February 2005 - Vol 64, No 5 - International Technology and ...

iteaconnect.org

February 2005 - Vol 64, No 5 - International Technology and ...

FEBRUARY 2005 Volume 64, No. 5

Construction as a

Creative Act

Also: A New National Center for Engineering and

Technology Education

www.iteawww.org


FEBRUARY 2005

Volume 64, No. 5

Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE

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

Editor, Kathie F. Cluff

ITEA Board of Directors

Anna Sumner, President

George Willcox, Past President

Ethan Lipton, DTE, President-Elect

Doug Wagner, Director, ITEA-CS

Tom Shown, Director, Region 1

Chris Merrill, Director, Region 2

Dale Hanson, Director, Region 3

Doug Walrath, Director, Region 4

Rodney Custer, DTE, Director, CTTE

Michael DeMiranda, Director, TECA

Patrick N. Foster, Director, TECC

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, Executive Director

ITEA is an affiliate of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science.

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

eight times a year (September through June with combined

December/January and May/June issues) by the

International Technology Education Association,

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

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

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

Single copies are $8.50 for members; $9.50 for

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

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

Email: iteacomm@iris.org

World Wide Web: www.iteawww.org

Advertising Sales:

ITEA Publications Department

703-860-2100

Fax: 703-860-0353

Subscription Claims

All subscription claims must be made within 60 days of the

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

For combined issues, claims will be honored within 60 days

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

of repeated delivery problems outside the continental United

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

ITEA will ship the subscription copy, but assumes no

responsibility thereafter.

The Technology Teacher is listed in the Educational Index

and the Current Index to Journal in Education. Volumes are

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

1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.

Change of Address

Send change of address notification promptly. Provide old

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

Allow six weeks for change.

Postmaster

Send address change to: The Technology Teacher, Address

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

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

and additional mailing offices.

DEPARTMENTS

2 ITEA Online

3 In the News and Calendar

5 You & ITEA

6 ITEA/NASA-JPL Learning Activity

14 IDSA Activity

17 Resources in Technology

FEATURES

10 Working It Out by Hand: Construction as a

Creative Act

In this project, conducted with sophomores at the Bowling Green State University’s

Architecture program, students explore the design/build principle of collaboration

and integrated processes.

Andreas Luescher and K. Scott Kutz

21 The P.A.C.E.S. Grading Rubric: Creating a Student-

Owned Assessment Tool for Projects

One teacher’s approach to grading project work: the P.A.C.E.S. grading rubric.

Robert B. Tufte, Jr.

23 National Center for Engineering and Technology

Education

A team of faculty members from nine universities met to develop a proposal to

create a Center for Learning and Teaching that would link engineering and

technology education faculty in a partnership to build capacity and benefit the

profession.

Christine E. Hailey, Thomas Erekson, Kurt Becker, and Maurice Thomas

26 Rededication of Osburn Hall at Millersville University

27 ITEA Financial Report – Fiscal 2004

29 How to Keep Your Program Relevant (and Standards-

Based)

How do we ensure that our programs are relevant to what students need in order to

prosper in our increasingly technological society?

Mark Spoerk

31 ITEA Conference Exhibitors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


Editorial Review Board

Co-Chairperson

Co-Chairperson

Dan Engstrom

Stan Komacek

California University of PA California University of PA

NEW ON ITEA’S WEB SITE

Steve Anderson

Nikolay Middle School, WI

Stephen Baird

Bayside Middle School, VA

Lynn Basham

MI Department of Education

Jolette Bush

Midvale Middle School, UT

Philip Cardon

Eastern Michigan University

Michael Cichocki

Salisbury Middle School, PA

Gerald Day

University of MD-ES

Mike Fitzgerald

IN Department of Education

Tom Frawley

G. Ray Bodley High School, NY

John W. Hansen

University of Houston

Roger Hill

University of Georgia

Angela Hughes

Morrow High School, GA

Laura Hummell

Manteo Middle School, NC

Frank Kruth

South Fayette MS, PA

Ivan Mosley, Sr.

Jackson State University

Don Mugan

Valley City State University

Terrie Rust

Oasis Elementary School, AZ

Monty Robinson

Black Hills State University

Andy Stephenson

Scott County High School, KY

Greg Vander Weil

Wayne State College

Steve Waldstein

Dike-New Hartford Schools, IA

Scott Warner

Millersville University of PA

Katherine Weber

Des Plaines, IL

Eric Wiebe

North Carolina State Univ.

Editorial Policy

As the only national and international association dedicated

solely to the development and improvement of technology

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

exchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education.

Materials appearing in the journal, including advertising,

are expressions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the official policy or the opinion of the association, its

officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff.

Referee Policy

All professional articles in The Technology Teacher are

refereed, with the exception of selected association activities

and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles are

reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board before

publication in The Technology Teacher. Articles with bylines

will be identified as either refereed or invited unless written

by ITEA officers on association activities or policies.

To Submit Articles

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

International Technology Education Association, 1914

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

Please submit photographs to accompany the article, a

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

copies. Maximum length for manuscripts is 8 pages.

Manuscripts should be prepared following the style specified

in the Publications Manual of the American Psychological

Association, Fifth Edition.

Editorial guidelines and review policies are available by

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

F7.htm. Contents copyright © 2004 by the International

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

Now Available on the ITEA Web Site:

The Technology Teacher e :

A Program Combining Engineering and Teaching

Certification

Describes an accredited engineering degree program, developed

and launched at Michigan Tech, that allows students flexibility in

pursuing interests outside of engineering.

Sheryl A. Sorby and Bradley Baltensperger

Also available online:

ITEA’s Journals and Publications –

www.iteawww.org/F.html

Everything you need to know about The Technology Teacher,

Technology and Children, Journal of Technology Education, Bright

Ideas, TrendScout, and the Standards-Based Publication Series.

Learn how you can submit your own articles for publication. Get

additional help with writing for these journals with the Technology

Teacher Toolkit. Order the latest publications and curriculum

materials from ITEA's Online Publications Catalog. Find ads, images,

press releases, and presentations that relate to ITEA's benefits,

publications, and professional development on the Editor's Page.

They are free to use in your publications, on your Web site, or

anywhere you think they would be beneficial to teachers. All this

and more!

www.iteawww.org

ITEA ONLINE

2 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


IN THE NEWS & CALENDAR

How to Save Money on the

ITEA Annual Conference in

Kansas City

If you are planning to attend the 67th

Annual ITEA Conference in Kansas

City, MO and haven’t registered yet,

you can save money by finalizing

your plans now. For example, a

professional member who

preregisters before March 4 will save

$50 on registration, and a nonmember

will save $75. There are

discounts for student members, both

undergraduate and graduate, and for

guests as well. Savings are also

available for attendees who book

with the ITEA hotels prior to the

deadline dates (March 1 for the

Kansas City Marriott Downtown and

March 15 for the DoubleTree).

Check the ITEA Web site at

www.iteawww.org for complete

information and forms for

preregistration, housing, and tours.

In addition to saving money by

registering early, there is a good

possibility that many of your

conference expenses are tax

deductible as well. According to the

July 2004 issue of Association

Management magazine (Vol. 56, No.

7, page 21) registration, transportation

expenses, and lodging

expenses may be 100% deductible,

while meals and entertainment may

be 50% deductible. (Expenses that

are reimbursed by an employer to an

employee are not deductible by the

employee, however.) So be sure to

save your receipts and other

documentation for the IRS and join us

in Kansas City. It’s more affordable

than you may think.

NSF Funds Center for

Engineering and Technology

Education

The National Center for Engineering

and Technology Education (NCETE), a

consortium of nine universities and

more than fifteen school districts,

was recently awarded $10 million

over the next five years by the

National Science Foundation (NSF).

The purpose for NCETE is to build

capacity, develop leaders, and

conduct research focused on infusing

engineering design and analytical

methods into K-12 schools through

technology education.

NCETE is one of the 17 Centers for

Teaching and Learning in the country,

and the only center addressing

engineering and technology

education. Centers for Teaching and

Learning are required to have a Ph.D.

component, a teacher education

component, a K-12 school

component, and a research

component. NCETE will

accomplish its program of work by

teaming engineering faculty and

technology education faculty in a

systematic approach.

NCETE is national in scope, with

much of its work accomplished

through collaborative partnerships

between universities and school

districts found in regional teams that

facilitate collaborative research,

professional development, capacity

building, and dissemination of

research findings and model

practices. NCETE also facilitates

collaboration among Ph.D. programs,

teacher education programs, and

K-12 partners to build capacity and to

share effective strategies and

practices. Center partners have

strengths in engineering and in

technology education. To learn more

about NCETE, visit the Web site at

www.ncete.org or e-mail

ncete@usu.edu. (See the article on

page 23 of this issue of TTT.)

ITEA Steps Up Relationship

With Design/Museum

World

The International Technology

Education Association recently linked

with the Cooper-Hewitt Design

Museum of the Smithsonian

Institution in New York City to

increase opportunities for its

membership and technology

teachers. ITEA will lend support to

Cooper Hewitt’s Summer Design

Institute by providing scholarships for

two teachers for the Design

Museum’s workshops. ITEA will also

provide presenters to the program on

the topic of standards and what is

happening in the profession in terms

of curriculum and professional

development.

Educators and designers are invited

to join an international roster of

renowned designers and design

educators as they share strategies for

engaging K-12 students in the design

process. Summer Design Institute is

a one-week program that features

hands-on workshops, studio visits,

and keynote presentations that

connect the school curriculum with

the world beyond the classroom.

The Summer Design Institute 2005

will take place on July 11-15, 2005 at

The Museum of the American Indian,

Smithsonian Institution in New York

City. Fees are: $250 (Cooper-Hewitt

members) and $300 (Non-members).

For additional program and credit

information, call Cooper-Hewitt’s

Education Department at 212-849-

8385 or visit the Web site at

http://ndm.si.edu/.

CALENDAR

February 15, 2005

Space Day Design Challenge

submissions due

(www.spaceday.org).

February 16-18, 2005

DeVilbiss, Binks and Owens

Community College have teamed up

to present a Spray Finishing

Technology Workshop in Toledo, OH.

Classes meet from 8:30 am to 4:00

pm daily, include both classroom and

hands-on sessions, and offer two

Continuing Education Units.

Attendees should be involved with

industrial, contractor, or maintenance

spray finishing applications, or spray

equipment sales and distribution. To

register, or for additional information,

call 800-466-9367, ext. 7357, e-mail

sprayworkshop@netscape.net, or

visit www.owens.edu/workforce_cs/

index.html and click “Seminars.”

NEWS AND CALENDAR

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 3


NEWS AND CALENDAR

February 20-26, 2005

National Engineers Week, including

the finals of the National Engineers

Week Future City Competition.

For complete information, visit

www.futurecity.org; or contact

Future City National Director, Carol

Rieg, at 877-636-9578 or

CRieg@futurecity.org.

February 24-26, 2005

The 9th Annual Children’s Engineering

Convention will be held at the

Richmond, VA Marriott West

(Innsbrook). Sponsored by the

Virginia Technology Education

Association, NASA Center for

Distance Learning, and Technology

Service of Virginia Department of

Education, the convention is designed

for K-5 teachers and administrators.

The conference will present best

practices and classroom instructional

strategies that improve teaching and

learning in ways that support

achievement of national and state

standards while integrating Children’s

Engineering into the existing

curriculum. Convention information

and registration forms are available at

www.vtea.org/ESTE/. Additional

contacts are Linda Harpine at

lharpine@childrensengineering.com

or George Willcox at

gwillcox@pen.k12.va.us.

February 24-26, 2005

The Association of Texas Technology

Education will present its conference

at Texas A&M University. For

information, contact Conference

Director Dan Vrudny at

dvrudny@sulross.edu.

March 4, 2005

Preregistration deadline for the ITEA

Annual Conference in Kansas City,

MO, April 3-5, 2005. After this date,

all registrations for the conference

will be at the on-site rate.

March 17-18, 2005

The Triangle Coalition will present its

Annual Legislative Update

Conference, Informing Policy in

Support of Mathematics, Science,

and Technology Education, at the

Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel in

Washington, DC. Local, state, and

national leaders in technology,

science, and mathematics

education are invited to attend.

Visit www.trianglecoalition.org or

call 800-582-0115 for details.

March 31-April 1, 2005

The 42nd Annual NYSTEA (New York

State Technology Education

Association) Conference will be held

at Buffalo State College in Buffalo,

NY. A call for presentations appeared

in the October, 2004 issue of the

New York State Technology Teacher.

For information contact Clark Greene

at greencw@buffalostate.edu.

March 31-April 3, 2005

The National Science Teachers

Association (NSTA) National

Convention will be held in Dallas, TX.

For additional information, visit the

Web site at www.nsta.org.

April 3-5, 2005

The 67th Annual ITEA Conference and

Exhibition, “Preparing the Next

Generation for Technological

Literacy,” will be held in Kansas City,

MO. With an entirely new schedule,

including expanded registration and

resource booth hours, several new

networking/social events, and, yes,

even a free lunch, the Kansas City

conference promises to be one of

the most exciting in years. Visit

www.iteawww.org for the most

up-to-date details.

April 11-16, 2005

The Department of Education,

partnering with the National Science

Foundation and other U.S. government

agencies and scientific

societies, is sponsoring Excellence

in Science, Technology, and

Mathematics Education Week

(ESTME Week). Details can be found

at www.estme.org.

May 5, 2005

Space Day national celebration in

Washington, DC—the culmination of

the yearlong “Return to the Moon”

Space Day events. Full details and

registration forms are available on the

Space Day Web site at

www.spaceday.org.

June 24-28, 2005

The 5th International Primary Design

and Technology Conference,

Excellence through Enjoyment, will be

held at the Quality Inn, Hagley Road,

Birmingham, England. The conference

will be hosted by CRIPT (Centre for

Research into Primary Technology).

Booking forms are available at

www.uce.ac.uk/cript. The conference

will include research papers, case

studies, practical workshops, visits to

primary schools, and displays of

resources. The Conference Language

is English. Contact Professor Clare

Benson, CRIPT, UCE; Fax: +44 121

331 6147; clare.benson@uce.ac.uk

for more information.

June 28-July 2, 2005

The National Technology Student

Association (TSA) conference will be

held in Chicago, IL. Visit

www.tsaweb.org for additional

information.

June 28-July 2, 2005

The National TECA Leadership

Conference will be held in

conjunction with the National TSA

Conference at the Sheraton Chicago

Hotel & Towers in Chicago, IL. All

TECA members are invited to attend.

Contact your TECA advisor for

information.

