donald Mugan, James Boe, and Matt Edland

Gallup Poll (INSERT)

Revisits the question, “How do Americans view technological literacy?”

Lowell C. Rose, Alec M. Gallup, William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE, and Kendall N.

Starkweather, DTE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


Editorial Review Board

Co-Chairperson

Co-Chairperson

Dan Engstrom

Stan Komacek

California University of PA California University of PA

NEW ON ITEA’S WEB SITE

Steve Anderson

Nikolay Middle School, WI

Stephen Baird

Bayside Middle School, VA

Lynn Basham

MI Department of Education

Philip Cardon

Eastern Michigan University

Michael Cichocki

Salisbury Middle School, PA

Gerald Day

University of MD-ES

Mike Fitzgerald

IN Department of Education

Tom Frawley

G. Ray Bodley High School, NY

John W. Hansen

University of Houston

Roger Hill

University of Georgia

Angela Hughes

Morrow High School, GA

Don Mugan

Valley City State University

Terrie Rust

Oasis Elementary School, AZ

Monty Robinson

Black Hills State University

Andy Stephenson

Scott County High School, KY

Steve Waldstein

Dike-New Hartford Schools, IA

Scott Warner

Millersville University of PA

Greg Vander Weil

Wayne State College

Now Available on the ITEA Web Site:

• New Online Catalog!

Did you know that you can now order ITEA’s

publications, curriculum materials, and promotional

products online? Always up-to-date, the

online catalog is easy and secure. Go to

www.iteawww.org/F6.html to find everything

you need for back-to-school.

ITEA ONLINE

Editorial Policy

As the only national and international association dedicated

solely to the development and improvement of technology

education, ITEA seeks to provide an open forum for the free

exchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education.

Materials appearing in the journal, including advertising,

are expressions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the official policy or the opinion of the association, its

officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff.

Referee Policy

All professional articles in The Technology Teacher are

refereed, with the exception of selected association activities

and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles are

reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board before

publication in The Technology Teacher. Articles with bylines

will be identified as either refereed or invited unless written

by ITEA officers on association activities or policies.

To Submit Articles

All articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief,

International Technology Education Association, 1914

Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539.

Please submit photographs to accompany the article, a

copy of the article on disc (PC compatible), and five hard

copies. Maximum length for manuscripts is 8 pages.

Manuscripts should be prepared following the style specified

in the Publications Manual of the American Psychological

Association, Fifth Edition.

Editorial guidelines and review policies are available by

writing directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteawww.org/

F7.htm. Contents copyright © 2004 by the International

Technology Education Association, Inc., 703-860-2100.

• New Online Conference Registration Form!

Go to www.iteawww.org/D5.html to register

online for ITEA’s 67th Annual Conference in

Kansas City, MO from April 3-5, 2005.

www.iteawww.org

2 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


IN THE NEWS & CALENDAR

Election Candidates

The 2005-2006 ITEA Board of

Directors election ballot will be mailed

in September. The highly experienced

field of candidates is pictured here.

Exercise your right to vote by

returning your ballot promptly! Ballots

must be postmarked on or before

October 30, 2004.

President

Neil Hancey,

Davis School

District, UT

Region 3 Director

Donald Fischer,

Department of

Career & Technical

Education, ND

James

Mecklenburg,

Minnesota

Department of

Education, MN

General Sessions, will be held in the

Kansas City Convention Center.

Receptions, meetings, and breakfasts

will be held at the ITEA Headquarters

hotel, the Kansas City Marriott

Downtown. New this year will be a

Welcome Reception for attendees on

Saturday evening, April 2, 2005.

If you would like to view the new

schedule, the conference program’s

Conference-At-A-Glance is available

now for download or print at

www.iteawww.org/KansasCityAtA

Glance.pdf as well as on page 31 of

this journal.

The dates are Sunday through

Tuesday, April 3-5, 2005.

SEE YOU THERE!

Kenneth James

Starkman,

Wisconsin

Department of

Public Instruction,

WI

Region 1 Director

Keith R. Doucette,

Sr.,

East Greenwich

High School, RI

Paul M. Jacobs,

T. Benton Gayle

Middle School, VA

John Singer,

Hanby Middle

School, DE

Julie Moore,

University of

Houston, TX

The 67th ITEA Annual

Conference

We’re Goin’ to Kansas City...

Mark your calendar now for ITEA’s

67th Annual Conference and

Exhibition in Kansas City, Missouri.

With an entirely new schedule,

including expanded registration and

resource booth hours, several new

networking/social events, and, yes,

even a free lunch, the Kansas City

conference promises to be one of the

most exciting in years.

Plans are underway to provide

Kansas City conference attendees

with a fresh and unique conference

experience. Look for lower hotel rates

this year (at least 15% lower than

last year—details will be announced

as soon as they are finalized).

There will also be a brand new,

completely different conference

schedule in Kansas City. In order to

provide a better flow and less

confusion for attendees, all events

and interest sessions, including the

ITEA Conference

Application Record Broken

The ITEA Conference Program

Committee met in June to consider

programs for the April 2005 Kansas

City Conference. A record number of

applications were received this year.

It was the first time that applicants

could apply to be on the program

through a totally electronic

procedure.

The Conference Program Committee

is chaired by Michael Shealey (MD)

and is comprised of professionals from

the Baltimore area who met for two

days to review and shape the

program for the coming conference.

The Conference Program Committee

stays together for a three-year period

and then its duties are rotated to a

committee in a different ITEA region.

ITEA President, Anna L. Sumner,

indicated that, “If this response is

any indicator of the size of the

Kansas City Conference, we will be

anticipating one of our larger

conferences in recent history.”

Sumner noted that many changes

have been made to this coming

year’s program to provide a total

experience of fun, education,

professional development, and

networking. Individuals who would

NEWS AND CALENDAR

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 3


NEWS AND CALENDAR

still like to be on the program can do

so by going to ITEA’s Web site and

signing up for the Technology Festival

Program. The Technology Festival

started in 1984 as a way for teachers

to talk with other teachers about their

programs. The Festival time has been

expanded to include research poster

boards that allow for the sharing of

research information.

For more information on the

Technology Festival and the Kansas

City Conference, go to

www.iteawww.org/D1.html.

CALENDAR

October 5-7, 2004

Focus 2004: Beyond Education and

Training...Leading Economic Growth,

will take place at the Trump Plaza in

Atlantic City, NJ. Sponsored by the

state of New Jersey and Global Skills

Exchange (GSX), the conference will

focus on the application of skill

standards and industry-based

certifications in order to educate,

empower, and equip visionary public

sector supply-side decision makers

and practitioners. Obtain a flyer or

additional information at www.

focusonskills.info.

October 14-16, 2004

The Florida Technology Education

Association (FTEA) will hold its state

conference in Orlando, FL. Visit

www.ftea.com for details.

October 15-17, 2004

The Georgia Industrial Technology

Education Association will hold its fall

conference in Waycross, GA. For

additional information, visit

www.gitea.org.

October 25-26, 2004

The Keystone Conference to explore

K-12 videoconferencing best

practices will be held in Indianapolis,

IN. Designed for K-12 education

stakeholders, this conference will

explore videoconferencing in

classrooms, professional

development, and content

development, as well as technology

accessibility and usability. Attend in

person or via videoconferencing. Visit

www.keystoneconference.org or call

Amy Hargis at 1-866-826-CILC (2452)

for more information.

November 4-6, 2004

The 52nd Annual Technology

Education Association of

Pennsylvania Conference (TEAP),

Technology Education: Making

Connections,” will be held at the

Radisson Penn Harris Hotel &

Conference Center in Camp Hill, PA.

For more information, visit www.

teap-online.org or contact

conference@teap-online.org.

November 7-8, 2004

The Technology Educators of Indiana

(TEI) Annual Conference will be held

in Jasper, IN. Information is available

at www.teiwww.org.

November 12-13, 2004

The Kentucky Applied Technology

Education Association will hold its

state conference at Central Kentucky

College in Danville, KY. Visit

www.katea.org or contact conference

director, Dennis Bledsoe, at

dbledsoe@gallatin.k12.ky.us for

details.

November 19, 2004

The Massachusetts Technology

Education/Engineering Collaborative

(MassTEC) will hold its annual

conference at Fitchburg State College.

The conference theme is “design+

build = technology/engineering

education.” The keynote speaker will

be Brian Brenner, a professor at Tufts

University. For additional information,

please visit the MassTEC Web site

www.masstec.org.

December 9-11, 2004

The Centre for Learning Research at

Griffith University will host the Third

Biennial Technology Education

Research Conference, which will be

held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel

Surfers Paradise, Queensland,

Australia. The conference theme is

“Learning for Innovation in

Technology Education.” For

information, contact Howard

Middleton, Conference Director, at

h.middleton@griffith.edu.au.

December 9-11, 2004

The Association for Career and

Technical Education (ACTE) will hold

its annual convention in Las Vegas,

NV. Visit www.acteonline.org for

details.

February 20-26, 2005

National Engineers Week, including

the finals of the National Engineers

Week Future City Competition. For

complete information, visit

www.futurecity.org; or contact

Future City National Director, Carol

Rieg, at 877-636-9578 or

CRieg@futurecity.org.

February 24-26, 2005

The Association of Texas Technology

Education will present its conference

at Texas A&M University. For

information, contact Conference

Director Dan Vrudny at

dvrudny@sulross.edu.

March 31-April 3, 2005

The National Science Teachers

Association (NSTA) National

Convention will be held in Dallas, TX.

For additional information, visit the

Web site at www.nsta.org.

April 3-5, 2005

The 67th Annual ITEA Conference and

Exhibition, “Preparing the Next

Generation for Technological

Literacy,” will be held in Kansas City,

MO. With an entirely new schedule,

including expanded registration and

resource booth hours, several new

networking/social events, and, yes,

even a free lunch, the Kansas City

conference promises to be one of

the most exciting in years. Visit

www.iteawww.org for the most

up-to-date details.

List your State/Province Association

Conference in TTT, TrendScout,

and on ITEA’s Web Calendar. Submit

conference title, date(s), location, and

contact information (at least two months

prior to journal publication date) to

iteapubs@iris.org.

4 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


YOU & ITEA

Jim Kirkwood

Receives Sagamore of the

Wabash Award

Ball State University professor James

Kirkwood, DTE received Indiana’s

highest civilian honor during his

retirement party April 23. The

Sagamore of the Wabash Award is

given for distinguished service to the

state. It was created during the term

of Gov. Ralph Gates, who served

from 1945-49, and has been

presented by governors ever since.

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar and others

wrote letters in support of bestowing

the honor on Kirkwood. “Dr. Kirkwood

has dedicated himself as an

educational leader at Ball State

University through his research and

scholarship,” he wrote. Lugar praised

Kirkwood’s establishment of the

Burris Laboratory School’s

elementary grade technology

education program and his leadership

in professional and educational

associations.

Kirkwood has published more than

100 journal articles and book

chapters related to the field of

technology education. Kirkwood is

also an Army veteran and a dedicated

runner. In the past two decades he

has published many newsletters and

newspaper columns about running.

Kirkwood came to Ball State in 1966.

Although his work has led him to the

Bahamas, Belgium, England, Holland,

Sweden, and New Zealand, he has

spent most of his career at Ball State.

He retired as a professor of industry

and technology on June 25, 2004.

ITEA Executive Director

Earns ASAE Certification

The American

Society of

Association

Executives

(ASAE) has

announced that

Dr. Kendall N.

Starkweather,

DTE, Executive Director/CEO of the

International Technology Education

Association, has earned the Certified

Association Executive (CAE)

Credential. Less than five percent of

all association professionals have

achieved this distinction.

The CAE Credential is widely

recognized as an indication of

demonstrated skill in leadership,

activity in community affairs, and

expertise in association management.

To earn the Certified Association

Executive (CAE) Credential, an

applicant must have obtained a

minimum number of years of required

experience in nonprofit management,

complete multiple hours of

specialized professional development,

pass a stringent examination in

association management that tests

fundamental knowledge of all areas

of the association management

profession, and pledge to uphold a

code of ethics.

Starkweather, a former classroom

teacher and university professor, has

spent his entire association

experience as the ITEA Chief

Executive Officer. He undertook the

CAE credential as a challenge to stay

current with the latest happenings in

the executive management of

associations and to expand his

knowledge of the association world.

He has served on ASAE’s Key

Professional Association Committee

(KPAC) for over a decade. The KPAC

group provides ASAE with trends and

strategies for better managing

associations.

For more information about ASAE

and/or the CAE procedure, visit

www.asaenet.org.

Dr. Sterry Retires From

ITEA/CATTS

Dr. Leonard F. Sterry, who joined the

ITEA staff in the fall of 2001 to work

with the Center to Advance the

Teaching of Technology & Science

(CATTS) to develop comprehensive

K-12 standards-based resources,

retired from his position as Senior

Curriculum Associate at the end

of June.

Dr. Sterry is Professor Emeritus at

the University of Wisconsin-Stout

and a former state supervisor in the

Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction. He is well known for

leading the project to develop A

Conceptual Framework for

Technology Education (1990).

Dr. Sterry has been an integral

member of the ITEA staff, bringing

a high level of expertise and

professionalism to the CATTS

initiative. He will be greatly missed

in Virginia as he returns to his home

and family in Wisconsin.

YOU AND ITEA

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 5


INFORMED DESIGN: A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO

DESIGN PEDAGOGY AS THE CORE PROCESS IN TECHNOLOGY

FEATURE ARTICLE

M. David Burghardt

Michael Hacker

The Standards for Technological

Literacy (ITEA, 2000, 2002) document

indicates the centrality of design to

the study of technology, “Design is

regarded by many as the core

problem-solving process of

technological development. It is as

fundamental to technology as inquiry

is to science and reading is to

language arts” (p. 90). Design in

technology education most closely

allies with engineering design. For

instance, The Accreditation Board for

Engineering and Technology (ABET)

defines design in the Criteria for

Accrediting Engineering Programs as

“the process of devising a system,

component, or process to meet

desired needs. It is a decision-making

process (often iterative), in which the

basic sciences and mathematics and

engineering sciences are applied to

convert resources optimally to meet a

stated objective” (ABET, 2000).

Design as an

Instructional Strategy

In recent years, there has been a

growing recognition of the

educational value of design activities

in which students create external

artifacts that they share and discuss

with others (Soloway, 1994; Papert,

1993; Resnick, 1998). A synthesis

of the literature reveals that

pedagogically solid design projects

involve authentic, hands-on tasks;

use familiar and easy-to-work

materials; possess clearly defined

outcomes that allow for multiple

solutions; promote student-centered,

collaborative work and higher order

thinking; allow for multiple design

iterations to improve the product; and

have clear links to a limited number

of science and engineering concepts

(Crismond, 1997).

The National Research Council’s How

People Learn (Bransford, 1999) hails

In classroom settings most problems are

usually well defined, so students have little

experience with open-ended problems.

instruction where students monitor

their understanding and progress in

problem solving. Research reveals

that experts consider alternatives,

note when additional information is

required, and are mindful if the

chosen alternative leads toward the

desired end. These strategies are

central to the culture of design.

However, in classroom settings, most

problems are usually well defined, so

students have little experience with

open-ended problems. Technological

design problems, however, are

seldom well defined. The design

process begins with broad ideas and

concepts and continues in the

direction of ever-increasing detail,

resulting in an acceptable solution

(Thacher, 1989). So using design in

the classroom can be challenging, as

students are not familiar, or initially

not comfortable, with the open-ended

nature of design. This can also pose

problems for teachers, who must

relinquish directive control. However,

it also provides opportunity to use

constructivist pedagogical practice

to engage students in their own

learning. The informed design

process discussed in this article, and

the underlying pedagogical support

methodology, provide a way to

optimize the use of design as a

pedagogical strategy.

Pedagogical Rationale

for Design

As a pedagogical strategy, design

activities have great potential to:

• Engage children as active

participants, giving them greater

control over the learning process.

• Assist students to integrate learning

from language, the arts, mathematics,

and science.

• Encourage pluralistic thinking, avoiding

a right/wrong dichotomy and

suggesting instead that multiple

solutions are possible.

• Provide children an opportunity to

reflect upon, revise, and extend their

internal models of the world.

• Encourage children to put themselves

in the minds of others as they think

about how their designs will be

understood and used (Resnick, 1998).

All too often, however, design is not used

to maximum pedagogical advantage in

the classroom. As an instructional

strategy, design has all too often focused

on the product rather than on the learner.

Design is often characterized as

“gadgeteering,” and trial-and-error

problem solving where students do not

always gain important (i.e., standardsbased)

conceptual understandings.

Informed Design

Informed design is a pedagogical

approach to design that was developed

and validated through the NSF-funded

NYSCATE Project (New York State

Curriculum for Advanced Technological

Education) (Burghardt and Hacker, 2003).

Informed design enables students to

enhance their own related knowledge

and skill base before attempting to

suggest design solutions. In this way,

students reach design solutions informed

by prior knowledge and research, as

opposed to trial-and-error problem

solving, where conceptual closure is often

not attained. Informed design emphasizes

design challenges that rely on math and

science knowledge to improve design

performance. The approach prompts

6 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


esearch, inquiry, and analysis;

fosters student and teacher

discourse; and cultivates language

proficiency.

Engineers and other designers do not

always follow these steps in a

sequence. As with most design

cycles, the informed design cycle is

iterative and allows, even

encourages, users to revisit earlier

assumptions and findings as they

proceed. It was created with

knowledge gained from works in

cognitive science and learning.

Knowledge and Skill Builders

A key factor that differentiates

informed design from other design

processes is how the Research and

Investigation phase is approached. To

provide the foundation for informed

design, activity learners are engaged

in a progression of knowledge and

skill builders (KSBs). KSBs prepare

students to approach a design

challenge from a more knowledgeable

base. The KSBs are short, focused

activities designed to help students

identify the variables that affect the

performance of the design. They

provide structured research in key

technology, science, mathematics

processes, skills, and concepts that

underpin the design solution. They

also provide evidence upon which

teachers can assess student

understanding of important ideas and

skills. The final design is “informed”

by the knowledge and skills that

students acquired en route to

designing and constructing their

solutions.

Figure 1 depicts the overall informed

design cycle. The cycle uses familiar

design cycle terminology; however,

underlying the phases are important

enhancements. The phases are

described as follows:

1. Clarify design specifications and

constraints. Describe the problem

clearly and fully, noting constraints

and specifications.

2. Research and investigate the

problem. Search for and discuss

solutions to solve this or similar

problems. Complete a series of

guided-knowledge and skill-builder

activities that will help students

Figure 1. Informed Design Cycle

Hacker and Burghardt, 2004

identify the variables that affect the

performance of the design, and

inform students’ knowledge and

skill base.

3. Generate alternative designs. Don’t

stop when you have one solution.

Approach the challenge in new

ways and describe alternatives.

4. Choose and justify optimal design.

Rate and rank the alternatives

against the design specifications

and constraints. Justify your

choice. Your chosen alternative will

guide your preliminary design.

5. Develop a prototype. Make a model

of the solution. Identify and explain

modifications to refine the design.

6. Test and evaluate the design

solution. Develop and carry out a

test to assess the performance of

the design solution. Complete or

review KSBs focused on

developing a fair test.

7. Redesign the solution with

modifications. Examine your design

and look at others’ designs to see

where improvements can be made.

Identify the variables that affect

performance and determine the

concepts that underlie these

variables. Explain how to enhance

performance of the design using

these concepts and variables.

8. Communicate your achievements.

Complete a design portfolio or

design report that documents the

previously mentioned steps. Make

a group presentation to the class

justifying your design solution.

An Example in a

Familiar Context

Bridge-building design projects have

been used for many years; however

they often are not informed by

mathematical, scientific, and

technological knowledge of the

construction of various types of

bridges. All too often, bridges are

loaded to the point of failure,

strengthened at the failure point, and

rebuilt without delving into the cause

and reasons for failure. KSBs for a

bridge-building project might include:

• Investigation and construction of

simple beam bridges, suspension

bridges, arches, and truss bridges.

• Investigation of tension and

compression in bridge members.

• Gathering and plotting data to

reinforce important mathematics

and science inquiry skills.

• Determining and developing a fair

test to focus on the design

specifications and how to test

for them.

To encourage the use of thoughtful

alternative solutions, the problem

statement is more open-ended than

the traditional one of building a bridge

to hold the most weight, a single

criterion. In the new situation, the

goal is to design and construct a

cost-effective bridge that will hold

the most weight for the least cost

while meeting a minimum load

specification, two criteria that may

be inversely related. This more

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 7


FEATURE ARTICLE

accurately models engineering

practice. Materials have different

costs associated with them, which

can encourage a variety of design

approaches and foster critical

thinking about why they will be the

best (Hacker and Burghardt, 2004).

Research Base

The informed design process was

created as part of the NYSCATE NSF

curriculum materials development

project. Of the thirteen modules

developed, eight are intended for use

on the high school level and can be

modified for use in middle school; the

remaining modules are for use in

community college technology

courses. The modules were

developed using strategies of

backwards design (Wiggins and

McTighe, 1998) as replacement

curriculum for existing technology

and science courses.

There was a great deal of enthusiasm

expressed by teachers and students

for all the modules. The Project

evaluators indicated that the

technology and design components

were consistently understood by

students and teachers, and that the

understanding of science and

mathematics concepts varied

depending on how explicitly they were

addressed by the KSBs. For instance,

in one module, where students

designed a food dehydrator (Drying by

Design), the three field-test teachers

agreed that students learned

important technology concepts and

important design processes.

Students were questioned about

what they perceived they learned.

The following summarizes their

responses:

• Students strongly agreed that they

learned important science,

technology, and design concepts.

• Students strongly agreed that they

learned from the design task so

that they could do it better if they

did it again.

• Students moderately agreed they

learned important math concepts.

The modules developed through the

NYSCATE Project use informed design

as the core instructional strategy. The

modules are shown in Figure 2.

Conclusion

The results from reviews by experts,

pilot testing, and field testing of the

modules has shown that informed

design and the pedagogical strategies

that support it are effective. The

informed design process contextualizes

learning and applies the latest

constructivist pedagogical practices

to enhance student learning. This

process complies with current

understandings of how students learn

and how to create effective learning

environments for them.

References

Accreditation Board for Engineering and

Technology. (2000). Criteria for

Accrediting Engineering Programs:

Effective for Evaluations During the

2000-2001 Accreditation Cycle.

Baltimore, MD: Author.

Bloch, Erich. (1986). Science and

Engineering: A Continuum. Washington,

DC: National Research Council.

Bransford, John, et al. (1999). How People

Learn. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Burghardt, M. David & Hacker, Michael. (2003).

The New York State Curriculum for Advanced

Technological Education. www.nyscate.net.

Crismond, David. (1997). Investigate-and-

Redesign Tasks as a Context for Learning and

Doing Science and Technology: A study of

naive, novice and expert high school and

adult designers doing product comparisons

and redesign tasks. Unpublished doctoral

thesis, Harvard Graduate School of

Education, Cambridge, MA.

Hacker, Michael, & Burghardt, David. (2004).

Technology Education: Learning by Design.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Papert, Seymour. (1993). The Children’s

Machine. New York: Basic Books.

Resnick, Mitchel. (1998). Technologies for

Lifelong Kindergarten. Educational

Technology Research and Development,

Vol. 46, no. 4.

Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. (1994).

Learner-Centered Design. Interactions

1, 2, 36-48.

Thacher, Eric, (1989). Design. In Principles of

Engineering. New York State Education

Department.

Wiggins, Grant & McTighe, Jay. (1998).

Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

David Burghardt,

Distinguished Professor of

Engineering, is Chair of

the Engineering

Department and Codirector

of the Center for

Technological Literacy at

Hofstra University. He has been an active

researcher in technology education for

over 15 years and can be reached via

e-mail at M.D.Burghardt@Hofstra.edu.

NYSCATE Modules

AREA MATERIALS AND INFORMATION BIO/CHEMICAL

GRADE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY

Gr. 9-10, HS Drying By Design The Help Desk Genetic Testing

Mapping Through

Remote Sensing

Gr. 11-12, HS Liquid Crystals Introduction Polymers

To Networks

Gr. 13, CC Control Systems Paving The Way Solutions And

To The Internet Dilutions

Gr. 14, CC Design For Gatekeeper To Purifying Proteins

Manufacture The Internet By Design

Figure 2

Michael Hacker is the

Co-director of the

Hofstra Center for

Technological Literacy

at Hofstra University.

He can be reached

via e-mail at

mhacker@nycap.rr.com.

This is a refereed article.

8 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


ROBOT DESIGN CHALLENGE

Harry T. Roman

Here is a fun design challenge you

can use in your classroom or across

the grades in your school. If you are a

regional manager of a number of

schools, you can challenge several

schools to participate. No special

tools, hardware, or supplies are

needed, only imagination and

teamwork. I have used this challenge

with students and teachers who

visited my robot application design

lab; and I have applied it through The

Newark Museum, with local Newark

schools participating. It’s always a

fun exercise that illustrates

technology education principles.

First, I’d like to present a little

introduction and discussion.

Introduction

I often have the opportunity to talk to

technology education students,

teachers, and educators. Invariably,

someone always asks me to identify

the most important college courses I

took. My answer is always a

showstopper. Looking back at the

audience in my very serious face,

after an appropriate pause to make

them believe that weighty thoughts

are flashing through my mind, I boldly

exclaim, “The three most important

courses I took were English,

laboratories, and the humanities.”

After the quizzical looks are finished

and the murmurs die down, I try to

explain. English courses teach you

how to communicate—a most

fundamental skill in the work-a-day

world…bedrock for all employees.

Labs teach you how to work with

others, the necessary give-and-take

between viewpoints, egos, and

differing life experiences.

But the toughest one for them to

swallow is the humanities courses.

Here I talk about the need to blend

technology solutions with the nontechnical

aspects of life. New

This design challenge is a mirror on the

world.

products must be safe,

environmentally neutral, socially

acceptable, and in conformance with

institutional guidelines and

governmental regulations.

We go to college, I emphasize, not so

much to study more of what we are

good at, like technical subjects, but

rather to discover, research, and

learn more about what we don’t

know so well. The humanities

courses put the non-technical world

in perspective, establishing

boundaries for us to design within.

Were our educational system more

integrative, stressing multidimensional

thinking and the

interweaving of subjects, my answer

probably would not appear so

unexpected. But the curriculum is

fragmented, highly specialized, often

blurring the rich interfaces existing

between subjects. It is to correct this

pizza pie slice approach to education,

and illustrate the multi-dimensional

aspects of problem solving à la

technology education that I have

developed the design challenge

described below.

The Design Challenge

This challenge stems from an

exercise I originally did with Grades

3-5 at my robot design and

application lab in central New Jersey.

I would invite local schools to bring

teachers and students into the lab

twice a month to have teams of

students see and actually operate

mobile robotic devices I was

developing—and then have these

students try to design a personal

robot to assist a physically

challenged person. It was a most

popular activity with both students

and teachers. It took about 2-3 hours

to hold the design challenge, and

winners received a robot t-shirt. All

told, I estimate about 1000 students

and teachers took the challenge. And

yes, the students always blew the

teachers away with their designs. It

wasn’t even close in most cases.

When my robot design lab completed

its mission and was closed, I still

wanted to use the design challenge

with students. I no longer had real

robots for them to see, touch, and

operate, but I felt the challenge could

still be used with excellent results.

Here is an interesting way we kept

this great activity going.

Working with the in-service

educational instructors of the

nationally recognized Newark

Museum in Newark, New Jersey and

local Newark School teachers, we

redesigned the program to be a more

intense two-week activity. The

winning teams from a number of

schools and classes involved (mostly

the 3rd through 6th grades) displayed

posters of their designs at the

Museum, where judges assembled to

select the best ones, and awarded

savings bonds as prizes.

Here is how the two-week design

challenge was structured. You will

see how it related to the three

important courses that I mentioned

earlier had influenced me the most in

college.

Initiating the Design Challenge

Students are arranged into fivemember

design teams. Each team is

to imagine itself in the business of

designing robots for sale to the

public. The teams may select their

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 9


FEATURE ARTICLE

own company name, as well as the

name of their robot product. The

challenge is for each team to design

a mobile robot that can assist a

physically challenged person, or

perhaps someone confined to a

wheelchair.

There are five basic design

constraints for the teams. This robot

should be able to:

1. Pick up small objects like coins,

keys, a wallet, etc.

2. Reach behind furniture and retrieve

objects.

3. Operate for a full day without

needing recharging.

4. Withstand continuous day-to-day

use; be rugged, yet lightweight.

5. Be easily affordable—not

expensive.

How It Happens

The students are allowed to freely

meet and think about their designs,

and are encouraged to develop their

own way of meeting the five basic

design constraints listed above. There

is no right or wrong answer, only the

answer they feel best expresses their

achieving the design constraints.

They must agree on what they wish

to do and what course of action they

will take.

With a five-member team, each

student must play a specific role on

the team and represent that

viewpoint.

• Team leader and captain of the

team: Integrates the various

concerns and suggestions of the

other role players.

•Design engineer: In charge of the

technical aspects of the design

and the materials to be used.

• Customer representative: Looks out

for the interests of the user of the

robot (the handicapped person).

• Human interface designer: Whose

job it is to make sure the robot is

user friendly to the customer.

• Economist: Develops a cost

estimate for the robot that will

make it affordable to the customer.

What is Expected of the

Students

Each team has two weeks to

complete its design and must

produce the following:

•A written report on its design.

• An estimate of the cost of the

robot.

• One or more posters that illustrate

the robot and how it functions.

•A list and description of special

features built into the robot.

• An oral report in front of

classmates describing the robot

and answering questions.

The Importance of the

Challenge

This exercise is designed to foster

teamwork and reinforce communication

skills, teach making

tradeoffs between the roles they

assume, and integrate their various

roles and viewpoints together into a

final design. Since there is no right or

wrong answer, the students must

reach consensus as to what they are

trying to do, how best to do it, and

organize their collective resources to

accomplish the consensus position.

This design challenge is a mirror on

the world, very similar to how

projects are managed and led in

industry. The team leader of this

exercise should have good leadership

skills, be articulate, and able to

provide direction and counseling to

the team to encourage them to reach

their goals if they get stuck.

The students should realize the

importance of writing and speaking

well. Good ideas poorly presented in

the workplace are not likely to be

listened to seriously, and in all

likelihood will not be implemented.

Good communication skills are

enormously important in the world of

work and essential to selling products

to the public—whether they are

robots or anything else. That is why

communication is built into this

design challenge.

Teachers, you should precede this

challenge with some robot classroom

research, including visits to the rich

robot Web sites that now exist, and

perhaps a few hours of class time

spent discussing how robots operate

and are being applied in the world

today. Perhaps you can locate a robot

company or a robot engineer to visit

with the school(s) to help introduce

robotic concepts to the students. This

would be ideal.

It also would be very helpful in this

exercise if time were spent in the

classroom beforehand discussing

creativity techniques and how teams

are much more creative than

individuals. The students should be

encouraged to think “outside of the

box,” with an emphasis on meeting

the design constraints.

Show the students how to brainstorm

and capture their ideas on paper

before trying to rush into a design.

The process of planning the project is

as important as executing the

solution, for once the basic concept of

planning a project is understood, it

can be repeated for many different

types of projects. It is a repeatable

process highly sought after by

companies. People who can work in

teams and know how to carry out

projects are in great demand.

I hope you enjoy this design challenge

as much as I do.

Harry T. Roman is a

Technology

Development and

Transfer Consultant

at the Public Service

Electric & Gas

Company (PSE&G) in

Newark, NJ. He can be reached via

e-mail at harry.roman@pseg.com.

10 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


RESOURCES FromIN IDSA TECHNOLOGY

THE TECHNOLOGY OBSERVATIONAL TEACHER’S TOOL RESEARCH: BOX: STREAMING MEDIA

FORMALIZED CURIOSITY

Walter F. Deal, III

Paul Skaggs, IDSA

Design research is a valuable tool to

help the designer understand the

problem that he/she needs to solve.

“A problem well stated is half solved.” 1

The purpose of design research is to

help state or understand the problems

better, which will lead to better

solutions. Observational research is a

design research method for helping

the designer understand and define

the problem.

What is observational

research?

A dictionary defines observation as:

1. paying attention: the attentive

watching of somebody or something,

2. observing of developments in

something: the careful observing and

recording of something that is

happening, 3. record of something

seen or noted: the result or record of

observing something such as a natural

phenomenon and noting developments.

2 All of these definitions apply

to observational research.

A good definition of research is:

“Research is formalized curiosity; it is

poking and prying with purpose.” 3

Great designers are curious; they

poke and pry. The challenge is that

curiosity is a hard concept to teach,

but we can teach methods that will

help students experience the power

of curiosity.

1 Charles Kettering

2 Encarta® World English Dictionary [North

American Edition]

3 Zora Neal Hurston

The benefits of streaming media include a convenient means

Curiosity is a hard concept to teach, but we

of creating online-accessible content that capitalizes on the

dynamic capabilities of audio and video.

can teach methods that will help students

experience the power of curiosity.

Why is observational

research important to

designers?

Observational research introduces the

designer to the user(s) of the

product, the environment the product

is used in, how the product is used,

sequences and frequency of use,

patterns of behavior, gaps in

processes, problems, and perceptions

of the user. Observational research is

a way that designers can help

develop the products to meet more of

the needs of the consumer and

thereby reduce the risk of the new

product introduction. Observational

research also provides opportunity for

innovative ideas that may have been

missed otherwise. Observational

research is a formalized way to help

the designer learn the value of and

develop his curiosity.

How is it done?

There are two methods of observing.

The outsider approach is observing

the environment and users from the

outside looking in. Outsider observing

should be done as unobtrusively as

possible. Users have a tendency to

modify their behaviors if they know

they are being watched. The insider

approach is observing the users and

their environment by participation

and experience. Both approaches

have merit, but typically the outsider

approach works best for the

designer. The insider approach is

hard to do because sometimes it is

hard to see the whole picture if you

are inside the frame. If both

approaches are deemed necessary to

the project, the designer should take

the outsider’s approach first, then the

insider’s approach. This allows the

designer to observe the setting and

its members acting naturally, then to

participate or experience what it is

like to be a user in the environment.

Conversations, interviews, and

surveys are part of the observational

research; they should be done at the

end of the observation so as not to

affect the user’s natural behavior.

The best tool for observational

research is the designer’s knowledge,

vision, and memory. A camera and a

sketchbook/notebook serve as tools

that are reminders of what is

observed. A video camera can also

work if someone else is operating the

video, allowing the designer to focus

on the larger picture. With a video

camera, the setting becomes

narrowly focused. The observer can

sketch, make notes, and take

pictures in the process of

observation. Sketches are less

obtrusive than pictures, and pictures

are less obtrusive than video. Notes,

sketches, and photos can be used as

reminders and selling tools.

IDSA

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 11


Figure 1. Research photos, sketches, and prototype of Icon treadmill.

RESOURCES IDSA IN TECHNOLOGY

How is observational

research taught?

The best way to teach the power of

observational research is to have the

students experience it firsthand.

What you want them to learn is that

observational research is important to

the design process because it will

allow them to come up with better

solutions to their design opportunities.

Begin by assigning the students to

brainstorm ways that a certain

activity could be made better with a

new product or an improved process.

Select areas that the students are not

typically involved in, such as grocery

shopping as opposed to video game

playing. It is easier for students to

observe if they don’t have a set of

preconceived notions about what they

will see. Once they have brainstormed

the new product or process and have

come up with a number of ideas,

assign them to then go and

unobtrusively observe people

participating in the activity. Have

them look for patterns or sequences

of behavior, interactions, and

components. Have them also observe

the environment around where the

activity is taking place. Have them

take notes, sketch, and photograph or

videotape the activity. Once they

have observed from the outside, they

can move to the inside. From the

inside they can ask more specific

questions of the users and experience

the activity firsthand. The students

should complete the assignment by

brainstorming ideas again, only with

the observation as a tool to help

them. The ideas should be compared.

Look for fluency or number of ideas,

the flexibility or diversity of ideas, the

elaboration of ideas, and the novelty

of the ideas. If the research was done

effectively, their ideas and idea

quality will both increase.

What are the results?

Case Study 1

While consulting for an exercise

equipment manufacturer, Icon Health

and Fitness, we were given the

assignment for a new home-use

treadmill. The market was crowded

with home-use treadmills, and we

wanted something to differentiate our

design. Off to the club I went with

camera and sketchbook to sit and

observe the use of the treadmills. I

was in the club about five minutes

when I noticed a very unusual

behavior pattern. People came into

the area with a water bottle, towel,

and a magazine or novel. They

searched the floor for a piece of bent

plastic, a magazine rack. They put the

after-market rack onto the treadmill

console with their magazine. They slid

the rack to one side and programmed

their workout. They then slid the rack

back to the middle and started their

workout while reading their magazine.

On occasion during the workout they

would slide the rack to the side to see

the displays on the console, to check

their time, calories, or distance, and

then slide the rack back into place in

the middle of the console. This they

did three or four times in a thirtyminute

workout. In a thirty-minute

workout, they used the console for

five minutes and the magazine rack

for twenty-five minutes.

That was one of our ideas—a

console with a built-in magazine rack

in the middle and the controls and

displays to the side. The design

director was so excited by our

discovery that he pledged that every

treadmill, elliptical, stair-stepper, and

bike would have a console with a

magazine rack built in. Every time I

visit Sears or other exercise

equipment outlets, I look to see if he

has kept his commitment, and to this

day, six years later, he has.

Case Study 2

Fisher-Price tried for a couple of

years to develop their ELA (electronic

learning device) category of toys to

compete with the very successful

LeapFrog and V-tech products. We

were given the task of developing

some concepts for unique ELAs. Our

first step was to understand how

these products were used. We

gathered a large box of Fisher-Price

and competitors’ products, got

permission from a local preschool

(the product’s target audience) and

the parents to videotape the

children’s interaction with the toys.

We were allowed to video a segment

of the daily routine at the daycare

that was designated as playtime.

This was so our observation wouldn’t

interrupt the regular school-day

activity. We tried to be as

unobtrusive as possible in a

classroom of four- and five-year-olds.

The attention was on us until we

brought out the toys; then we were

quickly forgotten. We filmed about

five hours of pre-schools on different

days, playing with, sharing,

discarding, fighting over, and

interacting with the toys. At the end

of the playtime session was recess.

The students were immersed in the

12 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Figure 2. Fisher-Price research and concept model.

The benefits of streaming media

toy research, playing with the

plethora of new toys when the recess

bell rang. The toys were dropped in

an instant as the students lined up to

go outside. The video had been shut

off and was being packed up when

the teacher took the students

outside. I wandered out to further

observe what was going on. The

children were having a great time

playing, laughing, running, jumping,

and swinging in the summer sun.

They were having far more fun than

they did with any of the toys. The

teacher was involved in organizing

recess activities like Ring around the

Rosy, Red Rover, and the like. The

ELA concept that we presented to

Fisher-Price was an outdoor product,

called Jitterbug. The product looked

like a bug and when you “danced”

with the bug it would give you a

series of tasks to do, such as run,

jump, and hop on one foot, while

teaching the alphabet, numbers,

colors, and co-operation.

Case include Study a convenient 3 means of

Another exercise equipment client,

Weider/Jumpking, asked us to design

a new set of free weights. Off to the

club I went to observe how weights

were used. I saw a young female

lifting 45 lb. weights onto the benchpress

bar. The weight was heavy and

hard to hold. She was struggling to

try to line up the hole in the weight

with the bar. The weights were vinyl

coated with different colors to give a

visual clue to the pounds. The 35 lb.

weight was yellow and looked very

worn. A series of innovations came

out of this observation. The result

was a set of weights with a handle

on both sides and a lead-in to align

the bar with the hole. We also used

vinyl to differentiate the weights but

used an “o-ring” approach. The vinyl

went around the outside edge where

the vinyl really serves its purpose.

This has been one of the best selling

weight sets that Weider/Jumpking

has ever introduced.

Conclusion

Observational research should be part

of the design process that we

practice, preach, and teach. We

should practice formalized curiosity.

Designers will be better if they

understand and use observational

research as a part of their design

process.

Paul Skaggs, IDSA is

an associate professor

at Brigham Young

University. He has

joined the faculty

after 22 years’ experience

in industry,

during 14 of which he

owned and operated a full-service

product design and development

consulting firm. Clients included

Kodak, Fisher-Price, Federal Express,

Motorola, AT&T, Xerox, and Hewlett-

Packard, to name a few of the

biggies. Paul received his BFA from

Brigham Young University and his

MFA from Rochester Institute of

Technology.

ITEA/NASA-JPL IDSA LEARNING ACTIVITY

Figure 3. Free weight research photos, sketches, and product.

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 13


Simplify the Complex.


BEING A SOMEBODY FOR

TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Remarks delivered by

Jack W. Wescott

Keynote Address at the FTE

Spirit of Excellence

Breakfast

ITEA Conference 2004,

Albuquerque, NM

This morning I have chosen not to

share with you who and why certain

individuals were influential during my

career—but instead I have decided to

share with you some of my

observations regarding the

characteristics of those individuals.

Very simply stated, why did these

individuals stand out in my mind as

leaders? It is interesting to note that

these individuals who have had an

influence on my career are part of a

very diverse group that includes

people from all walks of life: public

school teachers, relatives, friends,

coaches, military officers, clergy, and

certainly professional colleagues.

In many ways this is an awkward

topic for me to address, because I am

not a self-proclaimed expert on

leadership and also do not readily

perceive myself as a leader. But I

don’t think that this is unusual. I

would guess that many of you in the

audience this morning do not readily

consider yourselves to be leaders of

technology education even though

many of you are.

This perception of ourselves is

partially due to the manner in which

we have traditionally identified the

leaders of our profession. For years, I

thought that leaders in our field were

limited to those names published in

Charles Bennett’s History of Industrial

Education, Volumes I&II or Leslie

Cochrans’ text, Contemporary

Programs in Industrial Arts. Even as a

graduate student in Joe

Leadership requires creating what isn’t

there, something new, something beyond

what the system already has.

Leutkemeyer’s History and Philosophy

of Industrial Arts class at the University

of Maryland, I can remember that there

seemed to be a mystical set of

standards for those who were

considered to be the leaders of our

field. And that set of standards seemed

to be narrowly focused on older teacher

educators at major universities who

had authored books, published a

significant number of refereed articles,

written grants, and funded curriculum

projects.

But even the term “leadership” itself

tends to make most of us

uncomfortable. Maybe it is time for us

to rethink our perception of leadership.

And if you haven’t already done so—be

certain to include yourselves in that

new vision of leadership. So if

“leadership” isn’t the term we should

be using, then what might be an

alternative—is there another term that

is broader and more encompassing of

individuals in our profession and not

tied so tightly to the traditional criteria

that I have previously explained?

In response to that question, it seems

appropriate for me to share a story

about the first time that I met Dr.

Donald Maley. In the process of

shopping for a doctoral program, I

visited the University of Maryland and

made an appointment with him to

discuss the graduate program. During

the appointment, I can vividly

remember the obvious clutter of his

office and many piles of papers and

cardboard boxes. Initially, we chatted

about the university, the department,

and the faculty, as well as the usual

questions regarding the graduate

program—most important to me was

the question of when I would

graduate, which by the way was an

obvious mistake on my part. He also

told me about the courses and the

many valuable experiences that I

would have as well as the graduate

assistantship opportunities. We even

talked briefly about the photograph of

the PT 109 navy boat that hung on the

wall behind his desk. Slowly but

surely we ran out of things to talk

about, and as the meeting seemed to

be coming to an end he paused for a

moment, removed his glasses, pointed

his index finger at me and simply

stated, “What is really important my

friend is that when you leave this

university you become a ‘somebody.’”

Become a “somebody!” I must

confess that at the time I really didn’t

understand what he was talking

about. After all, I had already

completed two degrees and just

returned from a tour of duty in

Vietnam—traveled halfway across the

country in a dilapidated car to have

him tell me to become a “somebody!”

But during the time I spent at

Maryland and throughout my career I

learned much more about what he

really meant.

Having said that, let’s begin by taking

a look at what I believe to be the six

characteristics of a “somebody.”

1. Being a “somebody” is dependent

upon how we communicate with

people.

Those are people on whom we

depend to make our programs

successful at all levels. I can think of

no other profession that is more

dependent on communication skills

than education.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 15


FEATURE ARTICLE

But communication is not necessarily

more e-mails, newsletters, bulletins

or Web sites. Effective

communication emphasizes listening

and feedback. It is cleaning up the

clutter of our attempts to talk to each

other by seeking feedback from

colleagues, students, administrators,

and former students. Simply stated—

effective leaders are good listeners.

It is interesting that every study that I

have ever read on desirable

leadership qualities lists good

communication as an essential skill.

Furthermore, the literature on the

communication process can be

broken down into four major

components: reading, writing,

speaking, and listening. Research

shows that the average person

spends less than 25% of his or her

communication clock hours engaged

in reading and/or writing. The

remaining 75% is divided between

speaking and listening, with the

listening percentage heavily

outweighing the speaking

percentage.

It can also be said that

communication doesn’t begin with

the sender; it begins with the

recipient, and that makes it difficult

because there are times when I feel

that there are only two kinds of

people in this world: those who love

to talk and those who hate to listen.

Colin Powell demonstrated the

importance of being a good listener

when he stated, “The day individuals

stop bringing you their problems is

the day you have stopped leading

them. They have either lost

confidence that you can help them or

concluded that you really don’t care.

Either case is a failure of leadership.”

But here’s a flash for you,

communicating while sitting in a

warm seat in your office isn’t smart

communication. Frankly, one’s office

is not where the action is. But

beware—as we leave our offices it

becomes a challenge to get through

the closed and sometimes locked

office doors. Windows are often

covered with posters, cardboard, and

masking tape, while inside there is a

person deeply focused on a computer

monitor. Could face-to-face

communication with people become

a lost art?

Just last month our university

experienced a server failure that kept

our faculty from accessing e-mail,

and as you might guess, it resulted in

chaos. I even had individuals ask me

if they could go home because their

e-mail was inoperable. A former

colleague and mentor, Dick Henak,

suggested that we not use our

computers one day a week so that

we would be forced to communicate

with each other.

Please understand that I do not want

to sacrifice my e-mail capabilities,

but I would argue that most, if not all,

of the meaningful experiences and

defining moments that I had in my

career could not and will not be

captured in an e-mail message. It is

imperative to understand when faceto-face

communication is more

effective than an e-mail message.

2. A “somebody” understands the

difference between “managing”

and “leadership.”

In a phrase that has almost become a

business cliché, Warren Bennis

(1980) says that American businesses

are over-managed and under-led.

Maybe that same quote has

implications for technology

education. Most managers have a

simple objective, which is to keep

things as they are and to preserve

the system. Is that what we want for

technology education?

Bennis also suggests that managing

and leading differ in a number of

ways. The effective leader brings

new ideas, goals, and a sense of

vision to their position, accompanied

by a passion and commitment for

what they believe. Managers engage

in the day-to-day conduct of the

organization, while leaders transcend

the everyday organizational routines

to guide the organization. Leadership

requires creating what isn’t there,

something new, something beyond

what the system already has. Other

distinctions between management

and leadership include the following:

• Managers have employees.

Leaders have followers.

•Managers command and control.

Leaders empower and inspire.

• Managers seek stability.

Leaders seek flexibility.

• Managers make decisions and

solve problems.

Leaders set directions and then

empower and enable their team to

make their own decisions and

solve their own problems.

• Managers accept the organizational

structure and culture.

Leaders look for a better way.

Leaders understand how to release

the brainpower, intelligent curiosity,

the “know how” of our greatest

asset—the teachers, students, and

staff that we work with every day.

3. A “somebody” is able to focus on

areas where he/she can make a

difference.

I raised a small flock of sheep for

several years. It started out as my

son’s 4H project and developed into

Dad’s project. Some of you may

know the acronym FFA that I

always thought stood for Future

Farmers of America. But I want you

to know that it really stands for

“fathers farm alone!” When people

learned that I raised sheep, I was

almost always reminded of how

sheep are intellectually challenged,

and some folks simply referred to my

wooly friends as dumb. But my

favorite sheep story involves my

older son. As a young 4H’er, he

enjoyed feeding the sheep. In order to

feed the flock, the sheep had to pass

through a gate from a large pasture

into a smaller feedlot. He would rattle

the feed bucket and the sheep would

come running. As the sheep

approached the feedlot, he would

place a long stick horizontally about a

foot off the ground where the gate

had previously been. He would

patiently watch as the first sheep

jumped over the stick and into the

feedlot—then a second sheep would

jump the stick, then a third sheep

would do the same. He would then

remove the stick and laugh

hysterically as the rest of the flock

passed through the opening jumping

over the stick that was no longer

there.

Effective leaders are careful not to

spend too much time trying to jump

over sticks that aren’t there! They

focus on those areas that really make

a difference. Focusing on areas that

16 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


eally make a difference leads me to

the next characteristic.

4. A “somebody” has vision and

commitment.

When I think of vision, I am reminded

of something that was said to me by

a CEO of a manufacturing company in

Indiana. While informally addressing

the topic of establishing a vision, he

simply said, “Jack, be careful when

you identify a vision because there is

a fine line between a having a vision

and hallucinating!”

Having a vision is not enough.

Leaders must be able to

communicate the vision frequently

and effectively. They need to be

capable of articulating it in different

ways to different constituencies.

Effective communication is the ability

to take something complicated and

make it simple. A leader can never

assume that the vision is fully

understood by all. They need to be

almost “missionary” in style as they

continually and consistently “preach

the gospel” of the future. Doing so

will allow them to change the

perception of people as to what is

important for them and the

organization.

5. A “somebody” is also committed

and persistent to his or her

vision.

Calvin Coolidge said it best when he

expressed the importance of

persistence:

“Nothing in the world can take

the place of persistence. Talent

will not; nothing is more

common than unsuccessful men

with great talent. Genius will

not; the unrewarded genius is

almost a proverb. Education

will not; the world is full of

educated derelicts. Persistence

and determination alone are

paramount.”

Leaders need to be unshaken in their

belief that what they are doing is the

right thing to do. This requires a

certain degree of mental toughness.

Being tough is many times

misinterpreted. Being tough is

standing true to your vision

regardless of challenges and

setbacks or when others doubt you

or your ability to succeed. This type

of “toughness” is called commitment,

and good leaders seem to have it.

True “toughness” is going over the

hill without knowing what is on the

other side. It is about staying the

course through adversity. But don’t

worry, whatever course you decide

on, there is always someone nearby

to tell you that you are wrong. There

will always be difficulties that come

up that will tempt you to doubt

yourself and believe the critics are

right. It takes tremendous courage to

map out a course and direction and

see it through.

Let’s take a moment to review a

recent defining moment for our

profession. As far back as I can

remember there has been a

consistent request by public school

teachers, administrators, and teacher

educators for a set of standards for

technology education. After all, such

standards would certainly give

meaning to what we are as a

profession and how we do it. Until a

few years ago I was convinced that it

wouldn’t happen. After all, who

would have the vision and

commitment and time for such a

project?

I was later informed that a colleague

of ours had a vision to develop

standards for our profession. You all

know that I am speaking of Bill

Dugger. Remembering the statement

that there is a fine line between a

vision and hallucinating, I honestly

thought Dr. Dugger was hallucinating!

But it is safe to say that the rest is

history. Bill Dugger did have the

vision, persistence, and commitment,

and the profession now has a set of

standards.

6. Finally, being a “somebody”

means understanding the

importance of being a mentor.

An effective leader is someone who

makes the extra effort to become a

mentor to a student or colleague. I

will be the first to admit that I have

benefited professionally from several

mentors in my career.

It is not a secret that the future of our

profession lies in the hands of our

young professionals. Perhaps our

greatest accomplishment will not be

that we were gifted technology

educators, but rather that we inspired

the next generation of those who will

lead our profession.

In her book The Mentor’s Guide:

Facilitating Effective Learning

Relationships, Lois Zachary states,

“Human beings thrive best

when we grow in the presence

of those who have gone before.

Our roots may not follow every

available pathway, but we are

able to become more fully

ourselves because of the

presence of others. ‘I am who I

am because we are’ goes that

saying. And mentors are a vital

part of our lives.”

I would like to conclude my remarks

this morning by reading to you a

manifesto that was written by Kent

Keith when he was a 19-year-old

student at Harvard. The original title

is “The Paradoxical Commandments,”

and it was published in a booklet that

Kent wrote for student leaders back

in 1968. I feel these ten items have

implications for our challenges as

professionals.

1. People are illogical,

unreasonable, and selfcentered.

Respect them anyway.

2. If you do good, people will

accuse you of selfish, ulterior

motives.

Do good anyway.

3. If you are successful, you win

false friends and true enemies.

Succeed anyway.

4. The good you do will be

forgotten tomorrow.

Do good anyway.

5. Honesty and frankness make

you vulnerable.

Be honest and frank anyway.

6. The biggest men and women

with the biggest ideas can be

shot down by the smallest men

and women with the smallest

minds.

Think big anyway.

7. People favor underdogs but

follow only top dogs.

Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

8. What you spend years building

may be destroyed overnight.

Build anyway.

9. People really need help, but may

attack you if you help them.

Help people anyway.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 17


10. Give the world the best you

have and you’ll get kicked in

the teeth.

Give the best you’ve got anyway.

There are no big secrets revealed

here, and maybe nothing that will

have a significant effect on the

research agenda for technology

education. My comments this morning

are simply my ideas about what I

perceive to be the characteristics of

effective leaders in my career.

So begin to think of yourself as a

“somebody,” even though you have

never done so before, and provide

leadership for technology education

today. Too many young professionals

feel that the leadership of our

profession is the responsibility of

someone else. It is obvious that the

future of our profession depends on

how effectively we can infuse new

and diverse leadership into all levels.

Remember that leadership comes in

many different shapes, colors, and

flavors, and that each of us can

provide leadership to technology

education. It is not reserved for a

few, and there are certainly plenty of

challenges ahead for every one of us.

As you leave this morning, please ask

yourself the following question:

“What can I do to make a difference in

our profession?” As Dr. Maley would

say, “What is important my friends, is

that “you become a ‘somebody.’”

Works Cited

Bennett, C. A. (1926). History of manual and

industrial education up to 1870. Peoria,

IL: Chas A. Bennett Company, Inc.

Bennett, C. A. (1926). History of manual and

industrial education1870 to 1917. Peoria,

IL: Chas A. Bennett Company, Inc.

Bennis, W. (1980). Leadership: A

beleaguered species? In S. Ferguson

and S.D. Ferguson (Eds.), Intercom:

Readings in organizational

communication, (pp. 152-167).

Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden.

Cochrane, L. H. (1970). Innovative

programs in industrial education.

Bloomington, IL: McKnight & McKnight

Publishing Company.

Harari, O. (2002). Leadership secrets of

Colon Powell. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Keith, K. (2001). Anyway: The Paradoxical

Commandments. New York, NY:

Penguin Putnam, Inc.

Jack Wescott, DTE

is Chair of the

Department of

Industry and

Technology at Ball

State University,

Muncie, IN. He can

be reached via e-

mail at jwescott@bsu.edu.

Get to Know an ITEA Member

Andy Stephenson, DTE

Technology Teacher, Scott County High School

Georgetown, Kentucky

What is your favorite thing about being a technology teacher?

The variety and excitement of the subject content and that the content is

ever-changing, never a constant like other subjects. Added to that is the

excitement of students when they discover and experience new skills and

successes.

Why did you join ITEA?

To meet people and expand my knowledge so I might improve my teaching

and my students’ learning. I have always been taught not to complain without offering a solution or becoming

part of the solution. For that reason, I’ve always been very active professionally.

Please share your favorite teaching tip.

Make learning REAL! Be flexible. It only takes looking around the world we live in to apply what we are

teaching. A perfect example is the Northeast power outage last year. What a teaching moment on technology

systems and how they affect one another.

Want to communicate with Andy? He can be reached at astephen@scott.k12.ky.us.

18 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


BUSH VS. KERRY ON EDUCATION

The American public is being inundated with political advertisements, which will reach a peak this fall, leading up to the

November elections. Among the myriad of issues that the candidates have addressed is the issue of education. Where do

George W. Bush and John Kerry stand on this all-important issue? The bullet points below were taken directly from the

candidates’ Web sites.

George W. Bush

Republican

www.georgebush.com/Education

John Kerry

Democrat

www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

• Signed No Child Left Behind Act, which makes federal

funding contingent on states giving standardized tests in

math and reading and publishing results for third- through

eighth-graders.

• Says when it comes to our schools, dollars alone do not

always make the difference.

• Calls for zero tolerance on disruption, guns, and school

safety.

• Says federal dollars should not follow failure.

Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which

creates education standards and accountability for each state.

A common complaint among teachers is that the act created

a new emphasis on testing, which they believe shifts the

focus in the classroom from teaching to testing. Bush also

advocates overhauling the Head Start program by increasing

2004 funding by $203 million, and requiring half its teachers

to have college degrees by 2008. Bush’s 2004 budget

increases education funding to $53.1 billion.

(Source: cbsnews.com)

• Proposes a National Education Trust Fund to guarantee

the federal government meets its obligation to fully fund

education priorities.

• Vows to change the No Child Left Behind Act to ensure

that schools focus on teaching high standards, and not

become “drill and kill” test prep institutions.

• Says No Child Left Behind underfunds public schools by

$6 billion this year.

• Chronically disruptive or violent students should be

removed from classrooms and placed in alternative

learning environments.

Voted for the “No Child Left Behind” bill in 2001, but has

since called for increased funding. Supports Early Start,

Head Start, and Smart Start. Criticized the proposal that

would give control of Head Start preschool programs to the

states. He would increase funding for special education.

Member of Education Committee. Introduced a bill to

provide universal pre-kindergarten. Opposes school voucher

programs. Proposed a “national service a way of life.” The

components of his plan include “High School Service,”

which would require all high school students to perform

community service before receiving diplomas, “Retired but

Not Tired,” a program for seniors, “Summer of Service” for

teens not old enough to work. Proposes free public

education for people who do two years of volunteer work

and for quadrupling the number of Peace Corps volunteers

from 6,700 to 25,000. He said he’d pay for the program by

closing corporate tax loopholes.

(Source: cbsnews.com)

ELECTION 2004

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 19


RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

Electric Motors Everywhere

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

Walter F. Deal, III, Ph.D.

Introduction

Can you imagine the multitude of

uses for electric motors? We may

even say “motors, motors,

everywhere electric motors!” Electric

motors are used in home, work, and

recreation, silently doing work for us

in converting electrical energy into

mechanical energy! We see them in

appliances such as vacuum cleaners,

refrigerators, microwave ovens,

computers, automobiles, and even

toothbrushes. A VCR has several

miniature DC motors, as do DVD and

CD-ROM players. Other common uses

are elevators, pumps, power tools,

and manufacturing equipment.

Electric motors have played a key

role in exploration efforts deep into

the sea and in space ventures. Do

you remember the Mars Sojourner

Most forms of energy go through some

conversion process to do useful work for us.

Rover? Or the current space

exploration robots named Spirit and

Opportunity? (Figure 1.) These space

robots use miniature electric motors

and servomechanisms as a means of

propulsion and motion. These

miniature motors are compact and

powerful and require little energy to

operate them. Surprisingly, there were

39 miniature motors on each of the

Spirit and Opportunity rovers! There

are many activities found in technology

education classes that use

miniature electric motors. The most

common are robot experiments,

activities, and projects along with

Figure 1. The Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, both included 39 miniature Maxon electric

motors as part of the rover designs. The motors are used to propel the rovers and position

sensors, and actuators. While the motors were designed and manufactured on earth, they are

now millions of miles away on Mars. (NASA/JPL/ASU/MSSS/Ames)

solar cars, and LEGO activities. In

most all of these activities the motors

are direct current, permanent magnet

motors.

While electric vehicles are not really

a brand new idea, as they were

invented in the early 1900s, we are

seeing electric-powered vehicles in

current model line-ups. With the

increasing costs of gasoline and

concern for the environment, several

companies, such as Honda, Toyota,

and Ford, have introduced electric

vehicles. Honda has introduced a

new hybrid Civic model that gets over

50 miles per gallon of gasoline by

teaming up an electric motor with a

gasoline engine to provide power to

drive the car. Ford has introduced a

hybrid electric SUV called Escape, as

shown in Figure 2, that combines the

performance of a gasoline engine and

the economy of an electric vehicle.

Many of the electric motors that we

commonly see and use are called

“fractional horsepower” motors that

are usually less than one horsepower.

However, we may see very large

electric motors that are rated in

thousands of horsepower used in

research and industrial applications.

The National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) uses very

large electric motors, 40,000

horsepower, to drive compressors for

its wind tunnels such as those found

at the Ames Research Center. Yet

they share a common principle of

operation—using changing magnetic

fields to produce mechanical motion.

20 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Figure 2. As we look to the future of transportation we can see that there is a need for

more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. Historically, modern electric

vehicles have been small and primarily designed for commuter transport. The Ford Motor

Company has introduced a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle that promises to provide

desirable size and economy features that have not been available in traditional SUVs.

(Courtesy of Ford Motor Company.)

History of Electric Motors

The invention of the electric motor is

the result of a number of inventions

and discoveries in the field of

electricity during the eighteenth and

nineteenth centuries. While

“electricity” and “magnetism” and

some of their properties had been

known for many years, how to use

them to produce mechanical motion

was not. Several key discoveries

were critical to the invention of the

electric motor. These discoveries

included the discovery of electricity,

the battery, and the principle of

electromagnetism. Perhaps we might

say that the discovery of

electromagnetism by Hans Christian

Ørsted in 1820 was a pivotal event

that led to the development and

invention of electric motors. He

demonstrated that a wire carrying a

current was able to deflect a

magnetized compass needle. Ørsted

did not suggest any satisfactory

explanation of the phenomenon, nor

did he try to represent the

phenomenon in a mathematical

framework; however, other scientists

and inventors would follow along

with practical inventions that

capitalized on electricity and

electromagnetism.

Two of the more significant scientists

and inventors were Michael Faraday

and Nicola Tesla. Interestingly,

Michael Faraday was apprenticed as

a bookbinder at the early age of

fourteen. During his seven-year

apprenticeship, Faraday developed an

interest in science. Subsequently he

became acquainted with and

employed by Sir Humphrey Davy as

an assistant. Faraday was intensely

interested in Ørsted’s phenomenon of

electromagnetism and developed two

devices that produced what he called

electromagnetic rotation. This can be

best described as a continuous

circular motion from the circular

magnetic force around a wire. Keep

in mind that a magnetic field is

created around a wire and is

perpendicular to the direction of

current in that wire. Today we use

Fleming’s Left Hand Motor rule to

describe this concept, where your

thumb and first and second fingers

are extended, your first finger straight

and second finger at a right angle to

your first indicates the magnetic

field, second finger direction of

current, and thumb represents the

resulting motion.

Nicola Tesla is noted for his work in

alternating current or what is called

AC. Tesla invented the AC motor and

transformer, 3-phase electricity, and

the Tesla Coil. Each of these

inventions has made a significant

impact on our world today—more

than we may realize! The invention of

the AC electric motor, for the most

part, is obvious. We use the benefits

of electric motors daily in nearly

every aspect of daily living. Your

refrigerator, heating system,

microwave oven, and water that you

shower with in the morning are in

some manner connected to motion

created by an AC electric motor!

Tesla received patent number

390,414 in 1888 for his Dynamo

Electric Machine. Perhaps less

obvious is the electricity that is

generated by the utility companies

that we use with just the flick of a

switch for light, heating and cooling,

cooking, and yes, watching

television! It was the work of Tesla

that brought us this modern

alternating current electric

distribution system.

As we look at these inventors and

their inventions, it is important to

realize that they all had a number of

common interests. Each of them was

inquisitive, creative, and had a keen

interest in wanting to know how

things worked. This is much the

same as in the technology education

laboratory where you study science

and technology to learn about

technological inventions and

developments and their impacts.

These early inventors learned how to

think critically and solve problems at

an early age.

Basic Electric

Motor Operation

There are many different kinds and

sizes of electric motors. The sizes of

electric motors range from micro

motors that can fit on the head of a

pin to very large ones that weigh

thousands of pounds and develop

thousands of horsepower. Electric

motors may be classified by size and

horsepower. However, it is more

common to classify them as direct

current or alternating current

devices—AC or DC motors. Generally

AC motors are used in fixed locations

or where there is ready access to AC

electricity such as a wall outlet. DC

motors operate from direct current

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 21


RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

Figure 3. The motors shown here are representative of the kinds of miniature DC motors that

are typically used in motorized projects and activities in technology education labs. The

motors shown left to right are a LEGO® gear motor, a standard gear motor, a “pan cake”

motor, and an inexpensive DC motor. Each of these motors is available from electronic and

robotic suppliers from which technology teachers obtain supplies.

that can be readily provided by

batteries. Cordless appliances and

tools such as saws and drills use

rechargeable batteries as a source of

energy to power DC electric motors.

Within each of these categories for

AC and DC motors there are many

sub-categories. Because of space

limitations, we will look at several

types of DC motors that are

commonly found in portable tools,

appliances, and frequently used in

robotic projects in the technology

education lab.

Several types of DC motors that are

suitable for building projects and

mini-robots are the permanent

magnet brush-type motors such as

those shown in Figure 3. Other kinds

of DC motors include brushless, and

permanent magnet coreless designs.

Generally speaking, the DC motors

included with LEGO kits or found at

Radio Shack, Kelvin Electronics,

Pitsco, and other low cost motor

suppliers are the brush-type

permanent magnet motors in the

1-1/2 to 9.0 volt supply voltage range.

Generally these motors run at too

high a speed and too low a torque to

be useful for robotic applications and

construction activities. Typical motor

shaft speeds are 5,000 to 15,000

RPM. Gear reduction boxes are added

to these types of motors to reduce

the speed and increase the torque.

Small DC motors are also available

with gearboxes that are an integral

part of the motor frame and are

called gear motors.

There are several major parts

common to most DC brush-type

motors. These parts include the

armature, permanent magnet fields,

case, brush assembly, and end caps

as shown in Figure 4. The operation

of the DC electromagnetic motors is

based on the principle of magnetism,

where like magnetic poles attract and

unlike poles repel each other. With

this principle in mind, we need only

to add some means of changing the

poles or polarity of the magnets to

create a rotating effect. This is easily

accomplished with a commutator.

The commutator is an integral part of

the armature that reverses the

direction of the current twice every

cycle. This allows each of the

armature magnets to push and pull

on the permanent magnet fields on

the outside of the motor and causes

the armature to rotate.

An inexpensive DC motor is easily

disassembled to see each of the

components. You will notice in Figure

4 that the motor housing contains

two sets of magnets. These magnets

are positioned so that one has a

North Pole orientation and the other a

South Pole orientation. One of the

end caps provides only a bearing and

support for the armature, while the

other end cap contains the

commutator brushes. The brushes

may be made of a copper alloy,

carbon, or carbon composite to

provide a moveable electrical

connection that is long wearing. The

armature has stamped steel

laminations as a core on which the

Figure 4. The basic parts of a miniature DC motor include an armature, sometimes called a

rotor, the end caps to support the armature, and the housing with two permanent magnets

attached. The brush assembly is an integral part of one of the end caps. This student is

pointing to the commutator that reverses the current to the windings twice every cycle.

22 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


armature windings are wound that

create electromagnets.

Miniature DC motors are basically

simple devices, and their operation is

the result of four physical principles.

1. Similar magnetic fields create

opposing forces that vary directly

with distance.

2. Opposite magnetic fields create

attractive forces that vary directly

with distance.

3. Current flowing through a

conductor creates a magnetic

field whose strength varies

directly with the amount of

current.

4. Reversing the polarity of a circuit

reverses both the direction of the

current and the direction

(polarity) of the magnetic field.

Energy Conversion

Most forms of energy go through

some conversion process to do useful

work for us. For example, water

stored in a lake is potential energy,

and to capitalize on the potential

energy we must devise some means

to cause the water to flow and thus

become kinetic energy. Here we may

use a dam to control the flow of

water and turbines to convert the

moving water into mechanical

energy. Thus the mechanical energy

can, in turn, turn a turbine to

generate electricity using a

generator. Wind energy may also be

captured in a similar manner with the

use of wind turbines. The movement

of the wind can turn a large rotor or

propeller connected to a generator to

generate electricity. Again, both of

these are examples of a conversion

process. Oil and gasoline are burned

to create heat energy to run engines

or gas turbines through the expansion

of the burning gases and produce

mechanical energy or motion. This

motion is then used to turn

generators to generate electricity.

Electric motors follow the conversion

process in the opposite direction.

That is to say they consume

electricity to produce rotary or linear

mechanical motion. It is these two

motions, rotary and linear, that

provide the capability to do work for

us. In this context, we are concerned

with torque, speed, and power.

Figure 5. A DC motor can be modeled by representing the windings as a resistance (R) and

counter EMF, (e), when it is running. Other considerations are the power, (Pe) is the product of

the applied voltage and current (VI). The mechanical power is the product of the torque and

shaft speed, Pm = T?.

(Adapted from Mobile Robots: Inspiration to Implementation, Jones and Flynn)

Torque is a measurement of turning

effort or the angular force that a

motor can deliver a specified

distance from the shaft. Figure 5

illustrates the concept of torque.

Torque ratings for miniature DC

motors is specified in ounce-inches of

torque, whereas in larger motors or

engines torque is specified in poundfeet.

Miniature DC motors generally

produce torque values in the range of

several ounce-inches to more than

100 ounce-inches of torque. Since

many miniature motors are imported,

we may also see torque ratings

specified in Newton-meters (Nm) or

grams per centimeter (G/CM).

Aside from describing the physical

components of a DC motor such as

the field magnets, armature, voltage,

and current, we can describe it as an

equivalent circuit model. Figure 5

shows a simple equivalent circuit

where R is the resistance of the

motor windings, I is the motor

current, V is the applied voltage, e is

the counter electromotive force EMF,

and T w is the torque, T, times the

angular speed, w, produced by the

turning effort of the armature shaft to

produce mechanical power. When a

voltage is applied to the motor

terminals, and the armature is

beginning to turn, the current is at its

maximum value, or V/R. As the speed

of the motor increases, the current

will decrease until the maximum

speed is reached. This is because the

inductance of the windings generates

a counter electromotive force, or

“back EMF.” The counter electromotive

force opposes the applied

voltage, as it is of the opposite

polarity and limits the current through

resistance, R. As a load is placed on

the motor, the speed will decrease,

with a corresponding increase in

torque and current. In summary, as

the speed of the motor increases, the

torque will decrease.

Frequently we hear or take part in

discussions about this motor being

more powerful than that motor.

Power is a rate at which you are

using energy. Energy is the capacity

for doing work as measured by the

capability of doing work (potential

energy) or the conversion of this

capability to motion (kinetic energy).

As we examine electric motors and

review the motor specifications from

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 23


RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

the manufacturers, we can begin to

see that generally voltage and current

play a significant role in the power of

an electric motor. However, this is a

bit of an oversimplification, as the

design and construction as well as

the types of materials used in the

construction of a motor affects its

capability to do work. Size and speed

alone are not sufficient measures of

the power of a motor.

Choosing Electric Motors

Selecting a miniature DC motor

should be done by carefully

reviewing a motor manufacturer’s

motor specification tables, where the

voltage, current, torque, and speed

ratings are listed. Additionally, a

family of curves will be shown that

graphs the power, torque, current,

and speed relationships. By matching

the specifications of a motor to your

needs you will achieve satisfactory

results in your project construction

activities. Sometimes this is not

possible or practical, as in the case

where bulk purchases of DC motors

are made at very low cost and only

the voltage, current, and motor

speeds are stated. In such cases it is

generally necessary to perform some

experimentation and add a gearbox

to handle the intended loads for a

motor drive system, such as in a

robot project.

Miniature DC motors can be

purchased from a number of vendors,

such as Kelvin Electronics and other

vendors, in large quantities at very

reasonable prices that make them

attractive for technology education

projects. Generally, these kinds of

motors are in the 1-1/2 – 12 volt

ranges and lend themselves readily to

a number of problem-solving and

critical-thinking design activities. The

motor specifications provided by such

vendors are sufficient to make good

choices in choosing a motor in an

intelligent manner.

In most cases where a DC motor is

intended for a drive train system, the

speed of the motor will be too high.

Decreasing the applied voltage, even

though it will reduce the motor speed,

is generally not a satisfactory

solution. Here, the addition of a small

gear reduction would be appropriate.

Alternatively, a pulley system may be

used. DC motors may be purchased

with an integral gearbox, or a gearbox

may be purchased separately. Some

simple calculations must be made to

ensure that the motor speed, at its

rated voltage and torque, will provide

the speed and power necessary for a

given project when a gearbox is

added. For example, a small motor

rated at 2,200 RPM and 2.8 G/CM can

be coupled with a gearbox to provide

an acceptable speed and torque for a

small robot or vehicle. If we were to

add a gearbox with a reduction ratio

of 50:1, then the resulting output shaft

speed would be 44 RPM and the

output torque would be approximately

140 G/CM, less frictional losses.

Assuming that our vehicle has a drive

wheel of 2 inches in diameter, then

we can calculate the theoretical

speed of the vehicle as the shaft

speed times the drive wheel

circumference, or 44 RPM X π r2, or

138 inches per minute.

Summary

As we look at the world around us, it

is increasingly difficult not to realize

the impacts that electricity and

electric motors have made on our

society and the way that we live.

Electric motors are conversion

devices that convert electricity into

mechanical energy that do work for

us. As we look at some of the

applications of electric motors, both

large and small, we can see that they

indeed provide us with the capability

to move things rapidly and efficiently.

We find that motors are used to drive

pumps to move water and other fluids,

as well as fans to keep us cool, and

power to transport us in environmentally

friendly vehicles! So the next

time that you listen to your favorite

tunes on your CD player or ride an

escalator in a shopping mall, think

about the discoveries in electromagnetism

and motor theories of

Faraday, Tesla, and Ørsted and the

impact that they have made!

Selecting the most appropriate

miniature DC electric motor wisely

will contribute toward success

and satisfaction in designing and

building motorized projects and

activities. Typical parts suppliers

stock a variety of miniature DC

motors and provide sufficient

information to select motors that will

meet your project needs.

References

Cowden, David H. www.srl.gatech.

edu/education/ME3110/primer/

motors.htm

Jones, Joseph L., & Flynn, Anita M.

(1993). Mobile Robots: Inspiration to

Implementation. Wellesley, MA: A. K.

Peters.

Walter F. Deal, III,

Ph.D. is an

associate professor

at Old Dominion

University in Norfolk,

VA. He can be

reached via e-mail at

wdeal@odu.edu.

AD INDEX

GEICO.................................C-3

Goodheart-Willcox...............14

Mastercam.........................C-4

SolidWorks Corporation .....C-2

24 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


STANDARDS-BASED TECHNOLOGY TEACHER EDUCATION ONLINE:

AN INNOVATIVE NEW PROGRAM AT VALLEY CITY STATE UNIVERSITY

Donald Mugan

James Boe

Matt Edland

Valley City State University in Valley

City, ND, has developed an undergraduate

technology education

program over the past five years

that is being delivered completely

online.

What are you doing in technology

education and how did it come

about?

The current effort was really set in

motion in 1990 when the campus was

given a mission by the university

system to exercise a leadership role in

enhancing the teaching and learning

process through technology. After a

number of significant accomplishments,

including universal computer

access through notebook computers

and universal digital portfolio assessment,

the university was ready to

explore a possible role in online

learning as a means to accomplish its

mission. In 1998 the campus secured

a $1.7 million DOE grant, which was

used to develop an infrastructure to

support online learning, to build faculty

expertise, and to create a complete

model online program.

Technology Education was chosen as

the first online program because it

represented an opportunity to

revitalize a long-standing program, and

because of the clearly defined critical

need for technology teachers. Other

factors influencing the decision were

the Standards for Technological

Literacy (STL) project, and ITEA’s

creation of the Center to Advance the

Teaching of Technology and Science

(CATTS) Consortium, which engaged

in development of curriculum

materials for STL implementation.

Taken together, these factors

presented an opportunity to make a

clean break with the past and develop

a program of national reach and

significance.

A Menu Selection Connects Instructor to any school in the state through Interactive IP

(Internet Protocol) Video.

On what is your curriculum based

and how does it line up with what

is going on in K-12 schools?

STL represents the clearest consensus

to date of what technology education

can and should do for America.

Therefore, the greatest assurance of

success for an online program would

be found in building on these

standards, and it meant starting from

scratch with all new content—no

compromises. Working within the

constraints of a 36-credit major, it

became clear that the traditional

model of capping skills courses with a

methods course would not work. If

Regional Technology Center

new standards-based materials were

added, something must be deleted. It

also became clear that if higher

education is to foster change, it must

model the curriculum it seeks to

create in schools. Valley City State

University decided to adopt the

curriculum framework proposed by the

CATTS Consortium, complete with

course titles. This meant that

activities must be grade-level

appropriate, and traditional skills must

be taught on a just-in-time, as-needed

basis. For example, if a prospective

teacher must know how to solder in

order to supervise a design challenge,

a soldering tutorial is provided if

needed, when needed. When a

decision is made to set a single factor

as the top priority, in this case STL,

the ramifications are endless. Everything

must be scrutinized, including

facility. STL is K-12 in scope; therefore,

highly specialized labs filled with

industrial-age equipment are

inappropriate. Labs must be flexible,

clean, exciting, and non-intimidating to

teachers and students alike. A new

facility to address these needs was

completed at VCSU in 2001.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 25


FEATURE ARTICLE

The program enjoys considerable

support in K-12 schools for a variety of

reasons. First, the grant funded the

creation of a Curriculum Development

Team made up of a dozen of the most

respected K-12 teachers in the state.

It is unusual for K-12 teachers to be

given a voice in the creation of

university curriculum, but the resulting

ownership among teachers is

gratifying. The team was selected for

geographic and grade level balance,

including elementary teachers.

Another factor in acceptance of the

program is that the State Board for

Career and Technical Education was a

partner in the project from its

conception. The CTE board and staff

provide leadership and support for

technology education and play a role

in teacher certification as well as

Grades 7-12 course approval. CTE

funded the North Dakota CATTS

membership over the past five years

and provided several other forms of

assistance. Upon completion of the

university curriculum, the State

Supervisor of Technology Education

worked with Curriculum Development

Team members to create a state

curriculum framework similar to the

CATTS framework. CTE has a process

for approving and funding of programs.

Approved programs and funded

programs will offer an increasing

number of standards-based courses

from the Framework document.

Modular Lab

necessary activities. Certainly, design

activities consistent with STL are no

more challenging to deliver than

engineering education, and

engineering educators have been

working for many years to improve

distance delivery of subject matter

and laboratories.

The focus of our continuous

improvement efforts in the delivery of

laboratory instruction center around

the level of support we can provide to

a wide variety of learners. For

example, many of our students are

emergency-certified teachers and can

function with a minimum level of

support since they have a lab facility

available and often have other

technology teachers nearby to assist

them. Obviously, an elementary

teacher working at home on the

kitchen table may require more

support. However, several such

individuals have had success with

current levels of support. Initially, we

offered open labs during the week,

Saturday labs, and summer

workshops. To provide support to

more learners, we have begun the

process of training remote laboratory

facilitators and setting up remote labs

in K-12 schools and in other

universities. The lab facilitators and

students are supported through IP

(Internet Protocol) interactive video as

needed, and interactive sessions with

the online instructor are scheduled at

the beginning of each lab session,

usually on Saturdays. We are

experimenting with existing

technology that will permit individuals

at home to join the discussions and sit

in on live demonstrations with remote

lab facilitators and other students.

These learners must have a high

bandwidth Internet connection,

additional software, and, if they would

like to interact face-to-face, a camera

mounted on their monitor.

What research data are you

collecting as you move forward

with the delivery of this degree?

The opportunity to start over comes

but once in a lifetime, and it was a

complete package—all or nothing. We

concluded we could not build the

What’s working and in what areas

are you making adjustments as you

deliver instruction?

The portion of the curriculum that is

analogous to traditional lecture

material is delivered online in a

Blackboard ® course-container

environment. Unit reading

assignments, online WebQuest

research assignments, and online

discussions form the basis of most

course material. While subject to

continuous improvement, most

aspects work very well and do not

depart substantially from courses in

any other discipline. Therefore, the

benchmarks appropriate for any online

course apply. Laboratory instruction

for distance learners is a serious

challenge, as one might imagine, but is

by no means impossible. Distance

delivery imposes many constraints,

but if one recognizes that design, not

in-depth skill, is foremost in a

standards-based curriculum, then

ways can be found to accomplish

Design for Engineering – Data Logging with LabVIEW

26 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Awesome Airplanes Thematic Unit, with Parents Watching Washington Elementary Third

Grade Class, Valley City, ND.

program one course and one decision

at a time. We had to assemble all

pieces, including curriculum and

delivery system, at once—on a

deadline—in five years. Therefore, we

adopted a continuous improvement

model, with support and advice from

the Curriculum Development Team and

national consultants in technology

education and e-learning. We

implemented an assessment plan, with

continuous feedback from every

student, in every unit, in every course.

At the end of each semester we meet

to decide on necessary changes

based on the semester results. Now

that the grant is completed

(September 30, 2003), we are engaged

in three distinct efforts to improve

results through focused research. We

have partnered with ITEA and NASA’s

Classroom of the Future to study in

detail the effectiveness of one of our

courses over a four-year period. We

have also partnered with two school

districts and a two-year college to

create a model K-12 standards-based

curriculum implementation, with

articulated pathways to engineering

programs. We are also seeking funds

to assist in rewriting of all course

materials on a continual basis.

Where do your students come from?

We could not market the new

program until we were accredited. We

received accreditation as an online

program from North Dakota, NCATE,

and North Central in June of 2002.

Since then, enrollment has gone from

essentially zero majors to over 40.

With three university partnership

agreements in final stages, we expect

that enrollment will grow rapidly.

Because a path toward teacher

certification is available and mostly

online, students from many fields are

represented. These include elementary

education, business administration,

engineering, and emergency-certified

teachers, both degreed and nondegreed.

How do you deliver what has

traditionally been known as the

fabrication or “making” part of your

curriculum?

Laboratory activities for the most part

rely on carefully selected design

challenges accompanied by a VCSUpackaged

materials kit that requires

only commonly available tools for

completion. Since many students are

adults from other fields, the activities

must serve multiple functions. The

activity must provide prospective

teachers with a concept of

methodologies that are appropriate for

a given grade level, a clear

understanding of what standards and

benchmarks must be emphasized in a

given course, and finally, experience

with fabricating design solutions using

FEATURE ARTICLE

Engineering Lab

“Flying Bugs” at Technology Night at Sweetwater Elementary, Devils Lake, ND.

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 27


control of experiments, and expanded

simulation opportunities.

Closing Thoughts

FEATURE ARTICLE

Refining a Design Solution in ProDesktop

common tools and materials in a safe

manner. There are many factors to

consider in selecting these activities,

including cost, common tool

requirements, variety of materials and

industries, standards and benchmarks,

safety, escalating ability in fabrication,

and many more. Because of the

variation in skill level of prospective

teachers and the many factors

mentioned, the design challenges

must be written more tightly than we

would like, but the conceptual leap to

more open-ended challenges is far

less than in the traditional model

where content and methodology are

taught in isolated courses. As

mentioned previously, VCSU was

among the first to require digital

portfolio assessment for all graduates.

Students document their progress

through all activities, with digital

photographs submitted with each unit

and assessed through rubrics.

Students assemble a graduation

portfolio which must speak to VCSU

requirements, STL standards and

benchmarks, NCATE standards, and

safety documentation.

increase university partnerships,

increase K-12 partnerships, expand

course-leasing arrangements, expand

training of adjunct faculty, expand

training for laboratory facilitators,

expand course offerings beyond a 36-

credit major, and expand laboratory

support options through online rapid

prototyping, remote monitoring and

If technology education is to move

forward, we must have teachers—

teachers who understand the need for

a public perception that technological

literacy is an essential part of

education, and also understand that

technological literacy, as defined by

STL, is the primary means to achieve

that goal. We cannot stand by and

hope that we can recruit enough

youngsters to fill our ranks. According

to ACT, interest in teaching careers on

the part of college-age students has

fallen for the past 30 years to half of

what it was, and continues to fall

incrementally every year. Focus group

interviews with college-age students

regarding the teaching profession are

not encouraging. We must look to

adults who are willing to consider

teaching with an open mind and not

be swayed by peer pressure. Not only

do we face a teacher shortage, but a

backlog of hundreds of emergencycertified

teachers who desperately

need instruction, not only to keep their

jobs, but to serve our students. Can

we as technology educators not

harness technology to meet our goals?

We must make our programs

What are your plans for the future?

We plan to adhere tenaciously to the

continuous improvement model. We

will improve course materials, expand

marketing efforts, expand online

teacher certification alternatives,

Lego Robotics Challenge at Camp Cyber Prairie

28 September 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


accessible to those who are willing to

teach our children.

References

ACT. (1999). Scores Show Significant

Gains in the ‘90s. Retrieved October

28, 2003 from: www.act.org/news/

releases/1999/08-17-99.html.

ACT. (2001). Hot Jobs Get Cool Response

from 2001 High School Grads.

Retrieved October 28, 2003 from:

www.act.org/news/releases/2001/

08-15-01a.html.

Deal, Walter F. (2002). Distance Learning:

Teaching Technology Online. The

Technology Teacher, Vol 61( 8), 21-26

Retrieved October 28, 2003 from:

www.iteawww.org/TTT/mayjun02.pdf.

Flowers, Jim. (2001). Online Learning

Needs in Technology Education.

Journal of Technology Education. Vol

13(1). Retrieved October 28,2003 from:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/

v13n1/pdf/flowers.pdf.

Hart, P.D. Research Associates, Inc.

(1999). “Key Findings from Research

on Young Americans’ Interest in the

Public School Teaching Profession.”

Report commissioned by the Milliken

Family Foundation. Santa Monica, CA:

Milliken Family Foundation. Retrieved

October 28, 2003 from: www.mff.org/

pubs/FocusGroupReport.pdf.

Institute for Higher Education Policy.

(2000). Quality on the Line:

Benchmarks for Success in Internet-

Based Distance Education.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved

October 28, 2003 from: www.ihep.

com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf.

ITEA. (2000 2002). Standards for

Technological Literacy: Content for the

Study of Technology. Reston. VA:

Author. Retrieved October 28, 2003

from: www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/

xstnd.pdf.

ITEA. (2003). Advancing Excellence in

Technological Literacy: Student

Assessment, Professional Development,

and Program Standards. Reston.

VA: Author. Retrieved October 28,

2003 from: www.iteawww.org/

TAA/PDFs/AETL.pdf.

Miller, Thomas K. III. (1998). Delivering

Engineering Education via Distance

Learning. Retrieved October 28,

2003 from: www.nsf.gov/pubs/

1998/nsf9892/deliver.htm.

National Academy of Engineering and the

National Research Council. (2002).

Technically Speaking: Why all

Americans need to know more about

Technology. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. Retrieved October 28,

2003 from: www.nap.edu/books/

0309082625/html.

Ndahi, H.B. & Ritz, J. M. (2003).

Technology Education Teacher

Demand, 2002-2005. The Technology

Teacher, Vol 62( 7) 27-31 Retrieved

October 28, 2003 from: www.

iteawww.org/TTT/apr03.pdf.

North Dakota State Board for Career and

Technical Education. (2002).

Technology Education: A North Dakota

Curricular Framework. Retrieved

October 28, 2003, from: www.state.

nd.us/cte/secondary/program/

tech-ed/docs/curriculumframework-documents.pdf.

Waits, T., Lewis, L., Greene, B. (Project

Officer). (2003). Distance Education at

Degree-Granting Postsecondary

Institutions: 2000-2001. (NCES 2003-

017). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics.

Retrieved October 28, 2003 from:

www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/

2003017.pdf.

Volk, Kenneth. (1997). Going, Going, Gone?

Recent Trends in Technology Teacher

Design/Activity Area

Technology Literacy Workshop Interdisciplinary Teams

Education Programs. Journal of

Technology Education. Vol 8(2).

Retrieved October 28, 2003 from:

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/

JTE/v8n2/pdf/.

Weston, S. (1997). Teacher shortagesupply

and demand. The Technology

Teacher, Vol 57( 1), 6-9. Retrieved

October 28, 2003 from:

www.iteawww.org/B2k.html.

Donald Mugan,

Ph.D. is professor

and Chair of the

Technology

Department at Valley

City State University

(VCSU), Valley City,

North Dakota. He

can be reached via e-mail at

don.mugan@vcsu.edu.

James Boe is the

Curriculum

Development

Specialist in the

Technology

Department at VCSU.

He can be reached

via e-mail at

jim.boe@vcsu.edu.

Matthew Edland

was the lead

online instructor in

the Technology

Department at

VCSU. He passed

away unexpectedly

in May while

training for a marathon.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • September 2004 29


Request for Special Recognition

Nominations

ITEA members are invited to submit nominations for the following awards. Recognize colleagues who give extra effort!

Academy of Fellows

This is the highest recognition that

the International Technology Education

Association (ITEA) can bestow

upon any person. To qualify, the

individual must have gained prominence

in and brought honor to the

profession of technology education.

The recipient must be an ITEA

member. The awardee will be

granted membership in the Academy

of Fellows of the International

Technology Education Association.

Individuals will be considered based

on:

a) Leadership roles in ITEA and

other affiliate organization(s),

and

b) Presentations and professional

development activities at local

to international level, and

c) Recognition by peers.

Award of Distinction

This award is presented to an individual

within technology education

who has advanced the profession

through a sustained and recognized

record of exemplary professional

activity. To qualify for the Award of

Distinction, the individual must be

an ITEA member and have distinguished

him/herself through accomplishments

in:

a) Improvement of Instruction, or

b) Research and Scholarship, or

c) Effective Teaching.

William J. Wilkinson Meritorious

Service Award

The Meritorious Service Award is

presented to an ITEA member

worthy of commendation for service

to the International Technology

Education Association. To be considered,

individuals must have provided

continuous service to ITEA

and

a) Affiliate Association(s) or

b) The profession.

Lockette/Monroe Humanitarian

Award

Given to an individual who is an

ITEA member and has promoted

humanistic values while serving as a

technology education professional

on the national/international, state/

province, or local level in one or

more of the following areas:

a) Developing social awareness,

b) Preserving democratic and/or

human dignity processes, and/or

c) Maximizing the potential of

individuals.

Special Recognition Award

This award is presented to an individual

who has established a sustained

record of outstanding service

to the field of technology education.

To qualify for this award, the recipient

must be an ITEA member and

have made a significant contribution

to ITEA or technology education. To

be considered, individuals must

meet one of the following criteria:

a) Promoted technology education

at any level (local to international)

with a resulting impact;

or

b) Actively facilitated or participated

in professional development

for technology educators

with a resulting impact; or

c) Recognized at any level for

outstanding service or achievement

in technology education.

Prakken Professional

Cooperation Award

This award is presented to an individual

who, through teaching,

research, and professional service,

has promoted the field of technology

education in collaboration with other

fields of discipline. To qualify for this

award, individuals should be involved

with projects that collaborate

with other disciplines, such as

science, engineering, mathematics,

marketing, management, etc. The

recipient of the award may be from

inside or outside of the field of

technology education. Nominees do

not need to be members of ITEA.

Sales Representative Excellence

Award

This award, sponsored by intelitek,

inc., is presented to a full-time sales

representative who has been in the

technology education field for at

least three years. It recognizes

outstanding service, training, and

follow-up support.

ITEA MEMBERS ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS TO:

Chairperson, Awards Committee

International Technology Education Association

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201

Reston, VA 20191-1539

(703) 860-2100 Fax (703) 860-0353 e-mail: itea@iris.org

NOMINATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY DECEMBER 31 ST

You may also download the nomination form from the ITEA Web site

at www.iteawww.org.


67 th Annual ITEA Conference

At-A-Glance

Saturday, April 2, 2005

7:30am-8:30am

8:30am-12:00pm

8:30am-12:00 pm

11:00am-5:00pm

1:00pm-4:00pm

1:00pm-1:30pm

1:30pm-2:50pm

3:00pm-5:00pm

6:00pm-7:30pm

6:00pm-11:30pm

Council Breakfasts (Marriott)

Board of Directors Meeting

Council Meetings (Marriott)

Registration, Resource Booth,

Hospitality Area Open (KCCC)

Pre-Conference Workshops

(KCCC)

ITEA Committee Chairs Meeting

(Marriott)

ITEA Committee Work Sessions

(Marriott)

Council Work Sessions (Marriott)

ITEA WELCOME RECEPTION

(Marriott)

Yearbook Committee Dinner

and Meeting (Marriott)

Monday, April 4, 2005

7:00am-8:45am

Foundation Spirit of Excellence

Breakfast (Marriott)

8:00am-5:00pm Registration, Resource Booth,

Hospitality Area Open (KCCC)

9:00am-10:50am

Second General Session (KCCC)

Teacher Excellence Awards

11:00am-11:50am Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

11:00am-4:00pm

Exhibits Open (KCCC)

12:00pm-1:30pm Complimentary Buffet Lunch

(KCCC Exhibit Hall A)

1:00pm-5:00pm Spouse/Partner/Guest Tours

2:00pm-2:50pm Council Business Meetings

(Marriott)

2:00pm-4:50pm Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

7:00pm-11:00pm

A Taste of Kansas City – Jazz

and Blues Tour

What’s New?

• Dedicated

Exhibit Hours

• Special Lunches

in Exhibit Hall

• Hospitality Area

in Convention

Center

Completely NEW

Conference Schedule

• Welcome Reception

for Attendees

• Morning

General Sessions

• Expanded

Registration and

Resource Booth

Hours

• Lower Room Rates

Sunday, April 3, 2005

7:00am-8:30am ITEA Roundtable Breakfast

(Marriott)

8:00am-5:00pm Registration, Resource Booth,

Hospitality Area Open (KCCC)

9:00am-10:50am

First General Session (KCCC)

Program Excellence Awards

11:00am-11:50am Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

11:00am-12:00pm Spouse/Partner/Guest Activity

11:00am-1:00pm TECA Student Event (KCCC)

11:00am-5:00pm

Exhibits Open (KCCC)

12:00pm-1:30pm

International Luncheon (KCCC)

12:00pm-1:30pm Buffet Lunch (KCCC Exhibit Hall A)

1:00pm-4:50pm Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

1:00pm-5:00pm Spouse/Partner/Guest Tours

2:00pm-2:50pm

ITEA Governance Session

(KCCC)

5:00pm-5:50pm CS Roundtable Reception

(Marriott)

6:00pm-9:00pm CTTE Yearbook Dinner (Marriott)

*KCCC = Kansas City Convention Center

Tuesday, April 5, 2005

7:00am-8:45am

7:45am-8:45am

8:00am-12:00pm

9:00am-9:50am

9:00am-10:30am

9:00am-11:00am

10:00am-11:50am

12:00pm-1:50pm

2:00pm-6:00pm

EPT Breakfast (Marriott)

Program Excellence Breakfast

(Marriott)

Registration, Resource Booth,

Hospitality Area Open (KCCC)

Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

CTTE Poster Sessions (KCCC)

ITEA Technology Festival (KCCC)

Special Interest Sessions (KCCC)

Awards and Recognition

Luncheon (KCCC)

ITEA Board of Directors/Executive

Committee Meetings (Marriott)


This series of activity guides is designed to supplement Standards

for Technological Literacy through the use of classroom activities.

The activities are directly linked to recommended K-12 courses and

present a variety of contemporary methods that will infuse recent

research concerning learning and teaching.

The guides provide detailed guidance for teacher preparation and

implementation.

They include ready-to-duplicate student handouts and reflection

questions and provide multiple assessment strategies.

Currently available titles:

Classroom Activities

Now Available from ITEA!

ITEA-HITS (Human Innovating Technology Series) is geared toward secondary students.

Agricultural Equipment Models and Prototypes Applying Energy NEW!

Processes and Feedback Artificial Ecosystems and Habitats Shaping Technology NEW!

Communicating Design Ideas Technological Impacts Communicating with Symbols NEW!

Technological Influences on History Communication Media NEW! Technology and Ecosystems

Computers and Information Technology and Human Needs Consumers and Information NEW!

Technology and Society NEW! Design Requirements Technology and the Environment

Designing Messages Technology Transfer Development of Technology

Transportation Systems Energy Conversion Transportation Processes NEW!

Evaluating Designs NEW! Transportation Vehicles Human Made World NEW!

What is Design? Invention and Innovation What is a System?

Learning How Things Work What is Technology? Manu. Enterprise & Marketing NEW!

What is Engineering Design? Manufacturing Processes

ITEA-KITS (Kids Inventing Technology Series) is designed for elementary classrooms.

Agricultural Technology NEW! Needs & Wants in the Design Process NEW!

Collecting and Analyzing Data Parts of a Structure Communicating Designs

Technological Interactions Communication Media Technological Symbols

Communication Symbols Technology and Human Needs Design Requirements

Technology and Medicine NEW! Technology and Waste Designing Manufactured Things NEW!

Developing Design Solutions The Human-Made World Development of Technology

Tools Make Work Easier NEW! Exchanging Information NEW! Transportation Systems

Experimentation and R&D Transportation Vehicles NEW! Farming and Technology NEW!

Troubleshooting NEW! Forms of Energy Using Technological Devices NEW!

Housing What is a System? How Things Work

What is Design? Invention and Innovation What is Engineering Design?

Manufacturing Enterprise What is Technology? What are Materials?

Each five-activity pack is available for the low price of $15.00 to ITEA

members ($20.00 for non-members) plus shipping and handling.

For more information or to order, call (703) 860-2100 or visit the

ITEA Web site at www.iteawww.org.


Get as much out of your ITEA membership

as you did from your very first association.

Remember the first group you

ever belonged to? It was a closeknit

circle of friends who

really looked out for each other.

At GEICO, we take the same

approach toward our policyholders.

Through our partnership with

ITEA, we’re able to provide you

with outstanding car insurance

coverage and a sense of security.

Each week more than 10,000

drivers switch their car insurance

to GEICO for unparalleled savings

and service. As an ITEA member,

you’ll get GEICO’s lowest possible

rate for which you qualify. In states

Let ITEA help

you save on GEICO

car insurance.

1-800-368-2734

geico.com

where available, a special member

discount may apply.

Call anytime, 24-hours a day, to

get a rate quote, file a claim, or

simply ask a question about your

policy. You’ll quickly see how

GEICO builds strong relationships

with our policyholders. In fact, we

offer renewal to over 97% of them

each year.

So get your free rate quote

today. When you call, be sure to

mention your ITEA affiliation.

Find out just how much you may

save with GEICO, the company that

treats you like a friend.

Discount amount varies in some states. Discount not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. One group discount applicable per policy.

Government Employees Insurance Co. • GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

GEICO Auto Insurance is not available in MA or NJ. GEICO: Washington, DC 20076


The #1 CAD/CAM Software for Industry. The #1 CAD/CAM Software for Education.

When Second Best Won’t Cut It.

www.mastercamedu.com / 1-800-ASK-MCAM

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines