The SPACE PLACE RETURNS • GETTING TO THE CENTER OF A TOOTSIE ROLL POP ®
The Voice of Technology Education
Volume 67 • Number 3
The “No Trucks”
• Teaching Technology in Low Socioeconomic Areas
• The Journey Towards Technological Literacy for All—
Are We There Yet?
It’s your turn at the wheel
Boyd Coddington is looking for your best steering wheel design. Enter the
Mastercam Innovator of the Future competition for a chance to win a $1000
scholarship and a trip to California to meet Boyd and tour his shop. Take your best
shot at machining an innovative steering wheel and put yourself in the driver’s seat
of your future now! For complete contest details including part specs and deadlines,
CNC Software Educational Division
5717 Wollochet Drive NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(800) ASK-MCAM • (253) 858-6677 • www.mastercamiof.com
you’ve got to be
holding ALL the
Engineering byDesign is the only comprehensive K–12 Solution for
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
With EbD, there’s no need to bluff, and there’s no gamble.
Standards-Based. Comprehensive. Hands-On.
Learn how we can help you achieve your program goals today.
Visit www.engineeringbydesign.org, or e-mail email@example.com,
or call Barry Burke at 301-482-1929.
States’ Career Clusters Initiative, 2006
NOVEMBER • VOL. 67 • NO. 3
Teaching Technology in Low
This article focuses on the importance of
teaching technology to these students so
that they will have the needed skills to
compete in today’s job market, as well as
that of the future.
The Journey Towards Technological Literacy for All in the United
States—Are We There Yet?
Provides a critical, unrelenting look at the profession’s history, research base, and
Philip A. Reed
Getting to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Pop®
One Ohio teacher creates a lab to solve the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to
get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop ® ?”
Model Program: Conestoga Valley School District, PA
Insert ITEA 70th Annual Conference Preliminary Program
Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE
Editor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la Paz
Editor, Kathie F. Cluff
ITEA Board of Directors
Andy Stephenson, DTE, President
Ken Starkman, Past President
Len Litowitz, DTE, President-Elect
Doug Miller, Director, ITEA-CS
Scott Warner, Director, Region I
Lauren Withers Olson, Director, Region II
Steve Meyer, Director, Region III
Richard (Rick) Rios, Director, Region IV
Michael DeMiranda, Director, CTTE
Peter Wright, Director, TECA
Vincent Childress, Director, TECC
Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE,
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 nonmembers, plus shipping—domestic
@ $5.00 and outside the U.S. @ $11.00
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.
ITEA Publications Department
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
Change of Address
Send change of address notification promptly.
Provide old mailing label and new address.
Include zip + 4 code. Allow six weeks for
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.
World Wide Web: www.iteaconnect.org
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Now Available on the
You can still beat the December 1 st deadline to apply for one of ITEA’s ten
grants, scholarships, and awards. ITEA distributes a total of $3,000 in grants
and $3,000 in scholarships to its members. You can gain recognition, both
locally and internationally, through ITEA’s Program and Teacher Excellence
Awards. You can also nominate a colleague for a Special Recognition
Award. It’s easy, and it’s all there at www.iteaconnect.org/Awards/awards.
htm. Come on, you know you’ve earned it!
Make the Connection!
ITEA’s Learning Communities are a valuable resource for the Technology,
Innovation, Design, and Engineering (TIDE) education community. There is
something for everyone: Hemisphere has an international focus, IdeaGarden
has a teacher-to-teacher format, Innovation Station explores children’s
engineering, and TIDEWatcher provides a perspective on legislative
efforts. Help yourself and help others along the way. Go to www.iteaconnect.
org/Networking/networking.htm to see what all the buzz is about.
Te c h nology
T h e Vo i c e o f Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
Editorial Review Board
Dan Engstrom, DTE
California University of PA
Nikolay Middle School, WI
Bayside Middle School, VA
VA Department of Education
University of Central England
Carver Magnet HS, TX
Midvale Middle School, UT
Eastern Michigan University
Salisbury Middle School, PA
Mike Fitzgerald, DTE
IN Department of Education
Appalachian State Univ.
Manteo Middle School, NC
Stan Komacek, DTE
California University of PA
South Fayette MS, PA
SUNY at Oswego
Valley City State University
Black Hills State University
Mary Annette Rose
Ball State University
Oasis Elementary School, AZ
Nat’l Center for Tech Literacy
Appalachian State University
Greg Vander Weil
Wayne State College
North Carolina State Univ.
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.
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 articles and photographs via email
to firstname.lastname@example.org. Maximum length for
manuscripts is eight 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.iteaconnect.org/
Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright
© 2007 by the International Technology Education
Association, Inc., 703-860-2100.
1 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Don’t Miss This!
• Teacher Astronaut Barbara Morgan
• Dr. Robert Ballard
• Dr. Steve Petrina
• Dr. James LaPorte
What do these respected individuals have in common?
These and other sensational session speakers await you at
Teaching TIDE with Pride—ITEA’s 70 th Annual Conference
in Salt Lake City, February 21-23, 2008.
While the preliminary program is inserted into the center
of this journal, everything you need to know about the 70 th
Annual ITEA Conference in Salt Lake City is also there for
you at www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/conferenceguide.
htm. Whether you are looking for details on the compelling
general sessions with teacher astronaut Barbara Morgan
and Dr. Robert Ballard, founder of the JASON Project, details
on the programming available for CTTE, TECC, TECA, CS,
EPT, CATTS, and Engineering by Design, information on
the specialized conference workshops and educational tours,
a glimpse at the exhibiting companies, registration,
or housing information—it’s all there for you on the
Ready to Secure Your Housing?
ITEA Conference Housing is now open, and the ITEA
hotels (Marriott Downtown, Radisson Downtown, and
Plaza at Temple Square) are offering rates from $109 to
$149, the best you will find in the area. At these prices,
the ITEA room blocks will fill quickly, so don’t delay in
making your reservations. Specific details are available at
Ready to Register?
To stretch your budget dollars, be sure to take advantage
of the special preregistration pricing. ITEA Pro fessional
Members pay $269 for full conference registration prior to
January 18 ($309 on-site), and Student Members pay $59 in
advance ($69 on-site). Nonmembers pay $349 in advance
and $389 on-site. Encourage your colleagues to become
ITEA members in order to take advantage of these great
This is one conference you won’t want to miss, so mark your
calendar and make plans now to attend.
And remember this date—January 18, 2007. This is not
only the preregistration cut-off date, but also the reservation
The Salt Palace Convention Center, Salt Lake City.
deadline for housing in ITEA’s room block. (The conference
is almost one month earlier this year, so preregistration and
housing deadlines are earlier as well.)
Grant, Scholarship, and Award Opportunities for
Receive the financial support you need and the recognition
you deserve! ITEA offers a wide variety of grant, scholarship,
and award opportunities. If you are an ITEA member,
then YOU are ELIGIBLE!
NOW is the time to apply!
Get a head start by visiting www.iteaconnect.org/Awards/
awards.htm for information on grant, scholarship, and
award criteria. Deadlines are December 1.
SAVE TIME…CONTINUE YOUR EDUCATION…
ADVANCE YOUR CAREER! APPLY TODAY.
NASA Engineering Design Challenge—
Bring Space Into Your Classroom!
As NASA plans to return to the moon, plant growth will
be an important part of space exploration. NASA scientists
anticipate that astronauts may be able to grow plants on the
moon in specialized plant growth chambers. Come participate
and build your own lunar growth chamber in the
NASA Engineering Design Challenge!
Photo credit: Steve Greenwood
2 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Through the NASA Engineering Design Challenge,
elementary, middle, and high school students will:
• Design, build, and evaluate lunar plant growth
• Receive cinnamon basil seeds flown on STS-118.
• Test lunar growth chambers by growing and comparing
both space-flown and earth-based control seeds.
Visit www.nasa.gov/education/plantchallenge to register
and to receive more information about the NASA
Engineering Design Challenge. You can also sign up for the
NASA Express listserv to receive email updates about the
challenge and other NASA education activities.
Join the NASA Engineering Design Challenge and be part of
space exploration by growing seeds flown in space!
39 th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll Released
The 39 th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes
Toward the Public Schools was released August 28, 2007.
For the complete results of this year’s poll, a video summary
of the poll findings, and a number of other poll resources,
go to www.pdkintl.org. For almost four decades, this public
opinion poll has helped shape policy initiatives and strategies
for improving public schools, and this year’s poll is
expected to have an even greater impact on the debates over
NCLB, national standards, and global education.
As always, you are encouraged to think about how the poll
results can affect the schools in your community and our
nation’s education policies, but this year there is also an
online space where you can share your reactions to the poll
and learn what your colleagues are thinking. Join the discussion
at http://forums.pdkintl.org/. The PDK/Gallup Poll
Forum is open to the public—anyone visiting the forum can
view the discussion on the poll findings and can post comments
after completing the easy and free registration.
TTT Author Publishes Book for Young Writers
One of The Technology Teacher’s featured writers, former
engineer Harry T. Roman, has recently published a short
book (73 pages) for young writers entitled, For the Aspiring
Writer. His 40 years of creative and speculative writing have
convinced him there is a fundamental creative link between
good communication skills and tech ed; and he encourages
all tech ed teachers to explore this fertile ground. Roman’s
book provides simple tips for the young writer and also
features some of his poetry, prose, and super-short stories.
He has three other literary manuscripts now approaching
completion, which contain many more of his writings, as
well as a book devoted to writing activities and challenges
for the classroom. To date, Harry has written and published
14 books, 450 technical papers and articles, 700 poems and
short stories, and five short literary chapbooks of poems/
prose. He certainly proves that engineers can write well.
His book is $14.95 and can be ordered via Amazon.com, or
directly from the publisher, PublishAmerica.
November 1-2, 2007 The 22 nd Annual Colorado Technology
Education Conference, “Reaching New Heights,” will take
place at the Copper Conference Center in Copper Mountain,
CO. Complete information about the conference is
available at www.cteaonline.org/.
November 4-5, 2007 The Technology Educators of
Indiana (TEI) will present their 76th Annual Conference,
“Passion for the Profession,” at the Clarion Hotel and Conference
Center, in Indianapolis. Visit www.teiwww.org/
conference/ for complete conference information.
November 8-9, 2007 The Technology Education Association
of Pennsylvania (TEAP) will hold its 55 th Annual
Conference at the Radisson Penn Harris Conference Center
in Camp Hill, PA. Visit the TEAP website at www.teaponline.org/index2.htm
and click on “conference” for
November 9-11, 2007 The Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers (IEEE) will present a special conference
in Munich, Germany: “Meeting the Growing Demand
for Engineers and Their Educators 2010-2020 Summit.”
Complete information can be accessed at www.ieee.org/
January 18, 2008 Preregistration deadline for money saving
discounts on registration fees for ITEA’s Salt Lake City
conference, February 21-23, 2008. Register early and save!
February 21-23, 2008 ITEA’s 70 th Annual ITEA Conference,
“Teaching TIDE With Pride,” will be held in Salt Lake
City, UT. The latest information and details are available
on the ITEA website at www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/
3 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Teaching Technology in Low
By Dianne Thomas
Technology education will help
break the cycle of poverty for low
Technology now allows information to travel around
the world in a matter of seconds, causing a new form of
globalization. This integration of technology into our
global society has changed the nature of work in virtually
every occupational field. To be able to compete for these
positions, workers must have viable technology skills, and
the educational system must prepare students for this work.
In his book of the same name, Friedman (2006) said it
succinctly, “The world is flat!”
A survey compiled by the United States federal government
listed the 100 poorest counties in the nation. Sixteen
counties in Mississippi were on that list, with eight of those
being in the Mississippi Delta. “State Representative John
Mayo, D-Clarksdale, said the low wages throughout the
Mississippi Delta are due to poor education” (Owens, 2006).
These sixteen counties in Mississippi, along with the other
84 poorest counties in the U.S., share a common thread:
an ongoing cycle of poverty. A quality education is the key
to breaking this cycle. Technology education should be
included in addition to the courses students are currently
Testing ways to make vehicles travel faster and farther.
Technology is the driving force in today’s job market and
its importance will increase in the future. Fields such as
medicine, education, communication, and law are open to
those students who have mastered technology and have the
capability and resources needed to continue their education
through the university level. In our technologically advanced
society, however, these are not the only careers that require
specialized technical understanding and training.
4 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
When our vegetables were mature, we hand picked them.
On farms, machinery is used to harvest crops.
Agriculture now requires owners and employees to
have a working knowledge of many types of technology.
Beginning with the government computers that process
farm payments, farmers are dependent on computers as
well as other forms of technology. Rachel Purdon, who is
the senior administrator of the Pentalk Network, noted that
farmers could survive without a desktop computer, but that
it is becoming very difficult to remain on the cutting edge
without one (Tasker, 2006). Computers also help farmers
keep up to date on diseases that threaten livestock. The
Internet is the most viable means of keeping up with the
latest outbreaks. Computerizing farm records can save time
and paperwork and is useful in identifying both strengths
and weaknesses of cost and production (Tasker, 2006).
With the cost of production up, many farmers are using
technology to save on chemical application of crops. The
global positioning system (GPS), which can be mounted
onto a tractor, is a part of the variable-rate technology now
in use on many farms. Because the GPS system is tractormounted,
the driver must be able to work the system
(Abram, 2006). According to results of a 2005 survey
presented at the 2006 Beltwide Cotton Conferences in
San Antonio, Texas, 62% of farmers who adopted satellite
imaging continue to use the technology. “Farmers who
have abandoned precision farming technology are generally
older, and have the same or less education than those who
continue to use the technology” (Robinson, 2006).
A field trip to a local farm to observe equipment at work,
along with a question-and-answer session with the farmer,
will help children in the primary grades begin to understand
and move toward meeting STL Standard 15, to develop an
understanding of and be able to select and use agricultural
and related biotechnologies (ITEA, 2000/2002). Take that a
step further and plant a vegetable garden on school property
and use the vegetables to cook soup. This is a perfect time
to discuss things such as what to do if insects begin to eat
your crop or what happens if your harvest isn’t enough
for everybody to have plenty to eat. You will also have the
chance to discuss what types of tools you need to maintain a
food plot. Compare the tools you use to the ones seen on the
farm. Create a compost pile to show how agricultural waste
can be recycled. My former first grade students have done
these things, and the knowledge they acquired was better
than anything I could have presented in the classroom.
Technology is playing an important role within the
newspaper printing business—and not in just the most
obvious ways of Internet news reporting and retrieval.
Companies are now using technology to improve revenues
in a variety of ways. Vice President Lorie Schrader of The
Dallas Morning News developed a system to pull data
from the paper’s advertising section and correlate it to
the circulation department. “This information is then
manipulated and analyzed to identify opportunities”
5 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Getting instruction on “flying” a two-seater plane.
(Wolferman, 2002) that increase sales for the paper. The
$200,000 cost of software and consulting services has
been credited with an increase of $614,000 in revenue.
Cox Newspapers, Inc., Dayton (Ohio) Daily News, is using
technology to combine and improve all aspects of its
production, including advertisement, human resources, and
payroll data. Technology is now seen as a way to increase
revenue because the cost-reduction technology that
provided large savings in the labor and material previously
has, for the most part, run its course. Wolferman noted
that there is “one word of caution: Like most modern tools,
decision-support software can only be as effective as the
user” (2002). Software will not make an amateur an expert.
“Only trained and skilled analysts can turn the pieces into
fuel for new revenue” (Wolferman, 2002).
Understanding, selecting, and using information and
communication technologies (STL Standard 17) leads to
interesting interaction with others. We have pen pals in
Kansas whom we can email regularly. For many of the
students, school is their only chance to have this experience,
as they are not online at home. While we do email our pen
pals, we also write conventional letters. Doing both allows
for a comparison of both types of communication. We also
watch the weather reports on television for both places and
“plan” what we can do at recess based on that. Will we have
a recess in the gym, or will we be able to go outdoors?
The trucking industry has also moved toward using GPS
to keep tabs on where trucks are at any given time. Drivers
report to a central office through onboard computers.
Taking a tip from the railroad systems, trucking companies
are beginning to use the radio-frequency identification
(RFID) system. Graniterock Construction in California is
just one such company. Its 600 trucks are equipped with
the RFID system, and they have reported an increase in
customer satisfaction since the installation. The online
Our class used “found” materials to create our own
journal, eWeek, toured the facility, completing an evaluation
that noted they were “impressed by the efficiencies
Graniterock has been able to attain by using its business
intelligence reporting system in combination with RFID
tagging” (Chen, 2005).
STL Standard 18, “Students will develop an understanding
of and be able to select and use transportation technologies,”
can be met through exciting hands-on activities. Begin
with a complete unit on transportation that is geared to
your students’ level and be sure to include field trips. To
help my students gain knowledge and experience with this
standard, we have taken a field trip that included a stop at a
trucking company, a commercial bus terminal, and a local
agricultural airport. Planning the field trip was an exercise in
scheduling in which we had to discuss what would happen if
we were late getting from one place to another. For example,
if we left the trucking company late, we would miss the bus
at the terminal and would not have the opportunity to get
on and look around.
Other industries are using technology in new and
astounding ways. Automobiles have become more complex,
using computer chips in many components. Repairing a
vehicle often necessitates a trip to the repair shop where it
can be “put on the computer” to determine the problem.
Sewing machines are computerized as noted by DeAnn
Hebert in Des Moines, Iowa. With $20,000 in funds
allocated to her family and consumer sciences department
at East High School, she pointed out that they have, “the
best sewing technology rooms in the state” (The Des Moines
Help for Students
The need for technology education is apparent when
researching the job market. No doubt it would be difficult
to find any jobs that had no technology associated with
6 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
them. If technology is on the increase and students in
low socioeconomic areas are not receiving an adequate
education, as Mayo noted in The Clarksdale Press Register,
educators, administrators, parents, and students must ask
themselves what the solution is to this problem.
One obvious answer is to improve the quality of technology
education because neither these students nor their families
have easy access to funds to provide technology education
and use it at home. Technology use by socioeconomic
brackets is not just a problem in the United States. Research
in Canada has shown that, “despite widespread diffusion of
the new technology, recent research indicates that home
computer ownership varies significantly amongst different
income and educational categories” (Nakhaie & Pike, 1998).
In homes where the head of the household held a university
degree, 55.6% owned a home computer, while in homes
where the head of the household had a less than ninth grade
education, only 9.1% owned a computer.
The research also pointed out that families in homes with
lower socioeconomic incomes were less likely to use the
computer if they had one. When using the computer, these
families typically used them to play video games. Yet, the
education a person receives can reverse this trend. People
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who go on to
receive higher levels of education tend to use computers
more than those people from the same income bracket
who do not get higher levels of education. An important
concept to consider is to what extent children from lower
socioeconomic homes have ready access to computers at
school (Nakhaie & Pike, 1998).
Teaching Technology Effectively
Learning to effectively use technology is an important
life skill for today’s students—especially as society has
shifted from an industrial society to one that is knowledgeintensive.
Students must have the technical knowledge and
skills that enable them to either enter the work force or
help them to complete higher-level degrees. Teachers are
assigned the task of meeting these technological needs of
students. A key component in staff development for teachers
on using technology across the curriculum is to understand
that it is not just about learning the technology, but also
about the learning process and pedagogical concepts that
entails (Jacobson, 2001).
The work of such theorists as Piaget and Vygotsky is
relevant to meeting the needs of students in the educational
technology arena. Teaching technological knowledge
and skills to students must be based on sound doctrines
of learning and must take into account the technological
background children bring with them to school. The
socioeconomic backgrounds of students have a significant
impact on the information base about technology that they
bring with them to school. Even so, all children participating
in technology education made huge gains in their knowledge
and skills using computers and the Internet. One continuing
concern is that there is a growing gap between students in
higher and lower socioeconomic settings and the depth and
breadth of their technological knowledge. Implications are
that schools must close this gap (Somekh & Pearson, 2001).
Information Communication Technology (ICT) remains one
of the most difficult subjects for educators to teach students.
Five important findings from a pedagogical viewpoint have
emerged. These include the concept that (1) the classroom
teacher’s attitude and computer literacy level affect student
achievement; (2) reciprocal teaching and modeling among
students are effective learning strategies; (3) teachers’
one-on-one advice is beneficial to children looking for
information; (4) collaborative and competitive group
activities are motivating, and (5) professional technical
support is imperative (Akahori, 2002).
The U. S. Department of Education has developed the
National Educational Technology Standards (NETS)
that state education departments can use to form their
technology framework. For example, the Mississippi
technology framework lists ten performances students
should be able to demonstrate before completing the
fifth grade. Standard 5 states: Students will be able to use
technology tools for individual and collaborative writing,
communication, and publishing activities to create
knowledge products for audiences inside and outside the
classroom. A simple and inexpensive way to meet this
standard is to have electronic pen pals with a school in
For all students to become successful, productive citizens
in the future, it is apparent that they must be well
educated in technology. Those students who come from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds have further to go in
attaining that education because they often do not have the
capabilities at home to practice technology nor do they have
the prerequisite background knowledge. Schools are their
means for obtaining technology education and hands-on
practice and, as such, are charged with the responsibility
of closing the technology achievement gap. Virtually
all students in public schools in the U.S. have access to
computers and the Internet in their school as reported by
7 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Education Week on the Web’s Technology Counts (May,
2004), showing that schools really do have the ability to
bridge the digital divide.
Abram, M. (2006). Crop sensing helps reduce N use.
Farmers Weekly, 144, 58.
Chen, A. (2005, August 1). RFID does more than track
trucks. eWeek Labs. Retrieved April 1, 2006 from www.
The Des Moines Register. (2006, February 23). The best
sewing technology rooms in the state. Retrieved April 1,
2006 from www.desmoinesregister.com
Education Week. Technology counts. (2004). Retrieved
September 6, 2006 from http://counts.edweek.org/
Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the
twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kanji, A. (2002). Qualitative analysis of information
communication technology use on teaching-learning
process. (Report No. IR 021 688). Norfolk, VA:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
Jacobsen, D. M. (2001). Building different bridges:
Technology integration, engaged student learning, and
new approaches to professional development. (Report No.
TM 032 583). Alberta, Canada: Calgary University. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED453232.)
Nakhaie, M. R. & Pike, R. M. (1998). Social origins, social
statuses and home computer access and use. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 23, 427–450.
Owens, D. (2006, July 11). The Delta listed as poorest area in
nation. The Clarksdale Press Register, pp. A1, A6.
Robinson, E. (2006, April 12). Cotton growers say variablerate
technology can produce profits. Retrieved July 7, 2006
Somekh, B. & Pearson, M. (2001). Children’s representations
of new technology, mismatches between the public
educational curriculum and socio-cultural learning.
(Report No. IR 020 700). Seattle, WA: The American
Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED453816).
Tasker, J. Have you tamed technology? Farmers Weekly ,144,
Wolferman, E. Tech and the top line. Editor and Publisher,
135. Retrieved July 11, 2006 from http://web10.epnet.
Dianne Thomas taught elementary school
for nineteen years, where she enjoyed guiding
students through many of the activities
in this article. Currently she is an assistant
professor of teacher education at Delta State
University in Cleveland, Mississippi. She
can be reached via email at email@example.com.
This is a refereed article.
8 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Resources in Technology
By Hassan B. Ndahi, Sushil Charturvedi,
A. Osman Akan, and J. Worth Pickering
The goal of the ongoing project is to enhance
students’ learning process by implementing an
undergraduate engineering curricular transformation
that integrates simulation and visualization modules
as well as virtual experiments in engineering science
and core courses in three disciplines: electrical,
civil, and mechanical engineering. These modules
serve as additional learning tools that build on
laboratory experiments and classroom learning
by engineering students in urban areas where the
students’ demographics parallel the nontraditional
students who typically are older, have families, and
work full time in order to earn enough income to
fit into the social and economic lifestyles in urban
societies. Providing additional learning resources
that are accessible to these students at their
convenience will enhance their ability to learn.
Over eighty percent of students polled used computers frequently
or very frequently for their work.
The education of engineers in many urban universities today
is fraught with challenges that are often identified with
nontraditional students. Typically, these students are older,
have families, and work full time in order to earn enough
income to fit into the social and economic lifestyles in urban
societies. Often these students have difficulties balancing
work and academic responsibilities and are likely to miss
classes by giving priority to their work when there is a time
9 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
conflict between work and class schedules. Missing a class
breaks the chain of learning and can profoundly impact
performance. This is particularly true for engineering
education where, generally, new material builds on the
material already covered. Unless the missed material is
made up promptly, the students’ learning suffers throughout
the entire semester. Indeed, such students might fail the
course or even drop out of the program because they are
unable to satisfy their academic requirements. This outcome
is undesirable because (a) there is a shortage of qualified
engineers to meet the needs of the nation, and (b) the nontraditional
students, for the most part, are very mature and
hard working and can be excellent engineers if their learning
needs are accommodated. Therefore, engineering faculty
in urban institutions must find ways to provide interactive
learning resources, extend their courses, or modify their
teaching methodologies—and in order for students to learn
more effectively, they must have access to these resources
(Horton, 1997). One promising approach for achieving this
goal is the use of computer technology and the Internet.
Computer-based models of teaching and learning are
receiving increasing attention in university education.
Computers and multimedia in particular have been
used to address the students’ learning needs as well as
instructors’ pedagogical needs, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy
of Educational Objectives (Montgomery, 1995). Both
traditional and nontraditional students can have access to
new ways of learning, or to additional learning resources at
times that are convenient for them (Campbell, 1999). Some
might argue that it is difficult to tailor instruction to each
student; however, it is equally misguided to imagine that a
single one-size-fits-all approach to teaching can meet the
Students were asked how often they interact with their faculty
during office hours.
needs of every student (Felder, 2005). Providing learning
resources online creates an environment that facilitates a
learner-centered approach, with the learner as an active
participant in the process (Anwar, Rolle, & Memon, 2005).
Similarly, studies have shown that today’s students are more
attuned to computer and video technologies and are likely
to learn better if they are provided with computer-based
modules (Kurtis, 2003).
These technological factors are converging to create an
interest in virtual learning and an increased demand for
the ability to access learning resources at convenient times.
It is therefore not surprising to note the huge interest in
web-based classes at all levels of engineering education,
because the use of computers and the web has provided
a wealth of resources available to students at any location
and time convenient to them (Rajput, 2003). It is possible
for students to perform laboratory experiments in a
simulated environment, which can provide an alternative
to a physical lab exercise. Although physical laboratory
demonstration remains the dominant method of providing
laboratory experience, virtual reality is an emerging
computer interface that has the potential for a tremendous
impact on engineering education by permitting students to
explore environments that would otherwise be inaccessible
(Shaikh, Rajput, & Unar, 2004) and to cover class materials
more comprehensively using time out of the classroom,
thereby appealing to diverse learning styles (Lumsdaine,
2003). These interactive, computer-based visualization- and
simulation-enhanced modules and virtual laboratories can
be additional teaching tools in engineering programs to help
both traditional and nontraditional students, especially if
they are available on the Internet. The question is whether
engineering students will actually use and profit from such
additional teaching tools if they are available.
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study was to determine engineering
students’ preferred way of learning and to provide additional
learning resources to support their methods of learning. The
objectives of the study were:
1. To determine engineering students’ demographics at
an urban institution.
2. To determine engineering students’ preferred ways of
learning and resources.
3. To provide additional learning resources to help
4. To compare the performance of students in a control
and experimental group.
10 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Population and Sample
The population for this study was drawn from electrical,
civil, and mechanical engineering programs at an urban
university. A purposive sampling method was used to select
students for the study. A total of 273 engineering students
from three programs—mechanical, civil, and electrical
engineering—were selected. The students were sophomores,
juniors, and seniors. Although a sizeable number of students
were sampled, they were all from a single institution.
Therefore, the results of the study cannot be generalized to
other institutions in urban areas. However, they can provide
baseline data for further studies involving many urban
universities and a wider population.
To determine the effectiveness of interactive, computerbased
resources, both quantitative and qualitative data were
collected. A survey was developed by three engineering
faculty members from the departments of mechanical,
civil, and electrical engineering. The instrument was
reviewed for face and content validity by all the members
of the project team from the three engineering programs,
a faculty member from the College of Education, and staff
from the university’s Office of Research and Assessment.
Ambiguous questions were removed from the survey, and
some questions were modified. For the qualitative data,
participant laboratory activities were observed directly
by a faculty member from the College of Education. Data
collected during the observation were organized under three
subheadings: familiarity with equipment parts, questioning,
and student participation. The performance of students in
the Control group was compared with that of students in
the Experimental group. The Intact-Group Comparison
research design methodology was adopted for this study
(Campbell & Stanley, 1966). In this design, the control
group that did not have access to the web-based resources
(module) was compared with the experimental group that
had access to the web resources. Figure 1 illustrates a webbased
interactive simulation. Both groups were tested and
observed during physical lab demonstration.
This study uses a descriptive research method to describe
and interpret the given state of affairs and developing
trends. Simple statistics, frequencies, and percentages
were used to analyze the quantitative data, while the
qualitative data from the direct observation was categorized
based on the observations during the physical laboratory
Figure 1. This is a screen capture of a virtual experiment of a heat
exchanger problem for a thermodynamics fluid laboratory. The
student can enter test data and start the experiment and collect
and store the experiment data. Step-by-step instruction procedures
are shown on the screen.
Engineering student demographics
Engineering student demographics in urban universities
today are similar to those of nontraditional engineering
students in most university campuses. The data from this
study showed that 21.61% (n =59) were females, while
78.02% (n = 213) were males. When asked about their age
group, 54.95% (n =150) reported being within the age group
18-22 years, and 26.37% (n = 72) were in the age group 23-
27 years, while 18.63% (n =51) were in the 28-years-andover
age group. Data concerning hours of nonacademicrelated
paid work per week showed that 60.44% (n =165)
worked between 11 and 40 hours per week, while 15.02% (n
= 41) worked fewer than 10 hours per week. The data also
showed that 65.93% (n =180) took between 11and 20 credit
hours of classes per week, while 6.59% (n =18) took more
than 20 credit hours per week.
Engineering students’ preferred ways of learning
The students were asked how often they interact with their
faculty during office hours as part of their learning strategy.
The data showed that 57.51% (n =157) seldom or never
interact with their faculty and 34.07% (n = 93) occasionally
visit with their faculty. The students were asked about the
usefulness of individual study. The data showed 92.68% (n
= 253) considered individual study useful or very useful to
them, while 75.09% (n = 205) of the respondents agreed
that group study was useful or very useful to their learning.
Traditional lecture was considered useful or very useful by
an overwhelming 90.11% (n = 246). Also, 61.53% (n = 168)
11 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
agreed that in-class assignments were useful or very useful
to their learning.
The students were asked how often they used computers for
homework, tests, and projects. The data showed that 80.22%
(n = 219) use computers frequently or very frequently
for their work, while 75.59% (n = 205) use web resources
for their homework, tests, and projects. When asked
about their preferred method of laboratory presentation,
an overwhelming 93.37% (n =255) of the respondents
agreed that live/physical demonstrations were useful or
very useful to their learning. Likewise 72.53% (n =198)
of the respondents considered accessibility to web-based
materials useful or very useful, and 88.65% (n =242) of the
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that using visual
images was as effective as physical demonstrations. An
overwhelming 96.71% (n = 264) of the respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that presentation in a visual or animated
form helped reinforce engineering principles, while a
significant number of students, 89.38 % (n = 244), agreed or
strongly agreed that the interactive and friendly features of
the computer helped them learn better. (See Figure 2.)
Students’ test performance, Control vs. Experimental
A test was constructed to measure the students’
performance in both the control and experimental groups.
Both groups were taught the same materials; however, the
experimental group was exposed to additional learning
resources on the web (learning module) prior to taking
the test. Items on the test were generated using Bloom’s
Taxonomy levels of learning—knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. This initial
test was designed to measure the average performance of
each group and to determine if there was any learning gain.
The total score on the test was 60 points for all the items.
Data from the test showed that the average score for the
Control group, which had no access to the learning module,
was 28.8 points (48%), while the Experimental group, which
had access to the learning module, had an average score of
37.23 points (62.05%). This shows an average gain of 14.05%
for the Experimental group over the Control group. (See
Students’ laboratory performance: Virtual vs. Nonvirtual
To further determine the effectiveness of using a simulation
and visualization module, qualitative data were collected
through direct observation of students during a physical
laboratory experiment. In the lab experiment, students were
expected to measure the impact force on vanes of various
shapes as a function of jet mass flow rate. To conduct this
experiment successfully, it was important for the students
to be familiar with the different parts of the equipment.
Students were divided into experimental and control
groups. Both groups were observed during the physical
laboratory experiment. The Experimental group had been
exposed to a virtual laboratory experiment prior to the
physical laboratory experiment, while the Control group
had not been exposed to the virtual experiment. Before
the experiment commenced, the instructor explained the
parts of the equipment and a step-by-step procedure for
performing the physical laboratory experiment to both
Figure 2. Percentage of responses to statements about preferred ways of learning.
12 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
groups. The instructor led the students through the first
experiment and then asked the students to change the vane
size and perform the second experiment as a group.
Familiarity with parts of the equipment: The observation
showed that the Control group was not familiar with most
parts of the equipment, even after the instructor had
explained the different parts. Group members could not
remember most of the parts when asked to change or move
one. The Experimental group members, on the other hand,
knew or identified most of the parts of the equipment. They
could be seen discussing among themselves and pointing to
the different parts of the equipment they could remember
from the virtual experiment.
Questioning: During the experiment, the observation
showed that the Control group was not asking questions.
Instead, the group members were busy writing notes as the
instructor performed the experiment. The instructor asked
the group questions at different steps of the experiment,
with very few attempts by the students to answer the
questions. The students were mostly passive during the
experiment. The reverse was the case with the Experimental
group. The students correctly answered most of the
questions and asked the instructor questions to clarify
some of the parts that had not been clearly visible on the 2D
Student participation: The students were asked to change
the vane size and perform the second experiment as a
group. The observation showed that the Control group had
difficulty carrying out the experiment. The instructor had
to intervene to complete the experiment. Most students in
Figure 3. Average percentage score of the Experimental and
the Control group remained passive throughout the process.
The Experimental group members were eager to perform
the experiment and had no problem changing the vane size
and performing the step-by-step procedure. All members
of the Experimental group were active participants during
the experiment, while the instructor stood aside and
watched the group perform. Overall, the students in the
Experimental group were more active participants in their
learning as compared to the students in the Control group,
who were passive most of the time during the experiment.
The result of this study underscores the need for simulationand
visualization-enhanced engineering education. The
goal of the ongoing project is to enhance the students’
learning process by implementing an undergraduate
engineering curricular transformation that integrates
simulation and visualization modules as well as virtual
experiments in engineering science and core courses in the
three disciplines, namely electrical, civil, and mechanical
engineering. These modules serve as additional learning
tools that build on laboratory experiments performed by
engineering students. This is important, given the fact that
more than 54% of these students are in the 18-22 age range
and work between 11 and 40 hours a week, and also take
between 11 and 20 credit hours a week. When students
work more than 20 hours a week, it certainly reduces the
time they spend on campus. It is not surprising that 92%
of the students had favored some form of individual study,
although 60% of the students reported not being on campus
most of the time due to work-related activities.
Similarly, although an overwhelming 90% of the students
preferred the traditional lecture method and the live
physical laboratory demonstration, their presence in class
and laboratory is not always possible due to personal
activities outside of school. Providing additional learning
resources, and especially interactive virtual laboratory
demonstrations online, can help students be active
participants in their learning—and at a time convenient to
them. This is evident by the 88-96% of the students who
indicated their preference for computer visual or animated
or an interactive, virtual form of learning. There is no doubt
that today’s engineering students are computer-savvy upon
entry in the university (Kurtis, 2003). They use computer
technology for accessing educational resources on a daily
basis. Faculty who understand this phenomenon and modify
their teaching methodology will no doubt be helping a
significant number of students.
13 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Besides the advantages of providing additional learning
resources to students at convenient times, students can
also practice laboratory experiments as many times as
they want to in order to be familiar with engineering
concepts, theories, and functions. This certainly will add to
their understanding of a topic discussed in class, thereby
improving their learning and performance. In this study,
students in the Experimental group who had access to
the learning module, which included web resources and
the virtual experiment, showed learning gains in both test
questions and the laboratory experiment as compared to the
Control group that had no access to the learning module.
Overall, the results of the study clearly indicate that students
still have a high preference for class lecture and live/
physical demonstrations. However, being in a classroom and
laboratory setting for live demonstrations may not always
be possible for all students all the time, considering the
pressures of work and family life. Not surprisingly, there is
an overwhelming desire by students to have access to webbased
demonstrations and materials as additional learning
tools and resources. The students will have the opportunity
to learn and review their course materials as many times as
needed from any location of their preference. Students who
had access to the learning module showed learning gains in
both laboratory experiments and classroom tests.
Horton R. (1997). Challenges of delivering undergraduate
engineering programs to place-bound members of
technical workforce. Proceedings of the Frontiers in
Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.
Campbell, K. (1999). Promises of computer-based learning:
Designing for inclusivity. Technology and Society
Magazine, 4(8), 28-34.
Montgomery, S.M.(1995). Addressing the Variety of
Learning Styles of Chemical Engineering Students Using
Multimedia. Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education Conference, Anaheim, CA.
Anwar, S., Rolle, J. & Memon, A. (2005). Use of webbased
portfolio to assess the technical competencies
of engineering technology students: A case study.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering
Education Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR.
Donnelly, A. E., & Hargis, J. (2001). Engineering education
and the internet: A study of the effectiveness of web
formats on student learning. Proceedings of the American
Society for Engineering Education Conference and
Exposition, Albuquerque, NM.
Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and
Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL:
Rajput, A.Q.K. (2003). E-Learning: A virtual environment
for cooperative distance learning and affordable online
education. Journal of Engineering Technology, 22(1), 57-
Shaikh, M.A., Rajput, A.Q.K, & Unar, M. (2004). Virtual
reality modeling-based learning environment for teaching
mechanical skills. Journal of Engineering Technology,
Lumsdaine, A. (2003). Multimedia tutorial for drawing
shear and bending moment diagrams. Proceedings of the
American Society for Engineering Education Conference
and Exposition, Nashville TN.
Kurtis, P.G. (2003). Student perceptions of internet-based
learning tools in environmental engineering education.
Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 295-299.
Felder, R.M. (2005). Understanding student differences.
Journal of Engineering Education, 194(1), 57-72.
Hassan B. Ndahi is an associate professor
in the Department of Occupational and
Technical Studies, Darden College of
Education at Old Dominion University, in
Norfolk, VA. He can be reached via email at
Sushil Charturvedi is a professor in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Batten College of Engineering and
Technology at Old Dominion University in
A. Osman Akan is a professor and
Associate Dean in the Department of Civil
Engineering, Batten College of Engineering
and Technology at Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, VA.
J. Worth Pickering is Director of University
Assessment at Old Dominion University,
14 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
The Journey Towards Technological
Literacy for All in the United States—
Are We There Yet?
By Philip A. Reed
Emerging research will
continually shape teaching and
learning, and the changing
nature of technology continually
shapes the discipline.
Anyone who has traveled with small children or
watched one of the National Lampoon Vacation
movies understands both the humor and unrelenting
nature of the question above. I pose this question
not to be amusing but rather to have the reader pause and
analyze technology education in the United States. We are
at a point where all those interested in technological literacy
must take a critical, unrelenting look at the profession’s history,
research base, and contemporary practice. This article
will discuss each of these areas to help us in our travels.
Reflect for a moment on the history of education in the
United States, specifically the required subject areas of
language arts/reading, mathematics, history/social science,
and science. Each of these areas became a part of general
education for very different reasons. Language arts and
reading were initially taught by many churches in order for
children to study the Bible. Mathematics and history were
endorsed in a bill introduced by Thomas Jefferson in 1778
to respectively help students “manage their affairs” and
“improve the citizens’ moral and civic virtues” (Urban &
Wagoner, 1996, p.72). Science, however, was not accepted
into the education mainstream until the strong endorsement
of the National Education Association’s (NEA) Committee
of Ten in 1893 (DeBoer, 1991).
How can technology education be recognized as a required
subject for all students? The practice of studying technology
within general education has a well-documented history
dating back to the 1870s (Anderson, 1926). Recent research
shows that the acceptance of Standards for Technological
Literacy (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002) within state educational
frameworks has increased but also shows that technology
education is only required in twelve states (Dugger,
2007). The likelihood of a Jeffersonian-style solution à la
mathematics and social science is highly unlikely since
education is primarily a state endeavor in the United States.
Nevertheless, endorsement of STL by the National Academy
Understanding the history of the core curriculum can help guide
the technology education profession.
15 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
of Engineering (NAE) and many recent publications by the
NAE and the National Research Council (NRC) do emulate,
on some levels, the support science received from The
Committee of Ten.
The book Technically
Speaking: Why All
Americans Need to Know
More About Technology
(NAE & NRC, 2002),
for example, is a wellarticulated
outlining five reasons for
the study of technology.
supporting a modern
the digital divide,
and enhancing social
of these benefits is
highlighted with examples and tied to the three dimensions
of technological literacy (Figure 1). Additional publications
from the NAE and NRC aid the research effort in
Shortly after the release of Standards for Technological
Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA,
2000/2002), the NRC published Investigating the Influence
of Standards: A Framework for Research in Mathematics,
Science, and Technology Education (NRC, 2002). Figure
2 illustrates the NRC model, with student learning as the
outcome. Steps in the model leading to student learning
include contextual forces, channels of influence within the
educational system, and teachers and teaching practice. A
fourteen-year review of literature shows that all of these
areas have received a considerable amount of attention,
but the level of research support in each area varies widely
The strong support for STL from the NAE and NRC
highlight the influence of contextual forces. Additionally,
the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) has held several conferences on the importance of
technological literacy. Despite these efforts, there has been
little follow-up research on these efforts. How have these
efforts impacted student learning or technological literacy
in the United States? Several studies conducted by ITEA do
offer excellent data for framing the contextual forces behind
technological literacy for all (See Dugger, 2007; ITEA 2002
The channels of influence outlined by the NRC (2002) have
received tremendous attention in the form of materials
development and research. The International Technology
Education Association has developed student assessment,
professional development, and program standards (ITEA,
2003) as well as model curriculum materials for elementary
through secondary education. Research in this area has been
strengthened through the Council on Technology Teacher
Education (CTTE) yearbook series. Recent yearbooks on
standards-based teacher education, instructional methods,
distance learning, and assessment help guide technology
education at all levels (see www.ctteonline.org to learn more
about the yearbook series).
The final pieces of the framework, teachers and teaching
practice and student learning, are starting to receive more
research attention in technology education. Researchers
are investigating the impact technology education has on
other subject areas (Culbertson, Daugherty, & Merrill, 2004;
Dyer, Reed, & Berry, 2006), but we must move into the area
of researching what specifically happens in the technology
Thinking and Acting
Figure 1. The three dimensions of technological literacy are interdependent.
A technologically literate person has varying levels in
each area that change over time with education and experience
(NAE & NRC, 2002, p. 15).
16 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
How has the system responded to the introduction
of nationally developed standards?
What are the
• Politicians and
• Business and
Channels of Influence
Within the Education System
• State, district policy decisions
• Instructional materials development
• Text, materials selection
• Initial preparation
• Professional development
Assessment and Accountability
• Accountability systems
• Classroom assessment
• State, district assessment
• College entrance, placement practices
Within the education system and in its context—
• How are nationally developed standards being received and interpreted?
• What actions have been taken in response?
• What has changed as a result?
• What components of the system have been affected and how?
Among teachers who
have been exposed to
• How have they received
and interpreted those
• What actions have they
taken in response?
• What, if anything, about
their classroom practice
• Who has been affected
who have been
• How have student
• Who has been
affected and how?
Figure 2. A framework for investigating the influence of nationally developed standards for mathematics, science, and technology education
(NRC, 2002, p. 90).
classroom. More importantly, we need to investigate what
students and adults learn through the study of technology.
Mathematics and science have investigated these areas for
years. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM, 1992) and the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA, 1994) have each published handbooks
of research in their respective fields. These comprehensive
volumes cover the history of research in each field as
well as philosophy, knowledge acquisition, curriculum,
assessment, classroom climate, cultural diversity, and many
other key areas. Many areas can be connected to technology
education (e.g., contextual learning, problem solving, and
instructional technology) but such an endeavor is needed in
technology education in order to understand what students
learn by studying technology.
The mathematics and science communities are now using
this research in the development of learning progressions.
Learning progressions are “descriptions of the successively
more sophisticated ways of thinking about topics that can
follow one another as children learn about and investigate
topics over a broad span of time (e.g., 6 to 8 years)” (NRC,
2007, p. 219). The idea is to take content standards as well
as research on teaching and learning to develop articulated
steps in the instructional and assessment processes. For
17 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
example, STL 9 states that, “Students will develop an
understanding of engineering design” (ITEA, 2000/2002, p.
99). Several benchmarks (e.g., A [Grades K–2] and C [Grades
3–5]) involve defining a problem. A learning progression in
this area would outline the steps, in increasing complexity,
that students would use in defining a problem. The idea
behind learning progressions is to reduce repetitive content
between grade levels. Learning progressions should be
written in a way to reflect that knowledge and practice
change over time. Additionally, no one learning progression
is right or wrong. Writers starting with the same research
and same standards are expected to develop different
progressions. This point is important in order that a variety
of instructional strategies and methods may be utilized.
How is this different from contemporary research-based
practice in technology education? Another parallel to the
history of science education can help clarify this question.
In 1968 Robert Mills Gagne published a curriculum titled
Science—A Process Approach: Purposes, Accomplishments,
Expectations that has been used for curricula and text
development since that time. The approach was to analyze
the processes used by scientists, break them down, and use
them to teach students (known as task analysis). The result
has been almost 40 years of instructional materials that are
not always coherent and do not factor in the key mental
models involved in learning ever-increasing scientific
content and skills (NRC, 2007). In technology education,
Harold Halfin’s 1973 dissertation, Technology: A Process
Approach, analyzed the writings of ten key technologists
(e.g., the Wright Brothers, Goodyear, Edison, Fuller, Frank
Lloyd Wright, among others) to identify the processes
of renowned technologists. He identified and outlined
• Defining the problem or opportunity operationally
• Computing (applying mathematical principles)
• Questioning and hypothesizing
• Interpreting data
• Constructing models and prototypes
A study has not been conducted to determine what impact,
if any, Halfin’s research has had on technology education.
As you look at the seventeen processes, however, you will
surely recognize that they are intertwined throughout
STL, textbooks, instructional materials, and contemporary
instructional practice. Incorporating these processes and the
use of the project method has been useful for engaging the
whole student and piquing his or her interest in the study
of technology. It is time, however, not to just look at the
experts but to research what is occurring to novices as they
learn about technology.
To help with this venture, we have a rich history of research
to draw upon that spans back to at least 1892 (Reed, 2000).
Additionally, new research is being outlined and conducted
to investigate technology teaching and learning. The
National Center for Engineering and Technology Education
(NCETE) has developed a framework to aid in this endeavor.
The research program consists of three main themes, each
with several subthemes:
• How and What Students Learn in Technology
Subthemes: Learning and Cognition, Engineering
Processes, Creativity, Perceptions, Diversity, and
• How to Best Prepare Technology Teachers
Subthemes: Teacher Education and Professional
Development, Curriculum and Instruction, Diversity,
• Assessment and Evaluation
Subthemes: Student Assessment, Teacher Assessment
The NCETE framework, like the NRC (2002) framework,
also comes with multiple research questions in each area. To
review the entire NCETE research framework, visit www.
A discussion about technology education research would
not be complete without mentioning the strong support of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) over the past fifteen
years. NSF helped fund the Technology for All Americans
Project (TfAAP), Engineering byDesign, the I 3 Project
(Invention, Innovation, and Inquiry), Project Probase,
and other materials-development activities. NSF supports
many projects such as the NCETE, not just materials
development. In fact, Householder (2003) identified 141
NSF projects relating to technology education. Visit www.
nsf.gov/awards/about.jsp to review recent awards
18 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
A great deal of NSF’s education funding in recent years
has been earmarked for science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) initiatives. STEM is one of the
16 Career Clusters and has received an enormous amount
of attention because of the importance of STEM fields to
the national economy and global competition. The Career
Clusters were developed through years of research and
deserve our attention because they will increasingly impact
our profession in the coming years. All of the Clusters and
their 81 Pathways involve varying degrees of technological
literacy. States are beginning to use the Clusters and
Pathways as they shape curriculum, assessments,
articulation agreements, and other materials. Visit the
States’ Career Clusters website, www.careerclusters.org/, to
Assessment and international comparisons are inevitable
as more and more attention is focused on the study of
technology. The NAE and NRC publication Tech Tally:
Approaches to Assessing Technological Literacy (2006)
reviews historical and contemporary trends and makes
recommendations on paper-and-pencil and portfolio
assessments. Figure 3 is a matrix developed by the
Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy, the
author of Tech Tally. This framework was developed to
help educators at all levels create sound assessments of
technological literacy. The three dimensions of technological
literacy outlined in Technically Speaking are represented
across the top of the matrix. Four content areas are listed
along the left side. The content areas are based on STL, with
two distinctions: first, the “understanding” and “doing” of
design is merged together as one row on the matrix (Design)
and secondly, the designed world as represented by seven
standards in STL is combined into the row titled “Products
The Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy
also considered the work of the National Assessment
Governing Board (NAGP) during the creation of the
assessment framework. The NAGP has overseen the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
since 1969 (also known as the Nation’s Report Card).
The matrix presented in Tech Tally is consistent with the
NAEP’s science and mathematics frameworks. These
interdisciplinary connections are crucial for developing
sound assessments because of the many sets of standards
that contain technology content.
Petrina & Guo (2007) provide an excellent overview on the
status of large-scale assessments of technological literacy.
In their review they discuss the two most common forms
of assessment. Large standardized assessments have
the benefits of higher reliability and validity, but more
localized assessments offer the benefits of customization,
performance assessment, and narratives. They conclude
their review by calling for a third assessment that would
incorporate the best of both present forms of assessment.
and Decision Making
Figure 3. A conceptual framework for developing technological literacy assessments (NAE & NRC, 2006, p. 53).
19 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Tech Tally offers twelve compelling
recommendations to improve the
assessment of technological literacy.
Figure 4 lists the recommendations
by population, type of action, and
actor(s). Many of the actors are large
public entities because the Committee
on Assessing Technological Literacy
realizes that technological literacy is a public good just like
traditional literacy, science literacy, civics, and numeracy.
The committee recommends, however, that individuals at
all levels need to get involved in these activities. To borrow
a phrase from the environmental movement, can you find
ways to think globally and act locally when it comes to
technological literacy assessment?
Type of Action
1 K-12 students Integrate items into existing national
2 K-12 students Integrate items into existing international
National Assessment Governing Board
U.S. Department of Education (DoEd),
National Science Foundation (NSF)
3 K-12 students Fund sample-based studies and pilot tests. NSF
4 K-12 teachers Integrate items into existing assessments for
5 K-12 teachers Fund development and pilot testing of
6 Out-of-school adults Encourage or fund the integration of items
into existing assessments.
7 K-12 students Fund a synthesis study on learning processes.
DoEd, NSF, States
International Technology Education
Association (ITEA), DoEd, National
Institutes of Health (NIH), NSF
8 K-12 students
Support capacity-building efforts in learning
9 Out-of-school adults Organize an interagency initiative in learning
10 K-12 students
11 K-12 students
12 K-12 students
Convene a major national meeting
to explore innovative assessment methods.
Develop frameworks for assessments in the
Broaden the definitions of technology and
National Institute of Standards and
NAGB, NSF, DoEd
DoEd state education departments,
private educational testing companies,
and education-related accreditation
Figure 4. Recommendations for improving the assessment of technological literacy for K-12 students, K-12 teachers, and
out-of-school adults (NAE & NRC, 2006, p. 194).
20 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
A common point of discussion in the literature involves
another question: Is the curriculum too crowded to have all
students study technology? Technically Speaking concluded
that dedicated courses were unlikely on a large scale because
of the tight curriculum and number of teachers that would
be required (NRC, 2002). Dedicated courses have been the
model for secondary technology education, and it is too
early to determine if the projection in Technically Speaking
is accurate. However, there are two points to consider when
reflecting on this issue.
First, consider the proliferation of technology as an
integrated subject within the elementary school over the
past decade. ITEA’s Technology Education for Children
Council (TECC) offers a dynamic conference program and
journal, Technology and Children. In Virginia, the Children’s
Engineering Convention (CEC), which is focused on
elementary education, is now larger than the annual Virginia
Technology Education Association (VTEA) conference.
To learn more about the CEC, visit www.vtea.org/ESTE/
A second idea posed by Lewis & Zuga (2005) has interesting
implications for the study of technology at all levels. Their
approach advocates studying the knowledge of technology
through language. We all know that technology has a
language of its own, but Lewis & Zuga (2005) make a
convincing argument that the study of language and the
study of technology have a symbiotic relationship. It is
easy to see the merit behind this idea considering how the
industrial revolution completely shaped modern English,
and now modern technologies (e.g., email, text messaging)
are reshaping our language yet again.
The intent of this article is to take a look in the rearview
mirror and check our GPS navigation system to determine
if technology education is getting close to the destination
of technological literacy for all in the United States. The
answer is a very optimistic “no” for several reasons. Just
as Petrina & Guo (2007) concluded that we will never
find the Holy Grail when it comes to assessment (e.g., one
assessment), we can never have technological literacy for
all by virtue of the educational enterprise and the field
itself. In other words, emerging research will continually
shape teaching and learning, and the changing nature of
technology continually shapes the discipline.
A second meaning implied in the goal of technological
literacy for all is that of a required course of study for all
students. Hopefully the history, research, and practices
outlined in this article will facilitate professional dialogue
and, more importantly, action towards this end. After all, the
weather is looking better all the time for this trip.
Anderson, L. F. (1926). History of manual and industrial
school education. New York, NY: D. Appleton and
Culbertson, C., Daugherty, M., & Merrill, C. (2004). Effects
of modular technology education on junior high students’
achievement scores. Journal of Technology Education,
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education:
Implications for practice. New York, NY: Teachers College
Dugger, W. E. (2007). The status of technology education in
the United States: A triennial report of the findings from
the states. The Technology Teacher, 67(1), 14-21.
Dyer, R., Reed, P. A., & Berry, R. (2006). Investigating the
relationship between high school technology education
and test scores in Algebra I and Geometry. Journal of
Technology Education, 17(2), 6-16.
Householder, D. (2003). National Science Foundation
projects: A selected listing for technology educators.
Paper presented at the 66 th annual conference of the
International Technology Education Association,
International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
(2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content
for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
(2002). ITEA/Gallup Poll reveals what Americans think
about technology. The Technology Teacher, 61(6).
International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
(2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy:
Student assessment, professional development, and
program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
(2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll
and what it reveals as to how Americans think about
technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Lewis, T. & Zuga, K. F. (2005). A conceptual framework
of ideas and issues in technology education. Retrieved
August 22, 2007 from www.teched.vt.edu/ctte/HTML/
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) & National
Research Council (NRC). (2006). Tech tally: Approaches
to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) & National
Research Council (NRC). (2002). Technically speaking:
21 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Why all Americans need to know more about technology.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM,
1992). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing
National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science
to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Investigating
the influence of standards: A framework for research
in mathematics, science, and technology education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 1994).
Handbook of research on science teaching and learning.
New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Petrina, S. & Guo, R. X. (2007). Developing a large-scale
assessment of technological literacy. In Hoepfl, M.
& Lindstrom, M. R. (Eds.). Assessment of technology
education. Woodland Hills, CA: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
Reed, P.A. (2006). What do we value? Research on technology
education problems, issues, and standards in the United
States. Paper presented at the 4th Biennial Technology
Education Research Conference. Surfer’s Paradise,
Reed, P. A. (Ed.). (2001). The technology education graduate
research database: 1892-2000. Council on Technology
Teacher Education (CTTE) Monograph #17. Retrieved
August 22, 2007 from www.ctteonline.org/publications/
Urban, W. & Wagoner, J. (1996). American education: A
history. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Philip A. Reed, Ph.D. is an associate
professor in the Darden College of Education
at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA.
He can be reached via email at preed@odu.
See Us At
Booth #720 for
the ITEA Conference
in SALT LAKE CITY,
visit our website at www.carvewright.com/itea or call us at 713-473-6572
22 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Getting to the Center of a Tootsie Roll Pop®
By Brian Lien
Engineers have seen the lab
and think it looks like a great
way to discover the concepts of
Princeton High School is a relatively large, urban,
four-year comprehensive high school that serves
approximately 2,000 students in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Academic offerings include, among others, the
International Baccalaureate program, technology, business,
and general studies. Approximately 82% of the graduates
attend college, with 60% going to four-year schools and 22%
enrolling in two-year/technical schools.
Before utilizing the “Tootsie Pop® Challenge” in a new
engineering class next year, I tested it with four engineering
drafting students. It was quite successful, and the students
had a great time.
Students are assigned the task of helping the Tootsie Roll
Company to answer the age old question—how many licks
does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop®? Students
can use any means available to complete the challenge,
including viewing the following Tootsie Roll®-related websites
at www.tootsie.com/howmany-sb.html and www.tootsie.com/
Students display their lollipop-testing machine. This machine
tested 530 licks on average to get to the center—when the
chocolate becomes visible.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie
Roll Pop®? This was the question I posed to my engineering
drafting class. None of the students had ever worked on a
problem-solving activity like this. They all planned to go
into engineering at the university level next year and wanted
a challenging project that was not drafting-related.
23 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
The original idea came from a cooking show, but I wanted
to make a lab out of it. The first step was to ask the students
to do some research to determine if an answer even existed.
After consulting the Tootsie Roll® website, they discovered that
engineering students at Purdue University had worked on the
problem. They saw an example of the machine used by the
Purdue students, and then began the design process, working
on a solution of their own.
Since my students had no experience with different
engineering fields, I explained to them they would be
working on the study of mechanical engineering. One
of my first tasks was to teach them about gears and gear
ratios. Your students may also discover the involvement of
some chemical engineering. As the Tootsie Roll Pop® gets
smaller, you will need to figure out, “why?” If your results
are anything like ours, the sugar buildup on the “tongue”
material will become saturated and then the design may
begin to fail, necessitating a project redesign.
For this lab, I found that we used the following STL standards:
1. Students will develop an understanding of the attributes
of design. (Standard 8)
a. The design process includes defining a problem,
brainstorming, researching ideas, identifying criteria
and specifying constraints, exploring possibilities,
selecting an approach, developing a design proposal,
making a model or prototype, testing and evaluating
the design using specifications, refining the design,
creating or making it, and communicating the process
and results. (Benchmark H)
b. Design problems are seldom presented in a clearly
defined form. (Benchmark I)
c. The design needs to be continually checked and critiqued,
and the ideas of the design must be redefined
and improved. (Benchmark J)
d. Requirements of a design, such as criteria, constraints,
and efficiency, sometimes compete with each other.
2. Students will develop an understanding of engineering
design. (Standard 9)
a. Engineering design is influenced by personal characteristics,
such as creativity, resourcefulness, and the
ability to visualize and think abstractly. (Benchmark J)
b. A prototype is a working model used to test a design
concept by making actual observations and necessary
adjustments. (Benchmark K)
c. The process of engineering design takes into account a
number of factors. (Benchmark L)
3. Students will develop abilities to apply the design process.
a. Identify the design problem to solve and decide
whether or not to address it. (Benchmark M)
b. Identify criteria and constraints and determine how
these will affect the design process. (Benchmark N)
c. Refine a design by using prototypes and modeling to
ensure quality, efficiency, and productivity of the final
product. (Benchmark O)
d. Evaluate the design solution using conceptual, physical,
and mathematical models at various intervals of
the design process in order to check for proper design
and to note areas where improvements are needed.
e. Develop and produce a product or system using a
design process. (Benchmark Q)
f. Evaluate final solutions and communicate observation,
processes, and results of the entire design process,
using verbal, graphic, quantitative, virtual, and written
means, in addition to three-dimensional models.
1. You will be able to build a machine that will answer the
question from above.
2. You will be able to explain how gear ratios work and why
that is important for this lab.
3. You will be able to explain how the Tootsie Roll Pop® got
smaller. Was it friction, dissolving product, etc?
4. You need to write up your conclusions in a paragraph.
You must use data from at least three or more test runs of
Two students make final revisions to their lollipop-testing machine.
24 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
and the scrap wood I gave them. After inventorying the
available materials, students realized they would have to
refine their sketches. Once they had an idea they thought
would work, they began making a prototype. This stage
took the longest. None of them had ever worked with saws
or drills, which meant that it was necessary for me to teach
them tool safety before allowing them to work with the tools
to finish their prototype.
Final design for a testing machine. This machine took 1,200 licks
on average to get to the center of the lollipop.
5. You must keep a log of your time spent on each part of
the design process.
6. Write a conclusion and evaluation of your end product.
The amount of preparation depends upon the labs you have.
I had to gather material and machines the students would
need to solve the problem. I did not want my students
gathering stuff for this lab. However, if you are incorporating
this into a class that involved this type of work, your
students could gather materials on their own or from your
classroom supplies. I used the gears from the materials
provided in the Society of Automotive Engineers’ A World
in Motion II Design Challenge 2. Other materials you will
need are: materials the students can use for “tongues” like
sponges or paper towels, scrap wood for the frame of the
project, small fasteners, and, of course, plenty of Tootsie
After you or your students have the materials, you must
teach the design process. My students knew nothing about
the design process, so I introduced the problem to them and
gave them the problem statement, “How many licks does it
take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop®?” Once they
understood what the problem was, they began investigating
previous attempts to solve the problem. This is where they
found out what other schools had done. They also found
solutions to the problem on the Tootsie Roll® website.
The students began to formulate their own solutions based
on the materials they had to use. They began with sketches,
and then started to rough out their solutions using the parts
Lastly, students tested and evaluated the product. Both
groups found flaws in their designs and had to modify at
least twice from what they thought would be their final
design. Once they had a good working model, they tested
the solution to the problem. One group found out that it
took about 535 licks, and the other group found out it took
1200 licks. After they did their testing I brought both groups
together to see why there was such a large difference in the
data. They discovered that the licking surface area of the two
devices was very different. One had a large area, while the
other was barely making contact with the Tootsie Roll Pop®.
This prompted the engineering students to try to figure out
the mathematical difference in the surface area of the tongue
from one group to the other. The final step was to write up
the lab and discuss their findings.
The content outline is intended to organize teaching strategies
to allow students to reach an intended outcome. This
is the information I wanted my students to be able to do.
A. Impacts of products/systems
1. Collection of information
a. The students must test the machine at least three
times and keep the results in a chart form. They
should keep the Tootsie Roll Pops® after they are
finished so the teacher can take pictures of them and
then measure the diameter of each Pop to see if there
are any differences.
2. Evaluation of collected information
a. Students are to write a paragraph about how they
think the Tootsie Roll Pop® got smaller. Was it
dissolved by the water, friction from the tongue, and
the Pop? If there were differences, why?
b. They must keep a log of the design process. They must
include who is doing what and for what period of time.
c. Students must write an evaluation of their design and
what they might do differently if they reworked the
25 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
This is the first time I have tried this lab. The final
determination of the lab design is up to each group of two
students. They must look at their research and then discuss
how they are going to build the lab.
Brian Lien is a technology teacher at
Princeton High School in Cincinnati, Ohio.
He can be reached via email at blien@
The actual time to make the project and test the
machine was two weeks. I had another group of
students from a different class at the same time. It
could probably be done in as few as five to seven
days if enough dedicated time was available.
Following completion of the lab class work,
students should assess their work. This
assessment will be based on the successful
completion of building the machine and the
write-up of the lab. They must include the
data from at least three tests as well as their
conclusion as to what process or processes made
the candy disappear. They must also include an
explanation of how they followed the design
process and what each partner did during each
part of the process. Finally, there must be a
summary of the process, problems encountered,
and what they would do again if they had a
chance to rework the process.
My students had a great time designing this
project, and I have taken the two machines to two
different exhibits. Engineers have seen the lab
and think it looks like a great way to discover the
concepts of mechanical engineering.
International Technology Education Association
(ITEA). (2000/2002). Standards for technological
literacy: Content for the study of technology.
Reston, VA: Author.
This lesson plan layout came from: http://
imagine101.com/. Once you are there, navigate
your way to http://imagine101.com/lesson-short.
www.tootsie.com/howmany-sb.html and http://
Pictures of previous attempts—both successful
A website about how gears work.
26 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
The Space Place
Designing for the Barely
By Diane Fisher
What is the weirdest, most alien,
skin-crawling place you can
Ponder these destinations:
1. Clouds rain gasoline, forming
2. Volcanoes spew red-hot lava
and the sky is full of poisonous
3. As far as you can see in all directions is bright white ice,
broken only by dark, rough rivers of more ice.
4. It is far colder than Earth’s South Pole all the time.
5. It’s hot enough to melt lead, and the atmosphere weighs
down on you as if you were diving far beneath the ocean’s
These would not be healthy places for humans or just about
any other Earthlings.
But, believe it or not, all these environments are real places
in our own solar system.
They are, in order . . .
1. Titan (moon of Saturn)
2. Io (moon of Jupiter)
3. Europa (moon of Jupiter)
4. Mars, Pluto, and most places in the solar system
technological “spies” to investigate, and they have faithfully
reported back their often surprising findings.
Build ‘em Tough
We have sent light sensors, image makers, rock sniffers,
matter analyzers, magnetic field sensors, temperature
detectors, particle counters, pressure indicators, and sample
collectors. These instruments, for the most part, have given
us information that even our own five senses would not
be able to tell us had we gone to these places personally—
that is, if we could survive and operate in these harsh
surroundings, which we couldn’t.
All the instruments we have sent into space were designed
and built especially to operate in these harsh, alien
environments. They are tough enough to withstand huge
temperature extremes, intense radiation, and the vacuum
of space. They are sturdy enough to withstand the bonerattling
vibration of being blasted off the surface of Earth on
How do NASA engineers know what kinds of planetary
instruments to develop in the first place? Well, they ask.
What do scientists want to know about space and about
alien worlds? And, once engineers know the questions
to be answered, they use their know-how, ingenuity, and
imaginations to come up with the kind of “sense enhancer”
that will get the right kind of information and be tough
enough to survive its task.
No person has ever visited any of these places. Then how
do we know what they are like? Because we have sent our
27 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Expanding Our Senses
Here on Earth, we ordinarily get our information through
our five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and
touching. The instruments that give us information about
other worlds are, in a way, like our five senses, greatly
enhanced and made quite portable and autonomous. One
way to classify scientific instruments is by which sense
they are most like. Table one describes some examples of
instruments that are a bit like our eyes, ears, noses, tasting
tongues, and touching fingers.
Design an Alien World
Here is a space mission design activity your whole class
1. Divide the class into groups of three or four students.
2. In each group, one person is the recorder, ready with
paper and pencil.
3. Now, in each group, use your imaginations to create an
alien world. Brainstorm! Your world can be a planet, a
moon, or even an asteroid. Throw out wild ideas. The
recorder, in addition to offering his or her own ideas, will
write down everybody’s ideas as they come up.
It may be tempting to populate your world with strange,
intelligent creatures and maybe even civilizations.
However, for simplicity, stick to worlds with either no life
forms or only very primitive ones (like bacteria or onecelled
And don’t forget to give your world a name!
You could ask yourselves some of the questions below to get
your imagination going.
a. Does the world have a solid surface, or is it a gas ball
like Jupiter and Saturn?
b. How bright and what color is your world?
c. What is the material covering the surface?
d. Is there water on your world?
e. If so, is it frozen, liquid, or vapor? And where is the
f. What is the surface texture like? (smooth, cracked,
cratered, mountainous, hilly, unusual formations, etc.)
g. How hot or cold is the surface?
h. How much does the temperature differ on the day
and night sides?
i. Does it have seasons?
j. Is there an atmosphere?
k. What kind of gases are in the atmosphere?
l. Are there clouds?
m. Is the surface hard packed or loose and dusty?
n. Is the same material under the surface as on top?
o. Does it have a magnetic field?
p. What is in the sky? One sun? Two? Any moons?
q. If your world is a moon of a bigger planet, what does
the planet look like in the sky?
4. The recorder will now make a legible listing or narrative
description of the agreed-upon characteristics of your
imaginary world, including its name! Someone may even
make a cool sci-fi drawing of it.
Describe Your Alien World
5. Now, pick one person to represent the group. This person
will describe the world you have designed to the rest of
6. Once all the groups have shared their “designs,” swap
worlds! Pass your group’s description to another group.
Design and Conduct a Space Mission
7. Put yourselves in the place of a team of scientists
(including different kinds of scientists, such as
astronomers, planetary geologists, or atmospheric
chemists) from Earth who would like to learn more about
this newly discovered world.
Use Table 2 at the end of this article as a guide for how to
design and describe your mission of discovery.
a. First, ask yourselves “What do we already know?”
Select one or two questions from the list above to
which you already know the answers.
b. Now, what do you want to know? Pick three to five
questions from the list above. Then think about
which type of instrument(s) (Table 1) would help you
find out the answers to these questions.
c. What would be the best type of mission that could
use these instruments to answer these questions?
• An orbiter that goes around and around a planet or
moon, studying it for several months or years?
• A lander, such as the Mars Rovers, that will explore
• A flyby spacecraft that will study the planet or
moon for just a few days as it passes, perhaps on to
several more “flyby” destinations?
• A ground penetrator that burrows or drills under
• Something else?
d. Now, assume the mission is accomplished. What did
e. What didn’t you learn? Did the answers to the
original questions bring up more questions? (This
often happens in science!)
28 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Table 1. Kinds of planetary science “sensing” instruments
For example, imagers, infrared radiometers
These would include any kind of imagers (sort of like fancy
cameras) that detect light, including light our eyes cannot see,
such as infrared and ultraviolet light. Imagers tell us about surface
brightness, color, shape (topography), and texture.
One type of imager, an infrared radiometer, can measure the
temperature of a surface based on how much infrared light (which
we cannot see, but rather feel as heat) is being emitted.
For example, sounding radar (or sounders), imaging radar, profiling
There’s no sound in space, unless there’s an atmosphere to conduct
the sound waves. But instruments called sounders or radars do
listen, in a way. Sounders and imaging or profiling radars riding
on a spacecraft transmit radio waves downward and then “listen”
for echoes as the waves bounce off the clouds or surface, or even
penetrate beneath the surface. These “listeners” can measure
distances to different parts of the surface or heights of clouds based
on the strength of the echo or how long it takes to “hear” the echo.
Thus, sounder and radar data can be used to make 3-D maps of
the surface as the spacecraft passes over it. Profiling radar can also
measure depths of clouds, and sounders can measure depths of ice
layers or layers of different materials below the surface.
For example, spectrometers
Your nose detects even tiny amounts of substances in the air. A spectrometer,
although it works more like an imager than a “sniffer,” can analyze the
composition of a gas, a liquid, or a solid.
Here’s how: Light travels in waves. Light is a combination of many different
wavelengths, or colors. Combined, they make white light. If you shine light
through a gas (such as water vapor), the gas will absorb some wavelengths
(colors) of the light and let others pass through, depending on the gas. Each
substance has a unique “fingerprint.”
An absorption spectrometer separates the wavelengths of light (as a prism)
that has passed through a gas, making a kind of rainbow. The spectrometer
then detects which wavelengths are missing. They are missing because they
were absorbed by the gas they passed through. The spectrometer matches
this pattern of missing wavelengths, or “fingerprint,” with those of known
substances, thus identifying the unknown gas.
An emission spectrometer analyzes the light coming from (being emitted by) a source, such as a star, and identifies
the source material (that is, what is burning or glowing) by the wavelengths (colors) of light it emits.
For example, x-ray spectrometers
Your tongue works with your nose to identify what you are eating or drinking.
So, spectrometers might also be considered tasters, since they can analyze
what’s in a substance that has emitted light or a substance that light has
passed through. Other special x-ray spectrometers can directly bombard with
x-rays solid things, such as rocks, and then detect the rock’s composition
based on the energy “fingerprint” that echoes back into the instrument. In
this pictured model of the Pathfinder “Sojourner” rover that explored Mars in
1997, the x-ray spectrometer is helping Sojourner “taste” a rock.
29 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Table 1. (Continued)
Examples are drillers, scrapers, corers, sample collectors, rock crushers, ice scrapers, particle detectors
If you wanted to know about a substance, you would probably touch it directly. You would feel its texture,
hardness, temperature, wetness, etc. “Feeler” instruments might be mechanical devices such as drillers or scrapers
or corers. Or, maybe even rock crushers to find out how hard the material is and get it ready for the spectrometer
(sniffer/taster) to analyze it. This sequence of pictures shows a rock (of Earthly origins) being crushed for analysis
by a spectrometer.
Other types of “feelers” are sample collectors (as if they are grabbing or
trapping something with their hands) or particle or dust detectors (which
sense when, say, an electrically charged particle strikes a surface, or the
instrument’s “skin”). This picture shows how a human-made substance called
“aerogel” can trap particles for later analysis.
An example is a magnetometer.
Some scientific instruments directly detect things that none of our
five senses can detect. Magnetic fields fall into this category (although
some birds and other animals may sense Earth’s magnetic field and use
it to navigate). If not for a compass, we humans might not know about
Earth’s magnetic lines of force. An instrument that detects and measures
magnetic fields is called a magnetometer. As on the Voyager spacecraft in
this picture, a magnetometer is often placed at the end of a long boom so
magnetic fields from the spacecraft itself do not interfere.
f. What would be a good follow-up mission for the
8. Get together as a whole class again, and have someone
from each group present your team’s space science
mission, its findings, and what kind of mission should be
New Instruments for New Worlds
The worlds that nature has made may be even stranger than
anything your imagination can dream up. It is important for
NASA to keep developing new instrument technologies so
that missions of exploration can gather information never
before captured and in places never before visited.
NASA’s Planetary Instrument Definition and Development
(PIDD) Program has the job of picking and developing likely
technologies that will help scientists to learn new things
from future missions to explore the solar system. Some of
the instruments are meant to be part of a spacecraft that will
orbit or fly by a planet or moon or asteroid. Some are meant
to be part of a spacecraft that will land on the surface of a
mysterious world or penetrate beneath the surface.
Developing a scientific instrument technology is, in a way,
a mission on its own. Besides coming up with an idea, or
a “new and improved” idea, for gathering needed science
information, engineers try to make the technology as small,
power-efficient, and low cost as possible. With computers
and electronics shrinking in size and growing in capability
all the time, spacecraft can be smaller and, therefore, less
expensive to build and
launch. But that means
everything else that goes into
the spacecraft, including the
science instruments that are
the “payload,” must shrink
Here are some of the new
instruments and technologies
the PIDD Program has
developed so far:
Ice penetrating radar: Could
be used on a mission to
30 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Jupiter’s moon Europa, as shown in the artist’s rendering, to
find out the depth of the ice covering the surface and learn
whether a liquid ocean lies below it.
Rock crusher and sorter: Could be used to prepare a rock
or a core sample of the ground (drilled out by a different
instrument), crushing it into fine particles for an x-ray
spectrometer to analyze. Table 1 showed this instrument
New Aerogels: Aerogel is the lightest solid material ever
made. It is 99.9% air. So far, the only material used for the
other .1% has been silicate, which is like sand. This aerogel
material was used by the Stardust mission to capture
comet particles and return them to Earth for analysis. The
trouble is, some of the comet particles were very similar
to silicate and therefore hard to separate from the aerogel.
So the PIDD program is developing some aerogels made of
different materials not likely to be found in such samples.
Table 2. Summary of a mission to an alien world
Name of Mission:
Destination (name of planet,
moon, asteroid, etc.):
Known characteristics of
Questions (3 to 5) to be
answered, plus science
instrument needed for each
The photo above shows samples of some new aerogels under
Imaging spectrometer: This is a special instrument that
can take a picture of something and analyze what substances
are in it at the same time. This instrument has already found
a use right here on Earth in diagnosing human eye disease.
Without engineers working hard on these new kinds of
instruments for planetary exploration, our knowledge and
understanding of the solar system—and all the other solar
systems out there—could not advance.
You can read about another new kind of spectrometer that
uses a laser and find out how laser light is different from
ordinary light. Visit http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/
Type of Mission:
What we learned:
What we didn’t learn:
Proposal for a future mission?
If “other,” describe.
This article was written by Diane Fisher, writer and
designer of The Space Place website at spaceplace.nasa.
gov. The article was provided through the courtesy of the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, under a contract with the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
31 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
The “No Trucks” Design
By Harry T. Roman
Encourage your students to dream
first and challenge the boundaries
before they settle down to developing
a single idea.
This activity is certainly multi-dimensional and likely to
cause some interesting reactions among students. It deals
with a transportation system, and changing it, so a certain
class of vehicle is literally removed from the roadways.
Large tractor-trailers have a reputation of being involved in
rather horrific accidents, often involving death and carnage
among smaller passenger vehicles. The giant rigs, according
to some transportation experts, may have outlived their
usefulness on crowded highways, and perhaps it is time we
rethink their presence on the America roadways.
The job of your students is to create unique new ways to
move the goods that are now moved via automotive tractortrailers.
And in this endeavor, the students may not develop
ideas where conventional tractor-trailer containerized
trailers are delivered in any way over the existing highway
system. This cargo cannot be simply loaded onto another
class of highway vehicle. They may not add more containerized
cargo to the railroads either.
Large tractor-trailers may have outlived their usefulness on
They must develop a completely new way to move truck
cargo. They are free to pursue any other alternatives they
wish. This challenge is completely open-ended, with just the
constraints mentioned above.
In developing their ideas, students should be mindful of how
their new routes for transporting large amounts of goods
• Air quality
• Land use
• Cost to the consumer and businesses
• Human safety
• Existing infrastructures like bridges, pipelines, power
32 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Students should be encouraged to work in teams on this
design challenge and develop a variety of alternative ways
to move the goods, and then choose the one(s) that seem to
best minimize impact on the parameters listed above.
It would be most helpful for students to consider the use of
aerial maps, plot plans, and perhaps even GPS-type maps to
plan out alternate ways to move the goods to customer locations.
How do they know where the goods need to be delivered?
How can they identify other land routes for this cargo?
Does it have to be limited to land routes? What other kinds
of routes and rights-of-way already exist that may be built
upon or used to deliver cargo and get it off the highways?
The students might find it helpful, if time permits, to
research this issue or to discuss the problem with highway
planners, local city planners, businesses, and storeowners.
Perhaps they should be surveyed to obtain some of their
ideas and thoughts. It might be possible to consider a whole
new type of infrastructure that is dedicated to moving goods
and services to densely populated areas directly without the
need for roadways, conventional railroads, and large trucks.
Another thing to keep in mind: If the students can conceive
of ways to bulk-deliver the goods to cities, how would the
goods make their way to customers who may live in suburban/rural
This certainly raises the question of how such a new infrastructure
would be built and financed…and then integrated
into an already densely populated area like a city surrounded
by mature suburban communities. This challenge is not unlike
the situation where urban renewal brings in a completely
new concept for land use, something local citizens have
never seen before in their community. Might there be some
insight to be gained by having representatives from your local
community stop by and talk to your class about how past
large-scale projects have been handled in the community?
Don’t forget the
impacts on the
trucking and transportation
How do utility companies create new corridors for
electric power through existing communities?
Your local electric utility company is also involved in these
kinds of problems. How do you think they plan to put a new
high-voltage transmission line through many communities
when they need to make new corridors for electric power
delivery? Do they put the lines on those big steel towers
or do they bury them underground? This seems similar to
the kind of problem your students are facing in this design
challenge. Utilities have a long record of working with teachers
and schools, with many of their engineers often visiting
classrooms and schools to discuss a wide variety of subjects.
Perhaps you can give your local utility a call to find out if
someone can speak to your students. Also worth looking
into are other utility-type organizations like water companies,
sewer companies, natural gas utilities, and telephone
Here is one to think about—how do oil companies locate the
routes for oil pipelines? There must be some information
there of use to your students.
And don’t forget the obvious. How are new roads themselves
planned and routed through communities? What are
the concerns, impacts, and issues that need to be dealt with?
Lots of good information is here to help move this project
along and get those creative juices flowing.
Don’t forget the impacts on the trucking and transportation
industry. What happens here? How do their workers and
industry transition during this changeover to a new way to
move bulk cargo?
This a very interesting design challenge, and likely to generate
some fascinating ideas. Encourage your students to
dream first and challenge the boundaries before they settle
down to developing a single idea. And make sure they think
in three-dimensional space as well.
Harry T. Roman recently retired from his
engineering job and is the author of a variety
of new technology education books. He
can be reached via email at htroman49@
33 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Conestoga Valley School District, PA
Submitted by Len S. Litowitz
Gary Landis is in his 36 th and final year as a teacher and
program supervisor for technology education in the
Conestoga Valley School District. The district earned
a High School Program Excellence Award from ITEA
in 2003 and a Middle School Program Excellence Award
in 2007. During that time Mr. Landis and his colleagues
have expanded curriculum, staff, and facilities at a time
when many other programs have leveled off or contracted.
With that in mind, Mr. Landis reflected on all that has
gone right at CV over the course of his career during this
About the District
The Conestoga Valley School District is located in historic
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The district covers 56
square miles comprising a population of approximately
29,000 people in an area that is best described as agricultural
and rural-residential. Situated near the heart of
Pennsylvania Dutch country, the district included the only
publicly funded Amish school in the country for many
years. Conestoga Valley High School graduates between 250
and 300 students yearly. The district employs two full-time
technology teachers at its middle school and seven full-time
technology teachers at its high school including Mr. Landis,
who has release time for program supervision.
The “Big Picture” Look at Technology Education
The goals of the Conestoga Valley Technology Education
Department are to provide all students with:
1. The technology skills they need to be technologically
A CV technology classroom.
2. The ability to make smart career choices.
3. A solid preparation for post-secondary schooling or for
the world of work.
4. The knowledge and skill to perform well on standardized
One element that has helped to improve the growth and
image of the program at CV is a five-year curriculum review
cycle to determine if state standards are being met. This
review is conducted by a joint committee made up of technology
education faculty, district students, local industry
representatives, and members of the community. A full report
is provided by the committee to the school board. Using
the findings of the curriculum review, recommendations
for changes to the curriculum and course offerings are made
in the third year of each five-year cycle. Another unique
34 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
the program can offer so many courses is that each course
is only nine weeks long. This allows for a greater variety of
technology education offerings than traditional half-year
courses. Course subjects range from those traditionally associated
with the field of technology education to many contemporary
offerings such as Engineering, Aviation, Control
& Power Technology, and three levels of videography. Even
those courses with traditional titles have moved toward
contemporary content. For instance, traditional materials
courses include CNC experiences, tours of local industry,
and estimating skills. Teachers also include related reading
and math content in an effort to help students’ performance
on state-mandated tests.
CV offers three levels of videography.
element of the Conestoga Valley curriculum is that it has
shifted from a teacher-centered methodology to a studentcentered
methodology over time. This change is in keeping
with current literature about preparing students for future
employment. An example of this change would be dividing
topics in the electronics curriculum into three different
units and then preparing instructional materials, supplies,
website resources, videos, etc. for inclusion into various instruction
manuals that clearly direct the students’ research,
reading, and activities. Students in groups of two are assigned
to one of the three units. At the end of the “module”
students may be asked to make a class presentation or write
a summary of their experiences. Students then rotate to a
new unit and repeat the technology learning activities. This
approach is a slight modification to the “turn key” modular
approach used by many vendors. In this lab the instructor
facilitates learning in three different units with perhaps
three or four groups in each unit at the same time.
The technology education program offerings within the
Conestoga Valley School District are varied and extensive.
Descriptions are provided for a few of the courses that are
more unique to the district. Technology education at CV
begins with required coursework for all students at the
middle school level, a state requirement in Pennsylvania,
and continues throughout the high school years. In ninth
grade a General Technology Education course is taken by
all students within the district. A description of this course
follows. Note within the description that this course can
be taken for honors credit as well. Beyond the ninth grade
required course, approximately 30 additional courses are offered
by the department at the high school level. One reason
Conestoga Valley Middle School
Grade 7: Technology Education
Technology education is required of all students. Basic skills
instruction in materials production, engineering, drafting/
CADD, and technology education (including 12 different
technologies in a module lab such as—Lasers, Construction,
Digital Video, Control Tech, Robotics, Aviation, Biotechnology)
are presented. Technology education is taught every
other day for one semester (three 40-minute periods per
cycle for one half-year semester).
Grade 8: Technology Education (elective)
Technology education is available to all students on an elective
basis. Additional study in areas of interest in the module
lab, CAD, and materials lab is available. All students participate
in a Technology/Math/Science integrated boat-building
A student learns about digital photography.
35 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Technology Learning Activity (TLA) activity as well (three
40-minute periods per cycle, one year).
Conestoga Valley High School
Grade 9: General Technology Education (required for all
9 th grade students.)
This course is required of all ninth grade students and
includes studies in three different areas, each lasting onethird
of the time. Studies are in energy, graphics, power
and transportation, and include projects in aerodynamics,
power, electronics, and MAGLEV. Career Development/
Exploration is also part of this class. Earned Honors credit is
Ninth graders study transportation.
A programmable logic controller.
Grades 10 -12: (elective courses)
• CADD 1 Technology
• CADD 2 Technology
• Advanced CADD Technology
• Architectural CADD
• Electronics Technology 1
• Electronics Technology 2
• Control & Power Technology
This nine-week course is designed to give students a basic
knowledge of man’s prime movers, the power and force
behind all that is done, including how they work and
the problems frequently involved. Students interested in
mechanics or engineering will be introduced to power, its
generation, control, and transfer. Students will understand
how power is applied in today’s ever-changing world.
Units covered include: harnessing energy for work, mechanical
power, fluid power (principles and theory), fluid
power systems, electrical power systems, the energy man
uses, controlling energy for power, small engines, and automotive
technology. Practical experience: small engines
and experimental projects, as facilities permit. This class
includes various field trips to relate subject matter to realwork
• Engineering/Applied Technology 1
This nine-week course is primarily a hands-on problemsolving
course. Students will work in groups, as well as
individually, to design and build a variety of projects that
include motors, gears, structural engineering, computer
control, etc. This is an excellent course for students who
like to let their hands work through their minds to solve
problems. Many of the challenges will incorporate classroom
competitions, as well as possible state and national
competition. This course is designed to educate students
on what exactly engineering is and how the system by
which everything in the world is made works.
• Engineering/Applied Technology 2
• Aerospace Technology
• Aviation Technology
This nine-week course will explore the history of man’s
desire to fly and the technology used to accomplish it. The
course will look at the aspects of flight from lighter-thanair
aircraft to the jet age. The class is about 50% classroom
time and 50% lab time. Some lab time will be spent on
required experimentation and problem solving. Other
project assignments will include dirigibles, model air-
36 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
planes, work on a full-size airplane, and a variety of other
projects. Some flight training is done on a simulator, and
there may be an opportunity to fly a plane. Studies will include
basic flight principles, airplane instruments, reading
aeronautical charts, and planning a flight course. Courses
will include reading and writing assignments, computer
use, and problem solving. Students will be expected to
adhere to required safety rules and pay for materials used
in the course.
• Graphics Technology 1
• Graphics Technology 2
• Advanced Graphics Technology
• Metal Manufacturing Technology1
• Metal Manufacturing Technology2
• Advanced Metal Manufacturing
• Photography Technology 1
• Photography Technology 2
• Plastics Technology 1
• Plastics Technology 2
• Video Production Technology 1
• Video Production Technology 2
• Video Production Technology 3
• Wood Technology 1
• Wood Technology 2
• Advanced Wood Technology
• Furniture-Making Technology
• Construction Technology
Keeping Pace with Changes in the Curriculum
As a result of the curriculum review cycle and the representation
of people from the community serving on that
committee, we have been able to change our facilities to
keep pace with the curriculum. An example of these changes
would be the addition of 20 computers with appropriate
software in the graphics/photography lab. Also in that
lab we added a Xante plate maker that is capable of making
plates for the press from electronic proofs. Computers
now include AutoCAD and Chief Architect software in the
drafting lab, and CNC equipment has been added including
a router, lathe, and mill. Some items, such as the laser
engraver and automated carousel screen printer have been
the result of grants.
The important part of the process to update curriculum and
equipment is to include key people from the community
on the curriculum review committee—people who represent
parents, students, alumni, and business and industry
representation who have an interest in the technologies
being taught. Keeping the community informed of student
accomplishments is also important. TSA and TEAP can play
an important role in helping to create periodic news releases
on what is happening in the Tech Ed department. Locating
funding either from district funds or grants is much easier
after the groundwork and justification for purchases has
been completed. As you might suspect, TE staff, supervisor/
department chair, and administrators need to be involved in
supporting the program and promoting it beyond the time
spent in the classroom.
The curricular review process described earlier is one innovation
that has served to move the CV curriculum in a
positive direction and to keep the technology education program
in the forefront with the administration and the community.
Program Supervisor Gary Landis points out that the
district has a public relations person on staff, and it is his
job to constantly feed that person with information about
the technology education program. Mr. Landis takes it as a
personal responsibility to promote each and every success
story. To that end, CV has active TSA chapters at the middle
school and high school levels that result in numerous public
relations opportunities. He has also promoted the program
through local civic organizations like the Lions Club, Rotary
Club, the Chamber of Commerce, and with local leaders in
business and industry, local legislators, and even state senators.
Mr. Landis describes making connections as vital to a
successful program. In his words, it has taken him 30 years
to get to know most of the community and the local school
board. These are connections he feels are necessary to creating
and growing a successful program. Lastly, he recommends
that all technology educators be politically astute and
get involved at all levels. His final comment: “Think about
the big picture in education and make your program a part
CarveWright Woodworking System........... 22
The College of New Jersey............................ 39
Kelvin Electronics........................................... 26
Millersville University.................................... 39
National Association of Home Builders..... 39
University of Wisconsin................................ 38
37 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Up-to-date coverage of the latest technology developments
New program features:
• Hardware including iPhone, Zune,
gaming consoles and storage devices
• Software including Windows Vista
and digital photography
• Wireless Networks including voice over IP
• 3D Virtual Reality
• Knowledge and Skill Building Activities
Contents in brief:
• The Nature of Technology
• Design for a Technological World
• Materials, Manufacturing, and Construction
• Communication and Information Technology
Grades 6 – 9
• Energy, Power, and Transportation
• Biological and Chemical Technology
• The Future of Technology in Society
FREE Samples Available for Technology Education Teachers!
Visit www.PearsonSchool.com/teched or call 866-326-4259 for more information.
First of its kind scholarship.
Only at UW-Stout.
Anyone planning to enroll in the technology education
program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout during
the next two years has a one-of-a-kind opportunity.
Qualified applicants could be awarded a $10,000
scholarship unique among technology education
programs in the nation.
Recipients of this scholarship will graduate with
credentials to teach Project Lead The Way, Inc.
courses, a new engineering curriculum that is
sweeping Wisconsin and the entire country.
Graduates of UW-Stout with a background in
Project Lead The Way, Inc. will be very desirable
candidates for teaching positions in schools that
are implementing Project Lead The Way, Inc.
For more information contact Dr. Brian McAlister,
For more information about UW-Stout scholarships and applying
For more information about Project Lead The Way, Inc. visit
Two Tenure-Track Assistant or Associate Professors
(Mechanical Engineering and Technology Education)
Technological Studies/School of Engineering
The Department of Technological Studies in the School of Engineering at The College of New Jersey
invites applications for two tenure-track faculty positions starting September 2008.
The Department of Technological Studies has created one of the first majors in technology education with a pre-engineering focus and is establishing
a national dialog between engineering and education. Our vision is to graduate the next generation of educational leaders with pedagogical
and pre-engineering content knowledge and capabilities necessary to create technologically and pre-engineering literate children. Graduates of
the program will be able to gain qualifications to teach in Project Lead The Way (PLTW) programs. The Department consists of 5 faculty members,
a Center for Design and Technology with 3 Ph.D. researchers and 6 supporting staff members ($13 million in research over the past 12 years),
publishes TIES Magazine http://www.tiesmagazine.org/, and offers four year programs that lead to Bachelor of Science degrees in Technology Education/Pre-Engineering,
M/S/T Elementary Education, M/S/T Early Childhood Education, M/S/T Deaf and Hard of Hearing Education, M/S/T Special
Education, and an M.A.T. in Technology Education. There are currently 140 students enrolled in these programs.
We seek broadly trained candidates who have the potential to collaborate in the national dialog between engineering and education, participate in
creating pre-engineering curriculum and related interdisciplinary efforts in the Department and School of Engineering. Successful candidates will
have teaching responsibilities as indicated below and each is expected to be an effective teacher, prepare curriculum and laboratory experiences,
provide service, and develop a program of scholarship.
• Mechanical Engineering – an earned doctorate in engineering or education with at least a baccalaureate in mechanical engineering is required.
Each successful candidate must present evidence of experience and capabilities in P-12 education with a preference for pre-engineering
and successful industrial experience.
• Technology Education – an earned doctorate in Technology Education or a closely related field is required. Each successful candidate must
present evidence of experience and capabilities in Technology Education with a preference for P-12 pre-engineering education.
Enrolling 6,000 students, the College is a highly selective public institution and is ranked the number one public regional university in the North
by US News and World Report. The College is located on a beautiful 265-acre suburban campus setting approximately 10 miles south of Princeton
within easy commuting distance of New York and Philadelphia. Applicant screening will begin immediately and continue until the position is filled.
Applicants must submit a vita, a letter clarifying their experience in P-12 education and professional goals, student evaluations or other evidence
of teaching ability, and three references to: Dr. John Karsnitz, Chair, Department of Technological Studies, The College of New Jersey, P.O. Box
7718, Ewing, NJ 08628. To enrich education through diversity, The College of New Jersey is an AA/EOE employer.
FREE award-winning interactive CD-ROM
for middle and high school students
context to math,
social studies and
curricula as students
design, build and sell
Computers for Youth Family Software Award finalist, Parents' Choice
Silver Award, and International EMMA (Learning 3-18)
a 3D home.
Developed by the National Association of Home Builders, this is a complete
program (not a demo) that comes with a Teacher's Guide and is FREE to
classroom teachers (no shipping or handling charges).
INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY
Graphic Communications &
Digital Imaging Technology
39 • The Technology Teacher • November 2007
Everything, no matter how big and spectacular, starts out as just an idea. Inspire your students to turn their ideas
into the next big thing. Help them advance in the key areas of science, technology, engineering and math by
integrating powerful Autodesk 2D and 3D design software and innovative curriculum into your classroom. Learn
more by joining our community at autodesk.com/edcommunity.
Download free*software at autodesk.com/edcommunity
Image of the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park courtesy of dbox. Architecture by Cook+Fox Architects.
Image of the Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park courtesy of dbox. Architecture by Cook+Fox Architects.
*Free products are subject to the terms and conditions of the end-user license agreement that accompanies download of the software. Autodesk is a registered trademark of Autodesk, Inc., in the USA and/or other countries.
All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product offerings and specifications at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or
graphical errors that may appear in this document. © 2007 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.