List your State/Province Association

Conference in TTT, TrendScout, and on

ITEA’s Web Calendar. Submit conference

title, date(s), location, and contact

information (at least two months prior

to journal publication date) to

iteapubs@iris.org.

4 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


YOU & ITEA

ITEA Announces Election

Results

The International Technology

Education Association (ITEA) has

announced the winners of its recent

Board of Directors election. Kenneth

Starkman (WI) is ITEA’s new

President-Elect on a ballot that also

elected Paul Jacobs (VA) and Julie

Moore (TX) as Directors for Region 1

and 3.

Ken Starkman is a

Technology and

Engineering Education

Consultant with the

Wisconsin

Department of Public

Instruction in

Madison, Wisconsin.

He has been active in ITEA as a

member of the Council for

Supervisors, CATTS Consortium

member, and Standards for

Technological Literacy reviewer.

Paul Jacobs is a

technology education

classroom instructor

at T. Benton Gayle

Middle School in

Fredericksburg,

Virginia. In addition

to being a past ITEA

conference presenter, he has been

very involved with education issues at

the state level and is a 2003 Agnes

Myers Washington Post Outstanding

Teacher.

Julie Moore is

Director of the Center

for Technology

Literacy at the

University of Houston

in Houston, Texas.

She has been active

in ITEA as a

conference planner and membership

committee chair. She is also very

involved with the Association of Texas

Technology Educators.

The newly-elected members of the

ITEA Board of Directors will begin their

terms at the ITEA Annual Conference

in Kansas City, Missouri, April 3-5,

2005.

Engineering and Learning

Communities Top Board

Agenda

The International Technology

Education Association’s Board of

Directors held its fall meeting in

Baltimore, MD. The Board discussed

strategic issues with potential impact

on the profession and association in

addition to taking care of other

association business. This year, the

strategic issues dealt with the

association’s main “cause,”

expanding the association

internationally, learning communities,

and engineering.

The cause was made a point of

discussion because of the need of the

association, like any association, to

reexamine the changing nature of the

field and its membership needs. ITEA

has a credo, goals, mission, and

strategic plan. Examining the “cause”

allows for a discussion of the need

for the existence and its position

within the field of education. The

Board minutes show the various

directions considered. One

suggestion was: “to further the

unlimited potential of individuals

related to technology, innovation,

design, and engineering!” (TIDE) No

specific cause was approved, nor

was there a specific goal to do so.

This discussion will be used as a

basis for creating the next strategic

plan for the association.

Learning communities were

discussed to address the types that

might be of value to the membership.

ITEA has various learning

communities available, the most

visible being IdeaGarden. Other

learning communities were

considered and are being trialed with

the membership electronically. The

Board was especially interested in

creating new learning communities

that generate returns in terms of

knowledge exchange for TIDE

teachers.

The Board looked at expanding the

association internationally for

purposes of exploring the next phase

of international membership needs.

There are currently members from 47

different countries. The discussion

evolved into a motion to have an

international symposium in

conjunction with the 2007 ITEA

Texas conference. Other avenues for

expanding internationally included the

creation of a network for interested

members, better coordination of

materials coming from other

countries, and the need to hold

conferences in locations outside of

the United States.

Engineering was placed on the

discussion agenda as a result of

previous Board action. A paper to

start discussion and look at the topic

of “engineering” as a factor in

teaching and learning was received.

Board members noted that the

definitions and change of position for

K-12 engineering is evolving, with

technology teachers being the main

change agents. It was decided to

make engineering the primary topic

to be discussed at ITEA’s Governance

Session during the April 2005 Kansas

City Conference. The Governance

Session, which will be held at

2:00pm on Sunday, April 3, will be a

time for members to provide their

input. Engineering could very well

become part of the name for the

technology teacher of the future!

The Board reviewed reports

pertaining to committees, task

forces, regional director work, and

council activities. Relationships to

other organizations and their thrusts

were a part of the agenda discussion

as were future conferences and

conference themes. The Board

approved a move toward using an

electronic ballot for the next election

process. A motion was passed to

work on a new campaign to build the

Foundation for Technology Education.

Members who would like a copy of

the Board minutes may receive a

copy by contacting ITEA, 1914

Association Drive, Reston, VA 20191,

703-860-2100 or by e-mail at

itea@iris.org.

YOU AND ITEA

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 5


PLUTO OR BUST!

Almost five billion years ago, our solar system began as a vast

cloud of dust and gas. The cloud began to collapse. It flattened

into a giant disk that rotated faster and faster, just as an ice

skater spins faster as she brings her arms in close to her body.

The Sun formed at the center, and the swirling gas and dust in

the rest of the spinning disk clumped together to produce the

planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. The reason so many

objects orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane (called the

ecliptic) and in the same direction is that they all formed from

this same rotating disk.

While the planets were forming, the young solar system was a

wild place. Clumps of matter of all sizes often collided and either

stuck together or side-swiped each other, knocking off pieces

and sending each other spinning. Sometimes the gravity of big

objects would capture smaller ones in orbit. This could be one

way the planets acquired their distant moons.

Investigating the Aftermath

NASA has sent many spacecraft to explore the four rocky

planets closest to the Sun (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars)

and the four giant gas planets farther out (Jupiter, Saturn,

Uranus, and Neptune). All these spacecraft have helped

scientists understand how our solar system formed. But still

many questions remain. And no spacecraft has yet visited the

most distant planet, the Pluto-Charon system, or any of the other

icy objects on the outskirts of our solar system called the Kuiper

Belt. Stretching for tens of billions of miles beyond Neptune, the

Kuiper belt may hold at least 100,000 icy relics from the solar

system’s birth.

Despite being the smallest, Pluto, the ninth planet from the Sun,

remains a big mystery. For example, we know Pluto is solid, like

the four inner planets, rather than gaseous, like the four large

outer planets. But Pluto seems to be made of very different stuff

from the inner planets, having a much greater portion of ices. So

what is Pluto exactly and what’s it doing out there beyond the

orbits of the gas giants? Why is Pluto’s orbit so lopsided? Why

is its orbit around the Sun so tilted from the plane in which the

other planets orbit? And why is Pluto’s companion moon,

Charon, so big relative to Pluto and so different from Pluto

itself?

Scientists have these and many more questions about Pluto and

Charon, and it looks like they’re going to finally get some

answers—or at least start the process. In January 2006, NASA

plans to launch the New Horizons spacecraft to Pluto-Charon

and on to one or more of the icy Kuiper Belt Objects. Although it

will be the fastest spacecraft ever built, New Horizons won’t get

to Pluto until 2015!

HOW FAR IS FAR?

Here are some curious facts and puzzling questions about Pluto:

• Pluto is unimaginably far away. To get an idea of just how

far, let one sheet of a roll of toilet paper represent

10,000,000 miles. The distance from Earth to the Sun is 9.3

sheets. Jupiter would be 48.4 sheets from the Sun and

Saturn 88.7 sheets. Pluto (on average) would be 366.4

sheets! It takes 248 Earth years for Pluto to make just one

trip around the Sun.

• From Pluto, the Sun looks like nothing other than a bright

star. Does the solar wind—the stream of electrically charged

particles that blasts out from the Sun—get all the way out to

Pluto? What is it like?

• The distance from Earth to the Sun, about 93 million miles, is

defined as one astronomical unit, or AU. Although Pluto’s

average distance from the Sun is 39.5 AU, at its closest

point to the Sun it is 29.6 AU, and at its farthest point it is

49.6 AU from the Sun. For part of its 248-Earth-year year,

Pluto is the 8th planet from the Sun, orbiting just inside the

distance of Neptune’s orbit from the Sun. This is one lopsided

orbit! Why is this, when the rest of the planets’ orbits

are much more circular?

Not only is Pluto’s orbit highly elongated, it is tilted 17° from

the plane of the ecliptic. What could have caused it to orbit

so far above and below the swirling disk of dust from which

the planets were formed?

• Because of its distance from the Sun, it’s cold on Pluto! The

average temperature on its surface is 233° below zero

Celsius, or 387° below zero Fahrenheit.


The first step in designing any mission of discovery is to

decide what questions to ask. Then you either find or invent

the instruments that will help find the answers. For a mission

to Pluto-Charon, NASA scientists are asking such questions

as, what does the surface of Pluto look like? What is Pluto’s

atmosphere made of? Are there big geological structures? How

does the solar wind (particles ejected by the Sun) interact with

the atmosphere at Pluto?

New Horizons spacecraft studies Pluto’s atmosphere (artist

concept).

Designing a Mission to Pluto-Charon and

Beyond

What scientists do know about Pluto-Charon makes them very

curious to know a lot more. Based on their questions, the New

Horizons team selected instruments that would measure or

make images of the things in which NASA scientists are

interested. In addition, they picked instruments that would

provide backup to other instruments on the spacecraft should

one instrument fail during the mission.

• Pluto and Charon seem very different. Pluto has some

areas that appear very dark and some that appear very

bright. Charon is much darker and more uniform. Scientists

don’t know what Pluto is made of. They think it may be a

mixture of 70% rock and 30% water or other ices. Charon

is less dense, so probably contains less rock. Why are the

two so different?

• The whole Pluto-Charon system is tipped on its side. Like

all planets, Pluto's spin axis stays pointed in the same

direction as it orbits the Sun. But unlike all planets except

Uranus, Pluto is tipped on its side. As for the rest of the

planets, their axes of rotation stand more or less upright

from the plane of their orbits.

• Pluto has an atmosphere, but only during the parts

of its orbit when it is closest to the Sun. When

Pluto gets farther from the Sun, the atmosphere

freezes and falls to the surface like frost or snow,

leaving no atmosphere at all. Right now, Pluto has

an atmosphere. But what is it made of? What is its

surface pressure? How fast does it escape into

space? If we wait much longer to send a

spacecraft, there may be no atmosphere left to

study for a couple hundred years.

• Pluto's diameter is only about half the width of the

United States. Charon’s is about half of Pluto’s.

Charon is the largest moon compared to its planet

of any moon in the solar system. For that reason,

Pluto and Charon may be thought of as the only

double-planet system in the solar system.


The Science Payload

Whatever a spacecraft is carrying that fulfills the main purpose of

the mission is called the payload. In the case of New Horizons, the

payload is the collection of instruments that will gather the

information that scientists hope will help them answer their

questions. The New Horizons payload includes these instruments:

New Horizons Planned Science Instrument Payload

Baseline Design

• PERSI is a group of instruments that can sense the visible,

infrared, and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum. These

instruments, called Ralph and Alice, will take images and

study the chemical composition of Pluto and its atmosphere,

Charon, and other Kuiper Belt objects.

• Student Dust Counter (SDC), built by University of Colorado

students, faces the direction the spacecraft is flying and

counts any dust particles the spacecraft encounters.

Scientists want to better understand this dust and how much

of it is really out there.

• Radio Science Experiment (REX) will study Pluto’s

atmosphere by measuring how it affects radio waves that

pass through it.

• Long-range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) will take images

of Pluto near the time of closest approach. The images will

show features as small as a football field.

• SWAP (Solar Wind Around Pluto) and PEPSSI (Pluto

Energetic Particle Spectrometer Science Investigation) will

measure the solar wind and other charged particles in space

and how these particles interact with Pluto’s atmosphere,

which will help reveal how much of the atmosphere is

escaping into space.

Figuring out what types of measurements and experiments they

would like to do at Pluto-Charon and beyond is the easy part for

space mission designers. The hard part is just getting a spacecraft

there, operating it in the extreme conditions of the outer solar

system, and communicating with a spacecraft that far from Earth.

The Detour That’s a Short-cut

When your destination is the outer reaches of the solar system,

you need speed! The New Horizons scientists would really like

some answers during their own lifetimes!

Three big boosters will give New Horizons some real speed: an

Atlas rocket, its Boeing upper stage, and planet Jupiter.

The Atlas is the biggest rocket available. For New Horizons, it

will be topped with an extra stage, the STAR-48, built by

Boeing. It will kick New Horizons’ 465-kilogram mass (a little

over 1000 pounds) out of Earth’s gravity well and send it

coasting toward the outer solar system at nearly 155,000

kilometers (96,000 miles) per hour! The spacecraft needs to be

as small and lightweight as possible to make the most of this

initial boost.

Then, it’s straight to Jupiter for a gravity boost. As New

Horizons approaches Jupiter, it will have slowed down a bit to

about 70,000 kilometers (43,300 miles) per hour. But then the

giant planet’s gravity will grab the spacecraft and pull it in,

adding to its speed. But don’t worry. The spacecraft will be

going too fast to be captured into orbit around Jupiter. It will

just swing past, with Jupiter’s gravitational field acting as a

slingshot, boosting the spacecraft’s speed back up to about

82,800 kilometers (51,300 miles) per hour.

New Horizons will be one of the fastest spacecraft ever flown.

If not for the Jupiter assist, it would take about five years

longer to reach Pluto!

Sticking to the Golden Oldies

Speedy as the spacecraft will be, nine years is still a long time

to hang out in the harsh environment of space. When the

spacecraft finally gets to Pluto-Charon, all those science

instruments and all the spacecraft parts that support them will

have to work perfectly. Therefore, all the materials,

technologies, and most of the instruments used in New

Horizons are tried and true, proven to work well in previous

missions. A mission such as New Horizons is no time to be

trying out daring new ideas!

The materials used in the spacecraft must be strong and

lightweight. Spacecraft designers have selected the materials

that best fit that description: aluminum, titanium, and carbon

composites.

All the spacecraft systems must have some tolerance to

radiation exposure. Electronics, such as the computers that

control the spacecraft and the detectors typically used in

instruments, are frequently highly susceptible to radiation

effects and must be designed appropriately.

The propellant (fuel) used by New Horizons is hydrazine.

Hydrazine causes many metals to corrode. If put into a fuel tank

made of the wrong material, hydrazine could cause the tank to

rust, which could cause the hydrazine to explode. So, the

material selected for the propellant tanks is titanium, which will

hold the hydrazine without ever corroding.

Components and materials will also be selected for their

“cleanliness.” Spacecraft such as New Horizons that carry

sensitive instrumentation, such as optical instruments and

particle detectors, are very sensitive to the cleanliness of the

spacecraft itself. If the spacecraft is not exceptionally clean,

optical surfaces can easily become coated with a haze that can

ruin image quality. Think of traveling through space for 10

years, finally getting to Pluto, pulling out your million dollar

camera, and finding that the lens was coated in a milky film

that you had no way to clean!

And, of course, nearly all spacecraft components are selected

based in part on their cost. Spacecraft engineers try to select

the least expensive component that will fully do the job.


Packing for a Cold, Dark Trip

All spacecraft must have a way to generate electricity to run the

instruments, the computer, and the communication equipment.

Many spacecraft that explore the inner planets (Mars, Earth,

Venus, Mercury) use solar cells to convert sunlight to electricity.

However, New Horizons is going to spend a lot of time a very

long way from the Sun. In the outer solar system, there is not

enough sunlight for solar-electric cells to work. So, like other

missions to the outer solar system, the spacecraft must provide

its own source of electrical power to operate its mechanical and

electronic systems in the cold darkness of deep space.

If approved, the New Horizons spacecraft will carry a

radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). RTGs convert the

heat generated from the natural decay of their radioactive fuel

into electricity.

Once the Atlas rocket has boosted New Horizons on its way, the

spacecraft would mostly coast (at 70,000 to 80,000 kilometers

per hour!) all the way to Pluto. It will use its own thrusters

(burning hydrazine) only to make course correction maneuvers,

to control the spacecraft’s spin rate, and to change its

orientation (attitude) while it is doing science experiments or

observations or communicating with Earth.

Can You Hear Me Now?

You will notice that the biggest thing on the New Horizons

spacecraft is the antenna. The spacecraft will be about 5 billion

kilometers (3.1 billion miles) from Earth when it reaches Pluto.

The transmitter on the spacecraft uses only 15 Watts of power

to send its signal (carrying all the pictures and other science and

engineering data) all the way across the solar system. That’s

less power than the light bulb in your refrigerator uses!

However, because the antennas on Earth that listen for the

signal are so huge and so sensitive, engineers can receive and

decode the signal. In addition, the transmitters of the giant Deep

Space Network dish antennas are so powerful that mission

controllers can send signals to the spacecraft over the billions of

kilometers between Earth and Pluto.

The Earth-to-spacecraft signals are for the purpose of sending

commands to the spacecraft. But in the case of the New

Horizons mission, they have another use. That is the radio

science experiment, or REX, that will help scientists understand

the atmospheric structure of Pluto.

REX will look at the way a radio signal changes as it passes

through Pluto’s atmosphere. Although this is a fairly common

type of measurement to make, it is typically done by having

the spacecraft transmit a signal through a planet’s atmosphere,

receiving the signal on Earth, and then studying the received

signal to see how it was changed by the atmosphere as it

passed through it. Because Pluto is so far away, this approach

would have required a very powerful radio transmitter on the

spacecraft to allow any useful signal to be received at Earth.

Instead, the REX uses a radio transmission broadcast from

Earth, from one of the Deep Space Network’s large antennas,

and analyzes the signal received at the spacecraft through

Pluto’s atmosphere to study the effects of the atmosphere on

the transmitted signal. This techniques allows for a smaller radio

transmitter and a smaller antenna, which saves mass, cost, and

complexity of the whole system.

Why, Why, Why?

The spacecraft designers have worked to take into account all

the challenges of this mission to Pluto-Charon and the Kuiper

Belt objects beyond. The items listed below describe some of

the features of the New Horizons spacecraft now being built.

From what you now know about the mission, explain one or

more reasons for each spacecraft or mission design

characteristic. What is the purpose of the material or

instrument or technology? What problems is it designed to

avoid? How will it help the mission fulfill its objectives? Either

write out your answers or discuss them in class.

1. Wouldn’t this long mission be a great opportunity to try out

new kinds of equipment? What would be the advantages?

Disadvantages?

2. The spacecraft is small and lightweight. Why?

3. The spacecraft will be launched by a very large Atlas

rocket. Why?

4. The communication antenna on the spacecraft will be very

large compared with the small size of the spacecraft. Why?

5. The planned flight course past Jupiter isn’t the most direct

path to Pluto. Why add the distance?

6. The spacecraft will have a special electronics card that will

monitor the details of the signal from Earth’s giant Deep

Space Network antennas, including any changes in the

signal as the spacecraft passes behind Pluto. Why?

7. Sunlight near Pluto is too weak to adequately drive solar

cells. How can the spacecraft control systems and science

instruments be powered?

8. Spacecraft will carry instruments that can sense the visible,

infrared, and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum. Why?

9. The spacecraft will carry long-range and high-resolution

visible mapping instrument. Why?

10. The spacecraft will carry instruments that can measure

charged particles, such as from the solar wind. Why?

11. The spacecraft will carry an instrument that can see the

infrared part of the spectrum and analyze the composition of

materials. Why?

12. The spacecraft will carry the Student Dust Counter (SDC,

built by university students). Why?

Whatever information New Horizons sends home to Earth, it is

certain to surprise, delight, and thrill

space scientists. While providing answers

to many of their questions, the mission

will no doubt raise many more. One of the

many things we have learned from

previous missions to the other planets is

to expect the unexpected!

This article was written by Diane Fisher, writer and designer of

The Space Place Web site at spaceplace.nasa.gov. Alex

Novati drew the illustrations. 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.


WORKING IT OUT BY HAND:

CONSTRUCTION AS A CREATIVE ACT

FEATURE ARTICLE

Andreas Luescher

K. Scott Kutz

In the world of project execution,

“design/build” is the convention. With

its emphasis on the benefits of early

involvement (integration of design,

engineering execution, design-build,

procurement, and construction

decisions), it has become the

dominant mode (Rothman, 2004). In

this project, students explore the

design/build principle of collaboration

and integrated processes.

What makes this project unique to

other design and construction

projects is the emphasis on materials

(their visual, tactile, and functional

properties) and scale for thinking and

decision making. This helps students

grasp and understand the basic

foundations involved in design/

construction/engineering. It places

the consideration of materials at the

beginning of the design/build process,

not at the end. The unique and

particular physical qualities of

materials should be utilized as the

source of subsequent design thinking

and construction decisions. Materials

should be seen as design

generators—fertile ground for

imaginative exploration and

discovery. For this project, it is

important to have access to large

material samples for study and with

which to build.

The project described was conducted

with sophomore students in

Bowling Green State University’s

Architecture program. It can readily

be adapted to the needs of

technology educators working at the

primary and secondary levels with

children of widely varying

chronological ages and aptitudes.

Using brainstorming, drawings, study

models, and the exploration of detail

at full scale, students work in groups

Most students are more creative in their

solutions without seeing materials or

examples first.

in the production of a simple mobile

display and exhibition unit (kiosk) for

use in real sites. The results of

experiments with materials and

methods of construction shape the

evolution of the formal design.

Detailing and construction strategies

emerge primarily through material

mock-ups.

The learning outcomes were derived

from Standards 8, 9, and 10 of

Standards for Technological Literacy:

Content for the Study of Technology

(ITEA 2000/2002). This included

tactile experiences the teams were

faced with while negotiating the

struggles and compromises that

come with group decision making.

They were required to secure

donated building materials and had to

collaborate on the assembly and

installation of the finished elements.

The design/build project took three

weeks, or six class sessions. They

met twice a week for two and a half

hours each for a total of 15 hours.

The outline of the six sessions were:

Step 1 Read the Challenge

Step 2 Brainstorm Solutions

Step 3 Draw a Detailed Design

Step 4 Mock-ups

Step 5 Build, and build BIG!

Step 6 Use and Evaluation of the

Built Design

1. Read the Challenge

The assignment is introduced as an

exercise in design as an integrated

process. Just like real-world

challenges, the brief is very openended,

and they were reminded that

many different solutions are possible.

The design brief outlines a fairly

straightforward program in which

client and site are identified.

Programmatic design requirements

are described in narrative form for

maximum interpretive variation.

Example: The display/exhibition unit

(kiosk) must:

• Be mobile.

Not disrupt pathways.

• Provide an unexpected angle of

approach, a new perspective, or an

intriguing encounter.

• Have a specific form and size,

which will function partly as a

display system and partly as an

identity system for the school/and

or program.

2. Brainstorm Solutions

Students individually made notes of

their initial responses to the

assignment and brainstormed ideas

to solve the challenge outlined in the

brief. Emphasis was made to

encourage the free flow of ideas

(words or sketches) with as little

Figure 1: Design Review

10 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Figure 2: Design Concept Sketch

critical scrutiny as possible. Students

were reminded that although their

ideas would be different, and some of

them extreme, all were to be

considered (see Figures 1 and 2).

You can choose to show students the

building materials before or after

brainstorming. Sometimes examples

are helpful. However, most students

are more creative in their solutions

without seeing materials or examples

first. We suggest you show examples

only if students are completely at a

loss.

3. Draw a Detailed Design

“A problem always contains and

suggests the seed of its own

solution and its own style.”

(Sullivan, 1918, p.203)

Students choose one of their

brainstorm designs for development

through a detailed drawing. As they

are designing, students discuss their

design with one another and also

involve the instructor for input.

Figure 3: Modified Design Concept

Emphasis was on

looking at the

design and making

notes on the

drawing, with

particular attention

to details and the

labeling of parts.

This does not need

to be perfect or a

formal drawing,

but just a plan to

work from.

However, it should

be clear enough

that the student

could understand his/her own ideas

and explain them to other students.

Formatted vellum provides visual

uniformity to the presentation,

allowing each idea fair consideration

during a critique by

the students and

the instructor.

Students then pin

up their drawings

for all to see.

Ideally, all

drawings can be

viewed at one

time; otherwise, it

is best to look at

smaller groups of

drawings rather

than a single one

at a time. New

ideas or

refinements emerge this way. Two

designs are selected for further

schematic development based on the

following criteria: articulation of the

design intention, and construction

feasibility. Students work together to

re-conceptualize, expand ideas, and

come up with new

possibilities (see

Figure 3).

4. Mock-ups

"Working out

steps by hand

gives the mind a

feel of the

materials, which

is essential to

mastery in any

art or trade."

(Barzun, 1991,

p. 92)

The key concept

of design/build is

collaboration and the early integration

of (design, engineering, procurement,

construction) processes. In that spirit,

students are divided into four teams

with primary responsibilities:

materials, design, fabrication/

installation, and documentation.

The teams were as follows:

• Design team - responsible for

conceptual design and design

direction.

• Drafting/documentation team -

responsible for drafting,

photographic record of entire

process, and official journal.

• Research/acquisition team -

responsible for providing materials,

securing expert and technical

advice.

Figure 4: Research/Acquisition Team

• Construction team - responsible for

fabrication/installation.

The division of students into teams

was a practical necessity. Since the

project demanded coordination

among groups, all teams were

required to conduct work in the lab at

the same time each day. Input and

questions from all team members to

all other team members were

spontaneous, ongoing, and

encouraged.

Through the preliminary stages, the

design/build process acted as a tool

to encourage the students to

integrate construction techniques,

materials, and full-scale fabrication

into their design thinking. The

students’ creative and adaptive

involvement with recognizing

relationships in the type and method

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 11


FEATURE ARTICLE

of detailed construction was in direct

contrast to their normally pragmatic

production from working plans and

drawings.

Detailing and construction strategies

emerged through material mock-ups.

The focus keyed on the visual and

tactile qualities of materials, and

exploring how they might be

fabricated to gain desired effects.

Mock-ups were then created to test

constructional capabilities and gauge

visual results. This further developed

the design to help incorporate ideas

that came out of this evolving

process (see Figure 4).

5. Build, and Build BIG!

The budget was limited to $200. This

was a challenge in itself, necessitating

the use of inexpensive and

readily available materials, such as

metal, Plexiglas, and plywood, with a

shower curtain thrown in for good

measure. Collaborative improvisation

was also required as teams

successfully solicited local

companies for donations of materials.

The group was encouraged to

brainstorm innovative ways to use

the materials in many and different

ways.

Using their designs and discoveries

made in the mock-up stage as a

guide, students used it to begin

construction of the unit. The

understanding of materials, pressure

loads and weights, joinery,

proportions, and other assembly

factors were issues students dealt

with as they came to surface.

The best phrase used to describe the

spirit of their work is “thinking on

their feet.” The focus now shifted to

the visual and tactile qualities of

materials, with an exploration of how

they might be manipulated to gain

the desired effects. This evolved into

two aspects that meshed together as

the design progressed—one material,

the other visual. Design decisions

continued as students tested

constructional capabilities and

assessed visual results. The

challenges of production (tools,

routers, accessories, etc.) fostered

student interaction and collaboration

in their methods of construction. This

dialogue helped shape the evolution

of the final design (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Construction Team

Detailing was conducted entirely in

the field, and fabrication was not

dictated by standard reference. Every

aspect of the design, including the

final placement of the mobile kiosk,

was altered based on site trials.

Building is one of those things you

have to DO in order to know.

The instructor encourages students

to push the boundaries and to stay

open to exploration and analysis. He

or she can capitalize on unanticipated

results of the process (good or bad)

by turning these occasions into

learning opportunities (e.g., what do

we have here? Where do we go

now?). Naturally, it is necessary to

intervene when safety issues arise.

Even simple tools and instruments,

such as hot glue guns, saws, and

mat knives, can cause serious injury.

Supplemental supervision, in the form

of volunteer parents or another

teacher, is worth considering.

We have successfully managed this

project with 20 college sophomores

(per class) four times now without

any incident. Still, we have just

recently engaged a professional

cabinetmaker to open his shop to our

students for an hour-long

demonstration/Q&A session on

professional shop protocol,

organization, hazards, etc.

Constantly remind students of

process goals:

• Think “micro” and “macro” at the

same time.

• Improvisation and creative

adaptation.

• Think AND feel your way through

the problem.

• Appreciate and capitalize on

serendipity, happenstance.

• Integration and collaboration.

Encourage students to talk to each

other. Emphasize that their first

design may not work exactly as they

had planned, and that’s okay! Being

an engineer means you have to keep

trying new things until you get your

design to work. Be sure to let the

students do the work themselves.

Resist the urge to take over and build

and redesign the project yourself. Try

to answer a student’s question with

another question so that the student

comes up with the answer.

6. Use and Evaluation of the

Built Design

As in real-world practice, the

dependency on chance, luck, or

uncertain outcomes was a key

component of “successful” project

delivery in this exercise. The chief

characteristic of the immersion

experience is readiness for

unannounced and unexpected

problems.

Students learn through hands-on

construction supplemented by

discussion. Students are taught the

design process as a five-step

method:

• Step One: Read the challenge;

understand requirements.

• Step Two: Brainstorm solutions;

make sketch and written notes.

• Step Three: Draw a detailed

design to work out construction

feasibility.

• Step Four: Mock-up to gauge

visual results.

• Step Five: Build, and build big at a

scale of 1:1!

As students participate in an actual

building project, they learn the safe

use of common hand and power

tools. Topics covered include site

assessment, estimating, basic

(engineering) design theory, and an

overview of construction techniques

and the relevance of scale to design

detail.

At the end of the project, students

typically leave with schematic plans,

a scale model mock-up, and photo

documentation of the end product.

The piece itself is a record of action

(see Figures 6 and 7). It is an

environment that becomes a

reflecting surface in which the

12 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Figure 6: View of the mobile

display unit (front).

students can see the traces of

their action, and which

enables them to talk about

how they are learning.

Students gain an awareness of

design, materials, and the process of

collaboration. They have been

exposed to the surprising notion that

there are multiple ways to

conceptualize, represent, and test

ideas. They become participants, not

merely spectators, and (in theory)

understand design and construction

as an integrated process that begins

with the consideration of materials.

In this spirit of methodology already

in place in the professional world, we

must work together to foster

changes in curriculum formats that

merge technology with design.

Figure 7: View of a detail (back).

Get to Know an ITEA Member

Kristine Pearl

Technology Teacher, Walkersville High School

Walkersville, Maryland

References

Barzun, J. (1991). Begin here: the

forgotten conditions of teaching and

learning. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

ITEA. (2000/2002). Standards for

technological literacy: Content for the

study of technology. Reston, VA:

Author. Retrieved October 8, 2004,

from www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/

xstnd.pdf.

Rothman, L. (Ed.). (2004). Design/Build

survey of design and construction firms.

Natick, MA: ZweigWhite.

Sullivan, L. H. (1918). Kindergarten chats

and other writings. New York: Dover

Publications.

Andreas Luescher,

Ph.D., is Assistant

Professor of

Architecture/

Environmental

Design Studies at

Bowling Green

State University, Bowling Green,

Ohio.

This is a refereed article.

K. Scott Kutz is a

technology teacher

at Westlake High

School, Ohio.

FEATURE ARTICLE

What is your favorite thing about being a technology teacher?

My favorite thing about teaching Tech Ed is that most students look forward to technology

classes. I love it when a student tells me that my class is his or her favorite part of the day.

Oftentimes we can impact on an otherwise difficult student who does not respond well in

traditional classes, but is highly motivated by the hands-on aspect of technology education.

Why did you join ITEA?

When I was awarded a trip through my local school system to the ITEA conference in New Mexico, I joined ITEA.

Now that I am a member, I realize what a great resource the organization provides.

Please share your favorite teaching tip.

Just like the kids say, “keepin’ it real.” The great thing about teaching Tech Ed is that all aspects have real-life applications.

Students are more engaged when they understand how the concepts they are learning can be applied to real projects

and, more importantly, real-life applications.

When I taught a Technology In Careers course at the middle school level, each career pathway unit included a hands-on,

technology-based activity that was connected to a career in that pathway. For instance, for the Arts and Communication

pathway, students wrote and produced the school video news. Students were exposed to many careers within the

pathway, from journalism to videographer. Now that I teach at the high school level, students are automatically seeing the

career and real-life connections on their own.

Want to communicate with Kristine? She can be reached at Kristine.Pearl@fcps.org.

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 13


From IDSA

“ARE YOU TALKING TO ME?” - TEACHING USER-CENTERED DESIGN

IDSA

Ronald B. Kemnitzer, FIDSA

“Are you talkin' to me?”

Robert DiNiro as Travis Bickle in ‘Taxi

Driver’ © 1976 Columbia Pictures

Industries, Inc.

This memorable scene from motion

picture history has many meanings

for me. It is at first the cry of

frustration in living in a world of

declining morals and corruption. But,

at the same time, it is a plea from

one isolated person who wants

to sacrifice himself to make the

world a better place. The

subtlety of how DeNiro delivers

this line is masterful. The

accentuation of any one of the

five words in the line “Are you

talking to me?” changes the

meaning of the sentence

entirely.

I use this line of dialogue as a

vehicle for class discussions of

user-centered design. When

emphasis is put on the first

word as in “Are you talking to

me?” it asks the designer if he

or she is in fact focusing on the

user and the experience

instead of the product and its

action. When phrased as “Are

you talking to me?” it reminds

the designer that creating usercentered

design is an

intentional process that must

be driven by the designer from

start to finish. It also reminds the

designer that he or she has innate

sensibilities and intuition that may

enrich the process. When phrased as

“Are you talking to me?” it suggests

the need for having direct contact

with users instead of relying on

someone else's interpretation of their

needs, and to test our design

concepts with users throughout the

process. “Are you talking to me?”

reminds that designers need to have

dialogue with users, to listen to them.

Phrased as “Are you talking to me?”

emphasizes the need to understand

the user as much as possible and to

appreciate the diversity and

complexity of users, while trying to

make every user feel as though the

product was designed just for them.

The nuances of delivery of this very

simple sentence is an appropriate

metaphor for user-centered design,

which seems to be such an obvious

and simple intent, but a very complex

and variable process.

As the name suggests, user-centered

design includes the user in the design

process. The user participates in the

definition of product criteria, the

testing of several generations of

design concepts, and, finally, the

validation of the final design through

testing. Of all design methodologies,

the continuous participation in the

design process by representative

users is unique to user-centered

design. A diagram of the process

features the user in the center, with

components of the process arranged

around the circumference in no

particular sequence, as I suggest that

each be continued concurrently until

it is producing no new information

that will improve the design. My

process includes the following

components: User Profile, Task

Analysis, Human Factors,

Scenarios, User Behavior, Cultural

Influences, Intuition/Experience,

and most importantly, Testing.

Without overstating the detail

involved in each component

of this process, allow me to

offer an overview of each,

with some suggestions of

resources and teaching

techniques that I have found

effective.

Establishing a User Profile is

certainly a key element in

user-centered design. For

many products, such as an

automobile, a radio, or a

toaster, the user group can

be so large as to be

unmanageable and so generic

as to offer little guidance in

the design of the product. I

usually insist on a very

narrowly defined user group,

such as children aged 4-6

(Kindergarten age) or elderly

people living alone. I avoid

designating user groups that

the students generally

conform to, as they too often

overwhelm the project with overly

personal and irrelevant criteria.

Task Analysis is a process that

describes what the user does with

the product and why, in a step-by-

14 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


step sequence from beginning to end.

There are several good resources for

how to develop and analyze a task

analysis. NASA publishes an outline

for its “Requirements Document” that

provides an overview of the product

(hardware and software), user profile,

and tasks (major and minor). You can

download this worksheet from the

Web (www.grc.nasa.gov/www/

usability/ processes.html). A great

resource for task data collection and

analysis methods is the NIOSH

Mining Human Factors site

(www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/hfg/task

analysis.html). I usually assign a

“warm-up” task analysis project

using a simple and familiar task

such as “making a pizza” and

communicating it through both a

branching flow chart and a sequential

panel storyboard. The objective of

this component is to fully understand

the task and how it is accomplished

with existing products and methods.

Human Factors is one of the stock

tools of design. There are countless

resources for most types of data

needed. I have found that the most

common misinterpretation of human

factors data is the assumption that

human proportions are consistent and

symmetrical. In other words,

students may compare one personal

dimension to the data and assume

that the rest of their body conforms

to that same percentile. I have my

students compare a more complete

set of data and a very detailed

analysis of both hands so that they

better appreciate the complexity (and

asymmetry) of their bodies as well as

being able to more discriminately

evaluate personal simulations with

prototypes.

The use of Scenarios is an incredibly

powerful tool in user-centered design.

This “storytelling” technique

characterizes typical users

accomplishing tasks with preliminary

design concepts. Scenarios seem to

be best communicated by

storyboards, although performances

are becoming popular. The scenario

focuses the designer on the people,

place, and process of the design. In

my classes, I have found that

students (just like professionals)

create stronger, more revealing

scenarios if they do them as an

interdisciplinary group that includes

representative users. Even if these

“users” are friends or relatives of the

students involved, the added richness

of their perspective will enhance the

results.

Without understanding User

Behavior relative to the

accomplishment of a task, it's

impossible to design an effective

solution. All too often, designers are

provided with a “user profile” that is

little more than a marketing position

paper. The study of user behavior has

fortunately evolved into tools that are

more useful to designers.

Ethnographic research, for example,

has revolutionized the understanding

of how, when, and why people use

our designs. This unobtrusive

method, which nearly eliminates

interference (influence) in the user

behavior, reveals just how people

really use things, not how they might

describe how they think we might

want them to answer our surveys.

For more information, visit the Web

site of Sonic Rim

(www.sonicrim.com).

Cultural Influences on design are

not well understood, appreciated, or

commonly integrated into the design

process, whether at the student or

professional level. A recent design

exercise by an international group

working with colleagues in Italy

emphasizes the cultural influences on

product design. The project was to

design laundry equipment for the

Western European market. As part of

the research briefing, cultural

anthropologists, sociologists, and

clergy discussed issues such as the

symbolism of washing clothes as a

nurturing activity and the religious

significance of odor as an indicator of

purification. They learned that

European women demand a window

in the washer so that they can

visually monitor the process...an

important manifestation of nurturing.

They learned that a washing machine

should reflect the self-image of the

user, in other words, a woman. A

Web site that may offer some insight

into issues of culturally related design

issues is www.globalization.org.

Intuition/Experience is another

component of my user-centered

design methodology that isn't found

in many others. Designers are

observers of human behavior by

nature and, over time, an intuitive

sense of how people might behave

becomes more developed and

reliable. Even student designers

demonstrate this nature, although

their youth, inexperience, and

bravado often color their interpretation.

Nevertheless, I encourage

the incorporation of intuitive thinking

in the design process. While the

user-centered design process solicits

the opinions and ideas of users, they

don't often have the ability to see

beyond “what is.” Designers, on the

other hand, always seem to be

visualizing things that “aren't.”

Testing is the most important

component of user-centered design

and must occur throughout the

process. The most productive

occasions of user testing in my

classroom were with users who were

dramatically different from the

students. For example, when my

class worked on a digital reader for

the blind, we used a number of

visually impaired users of existing

analog readers. The issues involved

and the observed user behavior were

so different from what the students

were accustomed to that they were

quick to accept their input and

reactions to their concepts.

Continuous testing resulted in very

successful design solutions, and

those particular students totally

bought into the value of user testing.

There are many simple projects that

can engage students in discovering

the value of user-centered design. A

favorite is to form teams of students

who compare two similar products

by having users operate them while

the students watch. For instance, a

group could have users of a certain

age and gender peel two potatoes

using a different peeler for each. The

team should record the times for

each peeler and create and award a

“quality of peel” ranking for each

peeler. As the team observes, they

should look for problems that may be

design-based, such as a peeler that

easily slips out of the user’s hand

when wet. The students should then

interview each user about his/her

preferences and dislikes of the

peelers. Finally, they should compile

IDSA

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 15


their observations and data and

present them to the class. Further,

they might even be able to identify

new features that could be added to

the tested peelers to make them

better.

User-centered design equates to

user-friendly design. It doesn't have

to mean that the design is

homogenized to a bland, uninteresting

level. It doesn't mean that the

designer has relinquished the role of

problem solver. It means that

designers are directly connecting

with users and testing, refining, and

improving their creative concepts

before the costly tooling process

begins and it's too late to change

anything. We are well into a world of

blurred definitions and

responsibilities. Interdisciplinary

activity is the present. User-centered

design is interdisciplinary design. If

you aren't already doing so, you

should be asking your students “Are

you talking to your users? If not,

then who are you talking to?”

Ron Kemnitzer is

Professor of

Industrial Design at

Virginia Tech. Mr.

Kemnitzer holds

over 15 USA and

international

patents for his work, which has also

been recognized in many design competitions.

He received the Gold “Good

Design Award” from the Chicago

Athenaeum Museum of Architecture

and Design in 2001 and 1997. He

also received a Gold Award in the

1993 “Plant Engineering” magazine

“Product of the Year” competition and

a Bronze Award in the 1992 Industrial

Design Excellence Awards sponsored

by “Business Week” magazine and

the Industrial Designers Society of

America. In 1988 he designed the

best selling “Bola” chair for Fixtures

Furniture Company for which he was

awarded an IBD Gold Award. He is an

active member in the Industrial

Designers Society of America and

recently served as national

Secretary/Treasurer. He has served

six terms on the Board of Directors,

three terms on the Executive

Committee, and two terms on the

Planning Committee, which is comprised

of the top five officers of the

society. He was elected to the IDSA

Academy of Fellows in August 2003.

16 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

CREATING A STAR: THE SCIENCE OF FUSION

Stephen L. Baird

Fusion is the process that powers the

sun and the stars. Since the 1950s,

scientists and engineers in the United

States and around the world have

been conducting fusion research in

pursuit of the creation of a new

energy source for our planet and to

further our understanding and control

of plasma, the fourth state of matter

that dominates the known universe.

Generating power through nuclear

fusion holds the tantalizing promise of

unlimited supplies of clean energy.

By the middle of the next century, the

world’s population will double, and

energy demand will triple. This will

be due in large part to the industrialization

and economic growth of

developing nations. The continued

use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and

natural gas) will rapidly deplete these

limited and localized natural

resources. Fusion is perhaps the only

option for a truly sustainable, longterm

energy source. The fuel is

virtually inexhaustible and readily

available throughout the world.

The primary fuel used in fusion

reactions is a form of hydrogen,

which is easily extracted from

ordinary water. Researchers claim

that the hydrogen isotopes in one

gallon of water would yield the

equivalent energy of three hundred

gallons of gasoline. Solar and

renewable energy technologies will

also play a role in our energy future.

Although they are inherently safe and

feature an unlimited fuel supply, they

are geographically limited, climate

dependent, and unable to meet the

energy demands of a populous and

industrialized world. Fusion energy

would complement renewable energy

technologies, which are environmentally

attractive but probably do

not have the capacity to power large

Fusion power would not contribute to global

warming, acid rain, or other forms of air

pollution, nor would it create long-lived

radioactive waste.

cities and industries. Fusion power

would not contribute to global

warming, acid rain, or other forms of

air pollution, nor would it create longlived

radioactive waste. The taming

of fusion energy, however, is proving

to be a formidable task. Steady

progress has been made, but there

are still scientific and technological

advances that have to be made

before the dream of commercial

electricity production will become a

reality.

What is Fusion

Fusion is the power source of the sun

and the stars. It is the reaction in

which two atoms of hydrogen

combine together, or fuse, to form an

atom of helium. In the process, some

of the mass of the hydrogen is

converted into energy. This is a

nuclear reaction and results in the

release of large amounts of energy. In

a fusion reaction, the total mass of

the resultant nuclei is slightly less

than the total mass of the original

particles. This difference is converted

to energy as described by Einstein’s

famous equation, E = mc 2 . The

easiest fusion reaction to make

happen is to combine deuterium

(heavy hydrogen) with tritium (heavyheavy

hydrogen) to make helium and

a neutron. See Figure 1.

Deuterium and tritium are both

isotopes of hydrogen. An isotope is a

form of an atomic element that has a

different mass from the normal

element because of a different

number of neutrons in the atomic

nucleus. Deuterium and Tritium are

considered heavy isotopes of

hydrogen because they have one

electron and one proton, but one and

two neutrons, respectively (Internet

Plasma, 2004). Deuterium is

abundant in ordinary water. Tritium

can be produced by combining the

fusion neutron with the abundant

light metal lithium, which is found in

the earth’s crust. The result is fusion

energy that is virtually inexhaustible

(General Atomics, 2004).

Figure 1. After the fusion reaction, the

products have less mass than the original

reactants. The “lost” mass has been

converted into energy. (Diagram courtesy

of General Atomics.)

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 17


RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

How Does Fusion Work?

To make fusion happen, the atoms of

hydrogen must be heated to very

high temperatures (100 million

degrees) so that they become ionized

(forming a plasma) and have

sufficient energy to fuse and then be

held together (confined) long enough

for fusion to occur. These

simultaneous conditions are

represented by a fourth state of

matter known as plasma. In a

plasma, electrons are stripped from

their nuclei. A plasma therefore

consists of charged particles, ions,

and electrons (Internet Plasma,

2004). The sun and stars do this by

gravity. More practical approaches on

earth are magnetic confinement,

where a strong magnetic field holds

the ionized atoms together while they

are heated by microwaves or other

energy sources, and inertial confinement,

where a tiny pellet of frozen

hydrogen is compressed and heated

by an intense energy beam, such as

a laser, so quickly that fusion occurs

before the atoms can fly apart

(General Atomics, 2004).

Magnetic Confinement

Efforts to control fusion first relied on

the principal of magnetic confinement,

in which a powerful

magnetic field traps a hot deuteriumtritium

plasma long enough for fusion

to begin. The physical characteristics

of a plasma (it is charged and

conducts electricity) allow it to be

constrained magnetically. One of the

greatest innovations for fusion

science was the tokamak concept,

which was invented in the Soviet

Union. The word tokamak is actually

an acronym derived from the Russian

words toroid-kamera-magnitkatushka,

meaning “the toroidal

chamber and magnetic coil.” The

tokamak employs magnetic fields in a

doughnut-shaped configuration to

confine the plasma. This doughnutshaped

configuration is principally

characterized by a large current, up

to several million amperes, which

flows through the plasma. The

plasma is heated to temperatures

more than a hundred million degrees

centigrade (much hotter than the

core of the sun) by high-energy

particle beams or radio-frequency

waves (Internet Plasma, 2004). (See

Figure 2.) Although the tokamak has

Figure 2. A simplified diagram of a tokamak, illustrating magnetic fusion process. Tokamak is

an acronym developed from the Russian words Toroidalnaya Kamera Magnitaya Katushka

which means “Toroidal Chamber with Magnetic Coil.” (Diagram courtesy of general Atomics.)

yielded the best results to date, it

may not ultimately prove to be the

best configuration for electric power

production. In light of the tremendous

strides in fusion science that the

tokamak has made possible, fusion

researchers worldwide continue to

study alternatives to the tokamak.

These include the stellarator, the

spherical tokamak, the reversed-field

pinch, and the spheromak. With the

exception of the stellarator, the

guiding principal of each of these

machines is to make the plasma itself

do much of the work of confining and

controlling itself in lieu of complex

magnet sets. Although these

alternate approaches require

developing a much more

sophisticated understanding of the

physics of plasmas and better

diagnosis and control mechanisms,

they could yield greater economy in

constructing and operating a fusion

power system (General Atomics,

2004).

The world’s largest tokamak is called

JET. (See Figure 2.) JET is located at

the world’s largest nuclear fusion

research facility. Situated at Culham

in the UK, the Joint European Torus is

run as a collaboration between all

European fusion organizations along

with the participation of scientists

from around the globe.The JET

program was established to make it

possible to carry out fusion tests

under conditions that closely

resemble those of a commercial

power plant. The knowledge gained

from JET has provided valuable input

into the design of “next step

devices” such as ITER (Joint

European Torus, 2004). Scientists

and engineers from China, Europe,

Japan, Korea, Russia, and the

United States are working in an

unprecedented international

collaboration on the next major step

for the commercial development of

fusion. ITER (which means “the

way” in Latin) stands for the

International Tokamak Experimental

Reactor. ITER will be the first fusion

device to produce thermal energy at

the level of an electricity-producing

power station. It will provide the

next major step for the advancement

of fusion and technology and is the

key element in the strategy to create

a demonstration electricitygenerating

power plant. ITER is an

experimental fusion reactor based

on the “tokamak” concept (International

Tokamak, 2004).

18 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Inertial Confinement

Inertial Confinement Fusion

(ICF) offers a different

approach to developing

fusion energy. To achieve

ICF, powerful lasers or

particle beams are focused

on a small target of

hydrogen fuel (a

peppercorn size fuel pellet

of deuterium and tritium)

for a few billionths of a

second (approximately four

nanoseconds). The fuel

pellet is compressed to

densities 1000 times the

normal density of solid

materials and heated to

temperatures of about 100

million degrees Celsius such

that the hydrogen nuclei

fuse to form helium, releasing

significant amounts of energy

(General Atomics, 2004). This

process is the also the same process

as in the sun, except that a laser or

particle beam heats and compresses

the hydrogen, rather than the sun’s

gravity.

ICF is a research and development

program funded by the Department of

Energy Defense Program as part of

the U.S. “Science Based Stockpile

Stewardship” activity. Although some

ICF advancements may have

commercial applications, the focus

has been on carrying out experiments

on nuclear weapons physics and

effects, using the extreme conditions

of density and temperature created in

inertial fusion. Because the process

is much like the explosion of a

hydrogen bomb, inertial fusion

research provides information useful

in weapons design (General Atomics,

2004). Both magnetic and inertial

fusion programs expect to build their

next experiments to lead to producing

more energy than they consume,

with the end result being commercial

applications that provide humankind

with a safe, clean, inexhaustible

energy source for the future.

Benefits Derived From Fusion

Research

While most people view the ultimate

“payoff” of fusion research as clean,

unlimited, affordable energy, fusion

technology development and

advances in plasma physics have a

Figure 3. A split image of the inside of the Joint European Torus, the world’s largest

tokamak, showing the plasma. (Photograph courtesy of EFDA-JET.)

rich and growing history of

economically significant spin-offs.

These include major advances in

microelectronics, medicine,

computers, space science, and

material coatings.

• Semiconductor manufacturing is

the area in which fusion research

and technology have made the

greatest commercial impact.

Microscopic plasma etching is a

major process in the semiconductor

industry for producing

high-density microcircuits

interaction.

• Plasmas are a particularly effective

way of introducing better, longerlasting

coatings onto medical

implants, machine tools, recording

media, and other items.

• High-efficiency ultraviolet light

sources emitted from plasmas

have many industrial applications,

e.g., drying special inks, coatings,

and adhesives as well as lighting

large areas with reduced energy

consumption.

• Plasma electronics applications

include plasma displays for video

displays; plasma-switching devices

are key components for a major

new industry.

• Progress in magnetic confinement

fusion has been a driving force

behind magnet research and

development. Large volume

superconducting magnets are now

used in modern Magnetic Resonant

Imaging (MRI) systems.

• Fusion research

helps us to

understand

plasmas in stars

and interstellar

space, and may

provide the basis

for a new

generation of

space propulsion

systems (General

Atomics 2004).

There are many

other applications

that are in use

today as a result of

fusion research.

From the medical

fields to the auto

industry,

innovations and insights are proving

to be invaluable in applications

derived from fusion energy research.

History has shown that the more

difficult a scientific and technological

task is, the more new ideas and

technologies have to be created to

achieve it. Fusion will continue to be

a productive source for new products

and innovations for many years to

come.

Summary

Practical fusion would be a source of

energy that is unlimited, safe,

environmentally benign, available to

all nations, and not dependent on

climate or the whims of weather.

While creating practical fusion has

taken much longer than the early

fusion pioneers anticipated, the work

in overcoming the difficult challenges,

and the continued progress to date,

has brought with it unanticipated

benefits in a wide variety of fields.

When fusion energy becomes

available as an affordable electrical

source, we’ll be able to conserve our

remaining reserves of natural

resources. Fusion power plants will

be inherently safe because, unlike

fission reactors, fusion reactions in

tokamaks can’t have meltdowns—

tokamaks will simply burn

themselves out, like a fire without

wood, unless they are constantly fed

more fuel. Fusion can have a positive

impact on the future of our planet,

assuring us an adequate power

source, encouraging worldwide

cooperation, helping to stem the

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 19


greenhouse effect, and conserving

natural resources. Our challenge is to

understand and harness this basic

energy process for the benefit of

humanity.

made, but several scientific and

technological advances are necessary

before the dream of commercial

electricity production will become a

reality.

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGY

Addressing Standards for

Technological Literacy

Incorporating the study of nuclear

fusion in the technology classroom

offers the unique ability to introduce

students to a developing science

requiring the development of new

technologies to sustain continued

growth. The history and the future of

fusion development is a textbook

example of the close interrelationship

between scientific and technological

advances. Theoretical research and

calculations performed in universities

and fusion laboratories suggest new

experimental designs and

approaches, while technological

innovations, driven by fusion research

itself, provide the ability to implement

and test theoretical science. All of

the standards associated with design

can be impressed upon our

technology students by studying

fusion science (ITEA, 2000/2002).

Design Brief

The sun and stars are powered by

fusion. Harnessing those reactions to

produce energy on earth presents a

formidable challenge to scientists and

engineers. Steady progress has been

Autodesk............................C-4

Fallingwater.........................20

Challenge

The development and implementation

of a new technology inherently brings

about unforeseen social, economic,

political, and cultural changes. One

way to prepare for some of these

profound changes is to try to

anticipate possible impacts, both

good and bad, that may come about

through the use of a new technology.

Your challenge is to construct a list of

possible impacts and then decide if

there is a potential for that impact to

be a negative one and to illuminate

possible solutions to avoid the

negative impact or to turn it into a

positive impact.

References

General Atomics (2004). What is Fusion.

Retrieved July 27, 2004 from

http://fusioned.gat.com

International Technology Education

Association (ITEA). (2000/2002).

Standards for Technological Literacy:

Content for the Study of Technology.

Reston, VA: Author.

International Tokamak Experimental

Reactor. (2004). What is ITER.

Retrieved September 12, 2004, from

www.iter.org/ITERPublic/ITER/

whatis.html

Internet Plasma Physics Education

Experience. (2004). IPPEX Glossary of

Fusion Terms. Retrieved August 1,

2004, from http://ippex.pppl.gov/fusion/

glossary.html

Joint European Torus. (2004). EFDA-JET.

Retrieved August 12, 2004 from

http://fusion.org.uk/culham/jetmain.html

AD INDEX

Goodheart-Willcox

Publisher ........................C-2

Hearlihy & Company............36

Kelvin Electronics.................37

Triangle Coalition .................34

Stephen L. Baird is

a technology

education teacher

at Bayside Middle

School, Virginia

Beach, VA and

adjunct faculty

member at Old Dominion University.

He can be reached via e-mail at

slbaird@vbschools.com.

20 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


THE P.A.C.E.S. GRADING RUBRIC:

CREATING A STUDENT-OWNED ASSESSMENT TOOL

FOR PROJECTS

Robert B. Tufte, Jr.

With several years of teaching

experience using an engineeringbased

curriculum for seventh and

eighth grade technology education in

an urban school district, I was

frustrated that there was frequently a

poor attitude about the aesthetic

quality of project work to be graded. I

needed to find a method to make that

process fair for students and myself.

As a result, I devised the P.A.C.E.S.

grading rubric.

P.A.C.E.S. stands for Participation,

Appearance, Cleanup, Engineering,

and Safety. I have traditionally used

design briefs to set the limits on

processes and materials to solve a

given problem. The design brief

brings out all kinds of “out of the

box” thinking, with many correct

answers to solve the problem. The

P.A.C.E.S. rubric ties the design brief

to an open-ended range of

possibilities of assessment, from the

overall quality of a project to class

behavior. The definitions below offer

a basic guideline to help understand

the grading criteria.

PARTICIPATION – Class

participation from beginning to end of

a project.

APPEARANCE – Ask yourself, would

you buy or sell this item in a store, or

give it away as a gift?

CLEANUP – End-of-class cleanup

assignment, and individual work area.

ENGINEERING – Did your solution

work as it was designed within the

limits of the Design Brief?

SAFETY – Self-explanatory, from

beginning of a project to the end.

I generally have based project scores

on 20 total points available, but

teachers can choose to do it any way

they prefer. Large, long-term project

work has been scored as high as 250

total points. The scoring goes as

follows:

The design brief brings out all kinds of

“out of the box” thinking, with many correct

answers to solve the problem.

4 - Excellent

3 - Good

2 - Fair

1 - Needs Improvement

0 - Did nothing (Yes, I have had this

type of student.)

The process of setting up an

assessment system can be an

arduous task with many pitfalls that,

if you’re not careful, can overlook

some aspects of a student’s activity.

In my opinion, the need for simplicity

is important, but there is also a need

to cover every aspect of a student’s

presence in the classroom, from the

time they walk in the door until they

leave at the end of class. Also of

importance is for students to own the

grading process for “hands on”

projects. The following class activity

leads the students through the

process of developing a grading

method for project work.

Teacher Preparation:

1. Gather presentation materials for

written display. This is whatever

you use: overhead projector, dry

erase board, chalkboard etc.

2. Have students sit for discussion.

3. Knowledge of P.A.C.E.S. definition:

Participation Appearance, Cleanup,

Engineering, and, Safety.

4. P.A.C.E.S. grading sheets for

distribution (no sooner than the next

day—remember they invented it).

Conducting the Activity:

1. Tell the students they will be

making up the grading method for

their projects…today, right now.

2. Ask for raised hands to answer:

“What things do students think

they should be graded on for their

technology class projects?”

3. Lead the discussion in the direction

of having the students brainstorm

through to the answers for

P.A.C.E.S., which do not need to

be listed in any particular order

during the discussion.

4. As the different answers come up,

write them for everyone to see.

Encourage fine-tuning of the

language. There should be no

critical remarks, but lead the

discussion to end up with the

answers that will cover the

required spectrum of the P.A.C.E.S.

grading process.

5. Have them try to arrange the

letters of the acronym P.A.C.E.S.

during the discussion.

6. Having the students think they

have made this up will give them a

feeling of ownership. And, of

course, the obligatory class remark

will be:“Mr. Tufte is putting us

through our paces in tech class.”

Discussion:

I have not done much review of

literature in regard to the subject of

rubrics, but I know from experience

in reading some articles, online

searches, and anecdotal discussions

with other educators, that rubrics are

commonly used in evaluation, testing,

and assessments. One thing I have

noticed about many rubrics is that

the major focus generally covers only

the specific material to be assessed.

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 21


FEATURE ARTICLE

It may initially sound unfair to hold

students accountable for behavior as

well as the quality of a project’s

appearance on the same grading

instrument, but it ties everything

together and gives the students a

clear explanation of overall classroom

expectations.

The individual categories, as far as I

have been able to determine, can be

tied to all observable work and

behavior patterns—even behavior

infractions that I may not have

observed, but another student may

have brought to my attention. This

can be tied to a Participation or

Safety score when the pupil hands in

the project. Students tend to admit

these errors in behavior when it is

brought to their attention later. Also,

in my experience, they will

sometimes even bring up things that

they have done, and subtract

additional points for questionable

behavior. Poor Cleanup can be linked

to Participation and Safety. Project

Appearance can be associated with

Participation and Engineering.

Students must fill in a P.A.C.E.S.

evaluation sheet, and the sheet must

be handed in with the project for it to

be considered complete. Generally, I

would have a brief conference with a

student about his/her project grade,

and make the necessary adjustments.

Frequently, in the inner city schools

in which I have taught, the children

have never had many of the

experiences that I have offered them.

When they are given the chance to

grade themselves, they are usually

harder on themselves than I am.

Surprisingly, there are few scores

that are too high. That is where I

usually have to make the scoring

adjustments. I also offer the

opportunity to do additional

improvement work on projects.

Students will sometimes see what

some classmates have done, and

then they would occasionally re-open

a project to improve upon one of the

grading factors. When the marking

period closes, the scores are final.

Summary:

I do not claim to be the inventor of

this rubric, merely a facilitator. I’m

sure there are probably many that are

similar. I just needed an easy way to

grade projects, while also evaluating

each student’s presence in the class.

The students also believe that their

creative-thinking skills have helped to

invent a previously unknown method

of grading. This system may work

well for your classes, or you may

need to make some modifications to

make it work for you.

Reference:

No references were used in this

article. The information was derived

Name:_______________________________________Date:_________

Project:______________________________________Class:________

P.A.C.E.S. Grading Sheet

primarily from past experience and

anecdotal conversations. There are

no references to learning standards,

since I consider this a grading tool for

my benefit. The activity of having the

students help is not necessary, but

does stimulate classroom discussion.

Robert B. Tufte Jr.,

MS.ED. is currently

the Executive

Secretary of the

Western New York

Technology

Education

Association, and can be reached via

e-mail at Rtufte1@aol.com.

Special Half-Price Offer

For the month of

February, ITEA is

pleased to offer a

half-price sale on

the CD version of

any ITEA publication

currently available

on CD.

Use the following scale to rate your project in each category:

4 – Excellent 3 – Good 2 – Fair

1 – Needs Improvement 0 – You did nothing

Fill in each box with your score.

SCORE

PARTICIPATION APPEARANCE CLEANUP ENGINEERING SAFETY

Total up the number of points in the 5 categories. No higher than 20.

Your Total Score:_________

Note: You may do additional work or rework on your project to make possible

improvements to raise your score. SCORE

To order, call

703-860-2100.

This month only!

22 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Christine E. Hailey

Thomas Erekson

Kurt Becker

Maurice Thomas

Background

The National Science Foundation

established the Centers for Learning

and Teaching (CLT) program to

address national needs in the

science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM) workforce. NSF

recognized two problems, the large

number of educators expected to

retire over the next decade, and the

growing number of educators

inadequately prepared to teach STEM

courses. They also highlighted the

growing number of doctoral-level

professionals needed to educate the

K-12 instructional workforce and to

conduct research related to learning

and teaching in STEM areas. Finally,

as the K-12 student population

becomes increasingly diverse, the

K-12 instructional workforce has not

reflected the diversity of the student

population. Nor has the K-12

instructional workforce substantially

increased its ability to provide

appropriate instruction for diverse

learners.

The CLT program has three goals,

based upon stated national needs.

First, Centers are expected to renew

and diversify the cadre of national

leaders in STEM education. Second,

Centers will increase significantly the

number of highly qualified K-12 STEM

educators. Third, Centers will

conduct research on the nature of

learning, teaching, educational policy

reform, and outcomes of standardsbased

reform. To meet these goals

CLTs must include four components:

1. A PhD program.

2. A teacher education component.

3. Linkages with K-12 schools.

4. A research program.

The overall impact of the NCETE is to

strengthen the nation’s capacity to deliver

effective engineering and technology

education in the K-12 schools.

The NSF 04-501 program solicitation

focused on a number of national

needs that represented gaps in the

existing CLT portfolio. One identified

gap was a Center focused on

engineering and technology

education, with a requirement that it

guide the expansion of engineering

and technology education in the

schools. To achieve CLT program

goals, Centers are typically funded at

a level of $10 million over five years.

National Center for Engineering

and Technology Education

In 2003, a team of faculty members

from nine universities met to develop

a proposal in response to the

program solicitation, NSF 04-501,

Centers for Learning and Teaching.

The goal of this team was to develop

a proposal for a Center that would

link engineering and technology

education faculty in a partnership to

build capacity and benefit the

profession. However, stereotypical

attitudes held by many in both

professions needed to be addressed.

Greg Pearson (2004), a Program

Officer with the National Academy of

Engineering, candidly stated the

prevailing stereotype, “Let’s face it,

engineering is filled with elitists, and

technology education is for bluecollar

academic washouts.” In the

same article, he recommended that

“leaders and influential thinkers in

both professions have to decide that

the benefits of collaboration outweigh

the risks.” During the development of

the proposal for the National Center

for Engineering and Technology

Education (NCETE), investigators

understood Pearson’s message—the

benefits of collaboration were well

worth the risk.

On September 15, 2004, NCETE

received funding from the National

Science Foundation as one of the 17

CLTs in the country. The ultimate

goal of NCETE is to infuse

engineering design, problem solving,

and analytical skills into K-12

schools through technology

education and to increase the

quality, quantity, and diversity of

engineering and technology

educators. This will be accomplished

by teaming engineering faculty and

technology educators in a

systematic approach that involves:

1. Building a community of

researchers and leaders to

conduct research in emerging

engineering and technology

education areas.

2. Creating a body of research that

improves our understanding of

learning and teaching engineering

and technology subjects.

3. Preparing technology education

teachers at the BS and MS level

who can infuse engineering design

into the curriculum (current and

future teachers).

4. Increasing the number and

diversity in the pathway of

students selecting engineering,

science, mathematics, and

technology careers.

NCETE addresses an important niche

in the overall CLT portfolio as the

only center addressing technology

and engineering education. This

powerful combination of research,

graduate education, and professional

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 23


opportunities, and professional

recommendations.

NCETE has established partnerships

with key professional societies to

assist with its goals. Of particular

importance, the professional society

partners assist with dissemination of

materials and provide an important

mechanism for sustaining the NCETE

mission. ITEA has assumed a

leadership role in assisting NCETE

with dissemination of materials by

providing opportunities for publication

in its journal and at the national

conference.

FEATURE ARTICLE

Figure 1: NCETE Partners

development could be applied to

many levels. We have chosen to

focus on Grades 9 to 12 during the

first five years.

The Center includes partners with

strengths in engineering and in

technology education, including four

land-grant university research

partners and five technology

education partners geographically

distributed across the United States

(see Figure 1).

PhD Granting Partners

• Utah State University

• University of Georgia

• University of Illinois

• University of Minnesota

Figure 2: NCETE Regional Partners and Collaborations

Teacher Education Partners

• Brigham Young University

• California State University,

Los Angeles

• Illinois State University

North Carolina A&T State

University

• University of Wisconsin-

Stout

The Center also includes fifteen K-12

school district partners and is

organized into four regional teams

that facilitate collaboration among

PhD programs, teacher education

programs, and K-12 partners to build

capacity and to share effective

strategies and practices. Regional

teams facilitate collaborative

research, professional development,

capacity building, and

dissemination of

research findings and

model practices. The

regional teams permit

dissemination of

research results that

truly influence

practice in the 9-12

classroom, as

illustrated in Figure 2.

NCETE also fosters

and encourages longterm

relationships

between regional

teams and industry.

Industry partners

support Center

activities through

funding, internship

Professional Society

Partners

International Technology

Education Association

• Council on Technology

Teacher Education

• American Society for

Engineering Education

Engineering Design

One of the important goals of NCETE

is to work with engineering and

technology educators to prepare

them to introduce engineering design

concepts in Grades 9-12. The

Standards for Technological Literacy

(ITEA, 2000/2002) document

identifies design concepts to be

introduced throughout the K-12

curriculum, as four of the 20

standards specifically address

design: Standards 8, 9, 10, and 11.

The design process described in

Standard 8 is very similar to the

introductory engineering design

process described in freshman

engineering design textbooks with

two notable exceptions. Shown in

Figure 3 is a comparison of the

introductory engineering design

process as described in the textbook

by Eide, et al. (1997), and the

Standard 8 design process for

students in Grades 9-12. There are

many similarities. Both processes are

iterative and require a clear problem

definition, an identification of

constraints and requirements, an

exploration of possibilities, and

communication of results.

The primary differences in approach

are highlighted in gray in Figure 3.

The first highlighted difference shows

24 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


Figure 3: Comparison of an Introductory Engineering Design Process with the Standard 8

Design Process.

the role of analysis in introductory

engineering design compared with

Standard 8, which prescribes

selecting an approach, making a

model or prototype, and testing the

approach. Engineering programs

teach analysis as the decisionmaking

tool for evaluating a set of

design alternatives, where “analysis”

means the analytical solution of a

problem using mathematics and

principles of science. By performing

analysis, the engineer should arrive at

an optimum solution by eliminating

inferior solutions. A critical goal of

NCETE is to introduce students in

Grades 9-12 to the role of engineering

analysis in the design process. This

permits technology education to

provide a role as the integrator of

mathematics and science for a

diverse community of learners.

The second highlighted difference

shows the importance of creating or

making the design, as prescribed by

Standard 8, in contrast with the

introductory engineering design

process, which prescribes that

students develop “design

specifications” so someone can

create the design, not necessarily the

engineer or engineering student. The

“hands-on” component of Standard 8

design, the actual creation of the final

design, is often a stated goal of

engineering educators, but not

always achieved in the classroom. As

Pearson points out (2004), “one

growing concern in engineering

education is the entering freshman’s

lack of hands-on, tools skills.”

Creating the final design is a strength

of the Standard 8 design process.

NCETE Research Agenda

One of the important roles of a CLT

program is to support research into

STEM education issues of national

importance. In the Overview for the

AAAS Conference on Technology

Education Research, Cajas (2000)

noted that, “while technology

education is being introduced as part

of the education of all citizens, we

have almost no idea of how children

learn technological ideas and skills.

We need a research program that

can shed light on how children learn

at least the principles of technology

most relevant for literacy.” Likewise,

as engineering design and analysis

are infused into K-12 schools, we

know little about how students learn

engineering and how teachers can

effectively teach it. As a result,

NCETE has identified three

overarching research themes:

• How and what students learn in

technology education (engineering

and technological concepts, critical

thinking, and creative problem

solving).

• How to best prepare technology

teachers to teach engineering

design and deliver effective

engineering and technology

education programs.

• Assessment and evaluation of

learning and teaching engineering

concepts (K-12, teacher education,

and graduate levels).

NCETE Program of Work

NCETE has an ambitious program of

work over the five years of funding.

The major activities for the first year

include:

1. Recruiting 12 doctoral fellows and

developing a recruiting and retention

strategy to guide the Center.

2. Developing four Ph.D. core courses

that will introduce the doctoral

students to engineering analysis, and

infusing engineering design into

technology education, as well as

cognitive science in engineering and

technology education.

3. Developing nine engineering

challenges (curriculum activities) to

be used in teacher professional

development and in K-12 schools.

4. Conducting teacher in-service

experiences that prepare practicing

teachers to be able to deliver

instruction to infuse engineering

content and design into the

curriculum.

5. Focusing the research agenda and

initiate research projects.

6. Evaluating current pre-service

technology teacher education

programs in order to refocus them to

infuse engineering analysis and

design content into the curriculum.

Impact

The overall impact of the NCETE

program is to strengthen the nation’s

capacity to deliver effective

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 25


FEATURE ARTICLE

engineering and technology education

in the K-12 schools. To accomplish

this, NCETE will increase the number

of doctoral-level leaders and

researchers in emerging engineering

and technology education areas.

Center partners are creating a body

of research that improves our

understanding of learning and

teaching engineering and technology

subjects and evaluates the benefits

and shortcomings of engineering

content for student learning in

diverse K-12 settings. In preparing

leaders and researchers, the Center

will support PhD and master’s

students, and will prepare several

technology education teachers,

through pre-service and in-service

programs, who can effectively infuse

engineering content into K-12

schools. The combined strength of

our partners is revitalizing

engineering and technology education

and preparing a diverse instructional

workforce.

Acknowledgement

This material is based upon work

supported by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No. ESI-

0426421.

References

Cajas, F. (2000). Proceedings of the first

AAAS technology education research

conference. (available at

www.project2061.org/meetings/technol

ogy/Overview.htm).

Eide, A. R., Jenison, R., Mashaw, L., &

Northup, L. (1997). Introduction to

engineering design and problem

solving. New York: McGraw Hill.

International Technology Education

Association. (2000/2002). Standards for

technological literacy: Content for the

study of technology, Reston, VA:

Author.

Pearson, G. (2004) Collaboration

conundrum. Journal of Technology

Education, 15(2). (http://scholar.lib.vt.

edu/ejournals/JTE/v15n2/pearson.html).

Christine E. Hailey

is Director of

NCETE and

Professor and

Associate Dean in

the College of

Engineering at Utah

State University,

Logan, UT. She can be reached via e-

mail at chailey@engineering.usu.edu.

Thomas Erekson is

Co-Director of

NCETE and

Professor and

Director in the

School of

Technology at

Brigham Young

University, Provo, UT. He can be

reached via e-mail at

erekson@byu.edu.

Kurt Becker is

NCETE Project

Manager and

Professor in the

Department of

Engineering and

Technology

Education at Utah

State University, Logan, UT. He can

be reached via e-mail at

kbecker@cc.usu.edu.

Maurice Thomas is

NCETE Co-Principal

Investigator and

Professor and

Department Head in

the Department of

Engineering and

Technology

Education at Utah State University,

Logan, UT. He can be reached via

e-mail at mthomas@cc.usu.edu.

REDEDICATION OF OSBURN HALL AT MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY

On Thursday, October 21, 2004 the Department of Industry and

Technology at Millersville University, in coordination with the 150th

anniversary celebration of the university and the 75th anniversary of

the department, was pleased to rededicate Osburn Hall. Originally

opened in 1960, the facility is named after Dr. Burl Osburn, who served

as the Director of Industrial Arts at Millersville from 1941 until his

death in 1962. Over the course of the last 44 years, a number of smallscale

remodels and partial renovations have occurred to the facility as

the needs of the program and the university have changed. The

renovation leading to this rededication was by far the most extensive.

Architectural planning for this project began in 2002, with construction

starting in April 2003. The renewed and expanded Osburn Hall now has

main entrances on all three levels and 70,000 square feet to support

the programs of the department. Currently serving over 500 majors in

degree programs such as industrial technology, occupational safety

and environmental health, technology education, and master’s degree

and supervisory certification programs, the facilities of Osburn Hall will

now be able to accommodate the expected enrollment increases in

each of these programs for many years to come.

The dignitaries who led the ceremonies at Millersville

University to rededicate Osburn Hall are, from left to right,

President Dr. Francine McNairy, Provost Dr. Vilas Prabhu,

School of Education Dean Dr. Jane Bray, Chair of the

Council of Trustees Mrs. Sue Walker, Pennsylvania

Congressman Scott Boyd, and Department Chair Dr. Perry

Gemmill.

(Photograph was taken by Mr. James Yescalis and is courtesy of

Millersville University Communications & Marketing Services.)

26 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


ITEA FINANCIAL REPORT – FISCAL 2004

Important Comments Pertaining

to the ITEA and FTE Financial

Reports

• The figures in this report reflect the

financial year, which ended on

June 30, 2004. A complete

financial report is made to the

ITEA/FTE Board of

Directors/Trustees by the

accounting firm of Ribis, Jones,

and Maresca, P.A.

• The balance shown is the result of

specifically planned activities on

behalf of the Board of Directors and

the headquarters staff to balance

the budget. The Board monitors the

financial condition of the

association and foundation on an

ongoing basis through its Executive

Committee, which also serves as

the finance committee, and the

Executive Director, who serves the

association as secretary/treasurer.

• Care is taken through the auditing

process to ensure that the

operation of the association is in

compliance with rules and

regulations established by the

Internal Revenue Service and State

of Virginia guidelines used for

nonprofit associations. Questions

pertaining to this report can be

directed to ITEA at (703) 860-2100.

ASSETS

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents $ 108,309

Investments 794,714

Accounts receivable, net of allowance

For doubtful accounts of $13,626 91,286

Grants receivable 19,737

Inventory 132,630

Prepaid expenses 30,538

Total Current Assets 1,177,214

PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

Furniture and fixtures $ 24,501

Equipment 236,906

Less: accumulated depreciation (234,258)

Total Property & Equipment 27,149

OTHER ASSETS

Security deposit $ 3,250

Cash surrender value of life insurance 101,178

Total Other Assets 104,428

TOTAL ASSETS $1,308,791

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Accounts payable $ 20,989

Accrued wages and payroll taxes 19,570

Accrued vacation payable 48,680

Deferred membership dues 164,008

Deferred income – consortium 51,973

Total Current Liabilities 305,220

ITEA FINANCIAL REPORT—FISCAL 2004

NET ASSETS

Unrestricted $ 939,521

Temporarily restricted

Life Member net assets 56,464

Technical Foundation of America net assets 7,586

Total temporarily restricted net assets 67,050

TOTAL NET ASSETS $1,003,571

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 1,308,791

TOTAL REVENUE 2,176,432

TOTAL EXPENSES 2,146,328

REVENUE OVER EXPENSE AND SUPPORT $ 30,104

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 27


ASSETS

FTE FINANCIAL REPORT

FISCAL 2004

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents $ 6,083

Accounts Receivable 1,453

Investments 313,632

TOTAL ASSETS 321,168

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS

NET ASSETS

Total Net Assets 321,168

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 321,168

ITEA FINANCIAL REPORT—FISCAL 2004

28 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


HOW TO KEEP YOUR PROGRAM RELEVANT

(AND STANDARDS-BASED)

Mark Spoerk

Technology education as a profession

is in a tenuous situation. With budgets

becoming increasingly tighter, schools

across the country are forced to make

tough decisions regarding which

programs will be supported and which

will not. If technology education

programs cannot demonstrate a

tangible relevance for today’s

students, they will quite simply

cease to exist. With technological

development growing at an

astonishing rate, it is more critical

now than ever that we provide the

best possible technology education for

our students. At a conference on

strengthening our youth in science,

technology, engineering, and

mathematics (SySTEM) in Milwaukee,

WI, Tom Barrett, mayor of Milwaukee

said: “It is imperative that we prepare

our students to compete in a global

economy. Imperative not only for our

children, but for our economy as well.”

Competition in the world market is a

battle the United States is not

winning. Companies are moving

capabilities overseas, in part, as a

result of the dire labor shortage in

technically skilled areas in the U.S.

According to Bob Kern, founder of

Generac power systems, his company

could not function the way it does

without the foreign nationals in its

engineering department. This is a sad

situation. We are going to have to

drastically improve our technical

capability if we are going to prosper

as a society.

The question becomes, “How can we

ensure that our programs are relevant

to what students need in order to

prosper in our increasingly

technological society?” First,

technology educators need to honestly

evaluate what they are currently

teaching. Only then can we begin

looking at what we should teach.

Programs falling under the auspices of

We must demonstrate that our programs

are relevant, standards-based, and truly

beneficial to all students.

technology education generally fit into

one of three categories: technology

education, industrial arts, or career

and technical education. Every school

in America should have a true

technology education program if we

can reasonably expect to prepare

students to be technologically literate

in today’s society (Hendricks, 2003).

Key traits of a relevant technology

education program are:

• Standards based: 70-90% of course

content connects to state or

national standards for technology

education.

• Focused on conceptual

understandings, higher order

thinking skills and “big ideas.”

• Lab oriented but not skill

development oriented.

• Problem solving and system

thinking focused.

• Intended to serve the entire school

population.

• Integrates and reinforces content

from other academic disciplines.

• Academically challenging.

• Content is rapidly changing but

clarity is retained through

conceptual models.

• Content is being absorbed into

other disciplines.

• Growing movement from within and

outside the profession to establish

as a general education discipline

(Hendricks, 2003).

Over the last several years, a growing

movement has evolved stressing the

relevance to student achievement,

called Project-Based Learning (PBL).

Technology educators have long held

that we have always been engaged in

PBL. While projects are an integral

part of virtually every technology

classroom, precious few are engaging

in PBL in a meaningful way and

incorporating the key traits of true PBL.

For hands-on activities to become

meaningful project-based learning,

there are nine traits that must be

overtly addressed in a meaningful way.

First, the projects should be learnercentered.

The projects need to be

based on authentic content and

purpose. The selected projects need to

be challenging. The project should

include a product, presentation, or

performance that can be used or

viewed by others. There should be a

strong element of collaboration, or

cooperative learning. There should be

incremental and continuous

improvement from start to finish. The

teacher should serve as a project

facilitator, or “guide on the side,” rather

than “sage on the stage.” There should

be explicit and clearly identified

educational goals. Finally, the project

should be rooted in constructivism.

While constructivism means many

different things to many different

people, a simplified explanation of a

constructivist classroom would be one

that focuses on understanding that is

transferable to different situations. For

example, a student with a clear

understanding of the Bill of Rights

would be able to show how specific

amendments apply to contemporary

and historical controversial issues

(Sherer, 1999). We, as educators,

cannot reasonably assume that simply

by presenting a project to our students

they will infer all of these key traits to

project-based learning. The teacher

must overtly present this information to

the students (Moursund, 1998).

In addition, the program format, which

drives the instruction, has several key

FEATURE ARTICLE

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 29


Assessment

Driven

Student

Driven

Standards

Led

Classroom

Community

Driven

Knowledge

Driven

As a profession, technology education

stands at a crossroads. One path, the

one we have been on for decades, will

ensure we remain in limbo, lack the

respect we desire from peers, and

never realize the goal of evolving into

a required general education program.

The other, harder to travel path, holds

the potential for respect as a

discipline, the possibility of realizing

the goal of becoming a required

program for all students, and a

prosperity we have only dreamed of.

If we are to head down the more

desirable path, we must demonstrate

that our programs are relevant,

standards-based, and truly beneficial

to all students.

FEATURE ARTICLE

Adapted from the National Science Resource Center (NSRC) Model, 2000.

components. As mentioned earlier,

educational standards are vital to all

instruction. For technology education,

educators should have a good working

understanding of the technology

content standards in Standards for

Technological Literacy: Content for the

Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA,

2000/2002). The standards and

associated benchmarks in STL

address the disparity between student

dependence on, and understanding of,

technology. They were developed to

build increasingly sophisticated

understanding and ability. These

standards should lead all instruction.

The curriculum should be standardsbased.

That is, the curriculum should

be based upon the standards in STL

and focus upon student needs,

interests, and individual talents.

The program should be knowledgedriven.

The content should build on

students’ prior experiences, both at

earlier grade levels, and experiences

outside the walls of the school. When

determining what knowledge students

should glean from the program, the

bits of knowledge can be considered

according to a hierarchy of

importance. There is knowledge that

is worth being familiar with. There is

that which is important to know, and

be able to do. There is that which can

be considered enduring. To clearly

understand what is meant by enduring

knowledge, consider it to be that

which is relevant for students to be

able to synthesize into their lives and

demonstrate in a meaningful way,

even years after they leave your

program.

The program should be assessmentdriven.

Assessment should be

authentic, varied, and formative.

Students should be able to use

assessment as a means for

improvement, not merely as a method

for teachers to determine grades. To

ensure that student assessment is

valid, appropriate, and authentic, it

should be based on Advancing

Excellence in Technological Literacy:

Student Assessment, Professional

Development, and Program Standards

(AETL) (ITEA, 2003). AETL was written

to complement the standards and

benchmarks in STL. It focuses on

student assessment, professional

development, and program standards,

with the ultimate goal of improving

overall technological literacy among

students.

Finally, programs should be

community-driven. Unique activities

occurring in our community should be

embedded in learning activities.

Members of the community should be

involved in student learning as guest

speakers, project facilitators, mentors,

role models, and information

resources (Staten, 2004).

References

Hendricks, R. (2003, April) What do you

teach? No really, what do you teach.

Presentation at the Wisconsin

Technology Education Association

convention, [Wisconsin Dells, WI].

Moursund, D. (1998, May). Project-based

learning in an information technology

environment. Learning and Leading with

Technology [Volume 25, number 8].

Scherer, M. (1999, November). The

understanding pathway: A conversation

with Howard Gardner. Educational

Leadership.

Staten, M. (2004, November). Comprehensive

Science Framework.

Presentation before the Strengthening

youth in Science Technology

Engineering and Mathematics

(SySTEM) conference. [Milwaukee,

WI].

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). (2003). Advancing

Excellence in Technological Literacy:

Student Assessment, Professional

Development, and Program Standards.

Reston, VA: Author.

Mark Spoerk is a

Technology Educator

at the Lynde & Harry

Bradley Technology

and Trade School in

Milwaukee,

Wisconsin. He can be

reached by e-mail at spoerkmj@

milwaukee.k12.wi.us.

30 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

ITEA appreciates the following exhibitors for their generous support of our profession and

the 2005 ITEA International Conference & Exposition in Kansas City, Missouri, April 3-5, 2005.

This list includes exhibitors confirmed as of December 13, 2004.

A

AXYZ Automation, Inc.*

5330 South Service Road

Burlington, ON L7L 5L1

CANADA

Phone: 800-361-3408

Fax: 905-634-4966

E-mail: ewillms@axyz.com

Web site: www.axyz.com

Visit the AXYZ booth to see the CNC

router that is also a flat-bed plotter,

vinyl sign cutter, engraver, and quiet,

dust-free h.d. router!

Amatrol*

1638 Production Road

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Phone: 812-288-8285 x235

Fax: 812-283-1584

E-mail: sales@amatrol.com

Web site: www.amatrol.com

In high schools and beyond,

Amatrol’s project-based and preengineering

labs offer the most

comprehensive technology curriculum

available. Exciting multimedia

material adds success to a variety of

learning systems.

Applied Educational Systems

208 Bucky Drive

Lititz, PA 17543

Phone: 717-627-7710

Fax: 717-627-5643

E-mail: annek@aeseducation.com

Web site: www.aeseducation.com

TechCenter21, developed by Applied

Educational Systems, enhances

technological literacy and problemsolving

skills by combining

standards-based curriculum,

comprehensive management

software, interactive multimedia

presentations, and hands-on

equipment.

Applied Technologies

P.O. Box 1419

Calhoun, GA 30703

Phone: 800-334-4943

Fax: 706-629-6761

E-mail: tonya.jenkins@lli.com

Web site: www.appliedtechnologies.com

Applied Technologies develops,

markets, and supports hands-on,

educational materials and equipment,

featuring Project-Based Learning in

Technology Education, Health

Science, Agriscience, and Information

Technology.

Autodesk*

111 McInnis Pkwy.

San Rafael, CA 94903

Phone: 707-579-2679

Fax: 707-579-2679

E-mail: mollie.prosser@autodesk.com

Web site: www.autodesk.com

Autodesk is the world’s leading

design software and digital content

company, offering customers

progressive business solutions

through powerful technology

products and services. Autodesk

helps customers in the building,

manufacturing, infrastructure, digital

media, and wireless data services

fields increase the value of their

digital design data and improve

efficiencies across their entire project

lifecycle management processes. For

more information about the company,

see www.autodesk.com.

B

BEST Robotics, Inc.

209 Willow Creek

Allen, TX 75002

Phone: 972-390-9521

E-mail: lee@leehoward.org

Web site: www.bestinc.org

BEST is a non-profit, volunteer

organization whose mission is to

inspire students to pursue careers in

engineering, science, and technology

through participation in a sports-like,

science- and engineering-based

robotics competition.

Boxford, Ltd

Boxtrees Mill

Wheatley

Halifax HX 3 5AF

United Kingdom

Phone: 01144 1422 358311

Fax: 01144 1422 355924

E-mail: NWallace@boxford.co.uk

Web site: www.boxford.co.uk

C

CES Industries, Inc.

130 Central Avenue

Farmingdale, NY 11735

Phone: 631-293-1420

Fax: 631-293-8556

E-mail: l.laveglia@cesindustries.com

Web site: www.cesindustries.com

* Sustaining Corporate Members

2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 31


2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

CES Industries manufactures and

distributes technical educational

laboratories and equipment. All our

training equipment comes with

complete curriculum. Programs

include IT, A+ Cert., Network Cert.,

electronics, digital cable and

wireless, telecommunications, and

electricity.

D

DEPCO, Inc.

3305 Airport Drive

Pittsburg, KS 66762

Phone: 800-767-1062

Fax: 620-231-0024

E-mail: dhurt@depcollc.com

Web site: www.depcollc.com

Depco offers career and technology

curriculum specializing in Preengineering,

Manufacturing,

Business, Agriscience, and FACS.

We are the exclusive distributor of

MediaPLUS multimedia curriculum,

and ClassPLUS, an innovative

classroom management software.

Denford, Inc.

815 W. Liberty Street

Medina, OH 44256

Phone: 330-725-3497

Fax: 330-725-3297

E-mail: sales@denford.com

Web site: www.denford.com

Denford, Inc. is your complete

educational source for CNC

machines, software, and curriculum.

Denford will be featuring the

Microrouter Compact and the F1

Team in Schools Package.

E

Energy Concepts, Inc.

404 Washington Boulevard

Mundelein, IL 60060

Phone: 847-837-8191 x318

Fax: 847-837-8171

E-mail: ecisales1@aol.com

Web site: www.eci-info.com

Energy Concepts features

contextual-based training systems for

pre-engineering, manufacturing and

technology, and applied science

physics that ideally blend science

and technology skill.

F

Forest Scientific Corporation

88 Main Street/PO Box 88

West Hickory, PA 16370

Phone: 814-463-5006

Toll free: 1-800-956-4056

Fax: 814-463-0292

Web site: www.forestscientific.com

Forest Scientific Corporation

manufactures high-end CNC milling

machines, wood & metal lathes, and

routers. Forest Scientific also

provides software, training, repairs,

and upgrades all brands of CNC

machines to help you get the most

out of what you already have.

CAD/CAM/CNS Systems for

Classroom and Industry

G

GEARS Educational Systems, LLC*

105 Webster Street, #8

Hanover, MA 02339

Phone: 781-878-1512

Fax: 781-878-6708

E-mail: mnewby@gearseds.com

Web site: www.gearseds.com

Design, build, and test mechanisms

without a shop full of tools! Use

GEARS-IDS engineering

components to create integrated

CAD, math, science, and technology

lessons and activities.

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill

8787 Orion Place

Columbus, OH 43240-4027

Phone: 614-430-4331

Fax: 614-430-4343

E-mail: jean_leslie@mcgraw-hill.com

Web site: www.glencoe.com

Stop by the Glencoe/McGraw-Hill

booth to see the latest in technology

programs for Grades 6-12: Introduction

to Technology © 2005, Technology

Today and Tomorrow © 2004,

Technology Interactions © 2003, and

Technology in Action © 2002.

Goodheart-Willcox*

18604 West Creek Drive

Tinley Park, IL 60477

Phone: 708-687-5000 x1103

Fax: 708-687-0315

E-mail: chegg@g-w.com

Web site: www.g-w.com

Publisher of quality textbooks and

sponsor of the ITEA Teacher

Excellence Award. See our newest

titles including: Technology Design

and Applications, Learning Inventor 9,

Networking Fundamentals, and

Television Production.

Graymark International, Inc.

Box 2015

Tustin, CA 92781

Phone: 714-544-1414

Fax: 714-544-2323

E-mail: relmasri@graymarkint.com

Web site: www.graymarkint.com

Greene Mfg., Inc.

3985 Fletcher Road

Chelsea, MI 48118

Phone: 734-428-8304

Fax: 734-428-7672

E-mail: bruceg@greenemfg.com

Web site: www.greenemfg.com

Greene Mfg., Inc. manufactures

quality industrial, educational, and

technical furniture. GMI offers

furniture for computer, CAD/drafting,

and a large selection of standard

storage cabinets and work benches.

H

Hearlihy*

PO Box 1747

Pittsburg, KS 66762

Phone: 877-680-2700

Fax: 800-443-2260

E-mail: gwilliams@hearlihy.com

Web site: www.hearlihy.com

Hearlihy offers a complete line of

drafting/CAD products, technology

education modules, whole-classroom

activities, family and consumer

sciences curricula, and supplemental

education products.

I

ITEA

1914 Association Drive

Suite 201

Reston, VA 20191

Phone: 703-860-2100

Fax: 703-860-0353

E-mail: catts2itea@iris.org

Web site: www.iteawww.org

* Sustaining Corporate Members

32 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER


intelitek, Inc.*

444 E. Industrial Park Drive

Manchester, NH 03109

Phone: 603-625-8600

Fax: 603-625-2137

E-mail: sales@intelitek.com

Web site: www.intelitek.com

intelitek is a world-leading developer

of engineering and manufacturing

technology training systems. intelitek

is happy to intoduce LearnMate, our

new suite of e-learning solutions.

K

KELVIN*

280 Adams Boulevard

Farmingdale, NY 11735

Phone: 631-756-1750

Fax: 631-756-1763

E-mail: Kelvin@kelvin.com

Web site: www.kelvin.com

KELVIN is the educator’s source for

learning and problem-solving

products for science and technology

education. We provide for schools,

teachers and students a broad array

of materials and products to help

develop research and engineering

skills.

L

LJ Technical Systems, Inc.

85 Corporate Drive

Holtsville, NY 11742

Phone: 631-758-1616

Fax: 631-758-1788

E-mail: athomas@LJ-Tech.com

Web site: www.LJGroup.com

LJ Technical is a provider of K-12

Science & Technology Curriculum and

Academic Support Programs with

Integrated Spanish Language

Support. Designed for flexible

Differentiated Learning Environments,

with a Mixed-Media Delivery System.

Lab-Volt Systems*

PO Box 686

Farmingdale, NJ 07727

Phone: 732-938-2000

Fax: 732-774-8573

E-mail: sgowdy@labvolt.com

Web site: www.labvolt.com

Lab-Volt's award-winning technology

education programs prepare the next

generation of Tech-Savvy students to

succeed in the workforce. Lab-Volt

also offers career and technical

programs on Manufacturing, IT,

Electronics, Electromechanical

Systems, CNC, and many more.

M

Mastercam/CNC/Software*

5717 Wollochet Drive, 2A

Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Phone: 256-858-6677

Fax: 253-858-6737

E-mail: dann@mastercamedu.com

Web site: www.mastercamedu.com

Midwest Technology Products

2600 Bridgeport Drive

PO Box 3717

Sioux City, IA 51102

Phone: 712-252-3601

Fax: 712-252-5305

E-mail:

sales@midwesttechnology.com

Web site:

www.midwesttechnology.com

Midwest Technology Products,

serving educators for more than 90

years, offers complete technology

curriculum and furniture solutions, as

well as traditional industrial arts.

N

Nida Corporation

300 S. John Rodes Blvd.

Melbourne, FL 32904-1008

Phone: 321-727-2265

Fax: 321-727-2655

E-mail: graceh@nida.com

Web site: www.nida.com

NIDA Corporation is a manufacturer

of electronic training systems to

support basic electronics, avionics,

automotive, telecommunications, and

industrial controls.

P

PTC*

140 Kendrick Street

Needham, MA 02494

Phone: 781-370-5453

Fax: 781-370-5255

E-mail: mbotto@PTC.com

Web site: www.ptc.com/go/pil

PTC provides leading Product

Lifecycle Management (PLM)

software solutions to more than

35,000 companies worldwide. PTC’s

Design & Technology in Schools

Program is preparing a new

generation to succeed in a

technological world.

The Parke System

805 S. Devonshire

Springfield, MO 65802

Phone: 417-883-0427

Fax: 417-882-7007

E-mail: nlparke@yahoo.com

Web site: www.theparkesystem.com

The Parke System offers selfdirected

materials and processing lab

activities, with desirable take-home

items. The Parke System includes

many processes not found in most

schools and a unique introduction to

drafting.

Paxton/Patterson*

5719 W. 65th Street

Chicago, IL 60638

Phone: 708-594-7270 x202

Fax: 708-594-4047

E-mail: bgrzelinski@paxpat.com

Web site: www.paxtonpatterson.com

Paxton/Patterson offers technology

education and family & consumer

sciences learning environments that

develop higher order thinking skills.

Over 12,000 tools, equipment, and

supplies for vocational shops.

Pearson Prentice Hall*

One Lake Street

Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

Phone: 201-236-6637

Fax: 201-236-5597

Email: renee-willet@prenhall.com

Web site:

www.PHSchool.com/career-technical

2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

* Sustaining Corporate Members

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 33


Pitsco, Inc.*

Pitsco LEGO Educational Division

Synergistics Systems & Pathways

PO Box 1708

Pittsburg, KS 66762

Phone: 800-835-0686

Fax: 620-231-3406

E-mail: sfrankenbery@pitsco.com

Web site: www.pitsco.com

Pitsco’s innovative, hands-on

products bring excitement and

success to math, science, and

technology classrooms. Our activities

make learning meaningful for

students and rewarding for teachers.

LEGO Education provides standardsbased,

hands-on science, math, and

technology curricula including

robotics, simple machines,

structures, energy, and physical

science that engage and motivate

students.

Synergistic Systems & Pathways

are innovative hands-on, minds-on

math, science, and technology

learning solutions for Grades 7-12,

complete with environment,

assessment, and multimediadelivered,

integrated curriculum.

Printed Circuits Corp.*

4467 Park Drive, Suite E

Norcross, GA 30093

Phone: 770-638-8658

FAX: 770-638-8659

E-mail: joed@pcc-i.com

Web site: www.pcc-i.com

Printed Circuits Corp., (PCC) is a

fully equipped high tech PCB

Manufacturing and Assembly facility.

We can provide a Full Range of

Services. Design, Manufacturing, and

Assembly of Printed Circuits up to 12

layers.

S

SolidWorks Corporation*

300 Baker Avenue

Concord, MA 01742

Phone: 978-371-5181

Fax: 978-371-5088

E-mail: kbrady@solidworks.com

Web site:

www.solidworks.com/education

SolidWorks Corporation develops

and markets software for mechanical

design, analysis, and product data

management. As the world’s #1 3D

design software, SolidWorks is

committed to providing the best

software resources and the most

innovative CAD software solutions to

students and educators, worldwide.

T

TECHNO, Inc.

2101 Jerico Tpke., PO Box 5416

New Hyde Park, NY 11042-5416

Phone: 516-328-3970 x 403

Fax: 516-358-2576

E-mail: cgarwig@techno-isel.com

Web site: www.techno-isel.com

Techno DaVinci and CA series

computerized routers with 10,400

installed world-wide in industry and

education. Complete range of fifteen

(15) work centers, starting with an

10”x12”work area at just $6,995.

Come see us to talk about our LC

machines now available in education.

TIES Magazine

The College of New Jersey

2000 Pennington Road

Ewing, NJ 08628

Phone: 609-771-3332

Fax: 609-771-3330

E-mail: maskell@tcnj.edu

Web site: www.tiesmagazine.org

The online magazine for design and

technology education.

Tech Ed Concepts, Inc.*

550 Pembroke Street

Pembroke, NH 03275

Phone: 603-224-8324

Fax: 603-225-7766

E-mail: christine@TECedu.com

Web site: www.TECedu.com

Founded in 1987, Tech Ed Concepts,

Inc. (TEC) provides 3D solutions

needed to teach today’s young people

about the fields of engineering,

design, manufacturing, and

architecture. TEC, Inc. is the North

American Academic Distributor of

KEYCREATORT/ CADKEYR, DataCADR,

SURFCAMR, Chief ArchitectR, Z

Corporation Rapid Prototyping Printers

and 3D Manufacturing Programs. For

over 17 years, TEC, Inc. has

established itself as a trusted onestop

academic resource offering

teacher training, textbooks, workbooks,

reference guides, curriculum

and additional classroom support

materials. Visit TEC, Inc., on the Web

at www.TECedu.com, e-mail info@

TECedu.com or call 1-800-338-2238.

U

UGS

5800 Granite Parkway

Suite 600

Plano, TX 75024

Phone: 800-498-5351

Fax: 314-264-8913

E-mail: info@ugs.com

Web site: www.ugs.com

UGS is a leading global provider of

product lifecycle management (PLM)

software and services promoting

openness and standardization to

capture the value of PLM.

Universal Laser Systems, Inc.

16008 N. 81st Street

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Phone: 480-483-1214

Fax: 480-483-5620

E-mail: sales@ulsinc.com

Web site: www.ulsinc.com

Universal Laser Systems

manufactures affordable CO 2 laser

systems designed for engraving,

cutting, and marking. Systems are

computer-controlled and can

accommodate a wide variety of

materials.

2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

* Sustaining Corporate Members

THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • February 2005 35


2005 ITEA CONFERENCE EXHIBITORS

V

VMS, Inc.

805 Airway Drive

Allegan, MI 49010-8516

Phone: 269-673-2200

Fax: 269-673-9509

E-mail: sales@vms-online.com

Web site: www.vms-online.com

VMS, Inc. is a distributor of

textbooks, videos, and software for

technical programs at all grade levels.

Vernier Software & Technology

13979 SW Millikan Way

Beaverton, OR 97005

Toll free: 888-837-6437

Phone: 503-277-2299

Fax: 503-277-2440

E-mail: info@vernier.com

Web site: www.vernier.com

Vernier Software & Technology will

be exhibiting our award-winning

LabPro interface for science and math

data collection with computers and

handhelds.

W

Welsh Products, Inc.

PO Box 845

Benicia, CA 94510

Phone: 707-745-3252

Fax: 707-745-0330

E-mail: wpi@WelshProducts.com

Web site: www.WelshProducts.com

Welsh Products, Inc. provides a

complete line of products to “print

your own” drawn, scanned, or

computer design on t-shirts, mugs,

mouse pads, plaques, etc. by one of

four methods: Thermal Screen for

Volume Production; Sublimation for

Photographic Quality; Inkjet Transfer

for Simplicity; and Print Gocco For

Multicolor Card Printing.

Z

Z Corporation

32 Second Avenue

Burlington, MA 01803

Phone: 781-852-5005

Fax: 781-852-5100

E-mail: sales@zcorp.com

Web site: www.zcorp.com

Z Corporation develops,

manufactures, and markets the

world’s fastest 3D printers—

machines that produce physical

prototypes quickly, easily, and

inexpensively from computer-aided

design (“CAD”) and other digital data.

* Sustaining Corporate Members

36 February 2005 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines