October 2004 - Vol 64, No.2 - International Technology and ...

OCTOBER 2004 Volume 64, No. 2NUCLEAR POWER ANDTHE NEW MILLENNIUMAlso inside:• Planning Activities Acrossthe Curriculum• Reporting on the Status ofTechnology Education in the U.S.www.iteawww.org

Editorial Review BoardCo-ChairpersonCo-ChairpersonDan EngstromStan KomacekCalifornia University of PA California University of PANEW ON ITEA’S WEB SITESteve AndersonNikolay Middle School, WIStephen BairdBayside Middle School, VALynn BashamMI Department of EducationPhilip CardonEastern Michigan UniversityMichael CichockiSalisbury Middle School, PAGerald DayUniversity of MD-ESMike FitzgeraldIN Department of EducationTom FrawleyG. Ray Bodley High School, NYJohn W. HansenUniversity of HoustonRoger HillUniversity of GeorgiaAngela HughesMorrow High School, GADon MuganValley City State UniversityTerrie RustOasis Elementary School, AZMonty RobinsonBlack Hills State UniversityAndy StephensonScott County High School, KYSteve WaldsteinDike-New Hartford Schools, IAScott WarnerMillersville University of PAGreg Vander WeilWayne State CollegeEditorial PolicyAs the only national and international association dedicatedsolely to the development and improvement of technologyeducation, ITEA seeks to provide an open forum for the freeexchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education.Materials appearing in the journal, including advertising,are expressions of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe official policy or the opinion of the association, itsofficers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff.Referee PolicyAll professional articles in The Technology Teacher arerefereed, with the exception of selected association activitiesand reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles arereviewed and approved by the Editorial Board beforepublication in The Technology Teacher. Articles with bylineswill be identified as either refereed or invited unless writtenby ITEA officers on association activities or policies.To Submit ArticlesAll articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief,International Technology Education Association, 1914Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539.Please submit photographs to accompany the article, acopy of the article on disc (PC compatible), and five hardcopies. Maximum length for manuscripts is 8 pages.Manuscripts should be prepared following the style specifiedin the Publications Manual of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Fifth Edition.Editorial guidelines and review policies are available bywriting directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteawww.org/F7.htm. Contents copyright © 2004 by the InternationalTechnology Education Association, Inc., 703-860-2100.Now Available on the ITEA Web Site:Register Early and $ave!Register online for ITEA’s 67th Annual Conference inKansas City, MO on April 3-5, 2005. Online registrationand complete conference details can be found atwww.iteawww.org/D1.html. Kansas City here we come!Fresh Ideas BloomingIf you haven’t checked out the IdeaGarden Listserv, youdon’t know what you’re missing. Imagine 250 of yourclosest colleagues and friends sharing information, activities,problems, solutions, philosophy, and laughs. This valuableresource is free to ITEA members. E-mail iteambrs@iris.org to get your Members Only user name and password.Then go to Members Only and click on IdeaGarden Listserv.It’s easy to subscribe, and you can view archived postings,activities, and files, and teacher-recommended Web sites.Share the bounty!www.iteawww.orgITEA ONLINE2 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

IN THE NEWS & CALENDARWhat is the Tech Fest?Each year technology teachers gatherfor the International TechnologyEducation Association’s AnnualConference to share ideas andexperiences. One opportunity to networkis by participating in the ITEATechnology Festival. The Tech Festprovides an informational atmospherefor teachers to share their technologyeducation materials with other conferenceparticipants. Plan now to be apart of this exciting program bycompleting the application to participatein the ITEA 2005 Tech Fest inKansas City, MO, April 5, 2005,9:00am to 11:00am. The link to theTech Fest information iswww.iteawww.org/D3.html.PATT-15 Call for PapersThe theme of the PATT-15 Conference,April 18-22, 2005, is “TechnologyEducation and Research: TwentyYears in Retrospect.”You are invited to submit criticalreviews of twenty years of technologyeducation. The PATT-15 Callfor Papers can be found atwww.iteawww.org/D4c.html. Thedeadline to submit your abstract isNovember 1, 2004.Hey TECA Students—Gettin’ YourMoney’s Worth Yet?The other day I sat at a localMcDonald’s and watched as customersentered, ordered, and exitedthe restaurant. One young manentered, ordered, and received a bagcontaining his Classic #1 menuselection. The young man opened thebag as he dashed off, only to discoverthat the fries he had hoped for werenot in his bag. Immediately, the youngman did a 180-degree turn, dashed tothe front of the line, and protested.The feeling of being shortchanged andhis zeal for justice was high on hispriority list. He was certainly ready todo whatever it took to get his fries;after all, he did spend $4.69. Now justthink. This is a young person whodemands a value for his dollars;however, is he demanding thesame value when it comes to hisprofessional career?Ever think about what being an ITEAmember means and how it opensthe doors to a great career andaccess to some of the world’s leadinginformation and resources for teachingtechnology? For just $25 (first timestudent members), $30 (renewalstudent membership) you could tapinto something that will last longerthan that #1 meal we are often eagerto fight for! Look what you get:• Access to members-only materialson the ITEA Web site.• Classroom activities at memberreducedprices.• Your choice of two greattechnology journals: TheTechnology Teacher orTechnology and Children.• Once you graduate, your first-yeardues as a professional educatorare still at the student rate.• As a student member, you areeligible for the student scholarshipsthat are available throughITEA—you may qualify forscholarships of up to $1,000.• Leadership opportunities throughTECA international officerpositions and working with yourlocal TECA advisor.• Opportunities for participation inTECA regional competitions,and ITEA/TECA conferenceactivities.• Exposure to the ITEA Conferencetrade show exhibits, largestexhibit of anything you wouldneed to be a more successfultechnology education educator.Becoming an ITEA/TECA member iseasy; just go to www.iteawww.org/MembershipApp.pdf or see your TECAadvisor. You deserve the very best, sotreat yourself to the finest resourcesand professional opportunities available.Remember, if those fries areworth fighting for, just think whatITEA/TECA membership and all itsbenefits could be worth! Get yourmoney’s worth today and join yourprofessional organization; it’s worthfighting for.Michael A. De Miranda, Ph.D., ITEABoard Member representing TECA.OpportunitiesThe Mathematics Education Trust ofthe National Council of Teachers ofMathematics (NCTM) has announcedthe Irene Etkowicz Eizen Grant forEmerging Leaders in ElementarySchool Mathematics. The grant willaward up to $6,000 to help educatorsteach mathematics more effectively atthe elementary level by deepeningtheir mathematical content knowledgeand teaching abilities.The recipient of the Eizen grant willwork collaboratively with other teachersin the same district to improvemathematics instruction. The recipientis expected to become a teacherleader in mathematics and to work todevelop expertise in specific mathematicscontent aligned with NCTM’sPrinciples and Standards for SchoolMathematics. Recipients should beconfident in teaching mathematics androutinely extend the classroom beyondthe textbook, with the goal of furnishingcomprehensive, in-depth instructionto elementary school students.The Irene Etkowicz Eizen Grant applicationdeadline is December 3,2004. For more information, visitwww.nctm.org/about/met/eizen.htm.The Intel Foundation will award$250,000 to 22 schools during the2005 Intel and Scholastic Schools ofDistinction Awards. This nationalaward program recognizesNEWS AND CALENDARTHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 3

NEWS AND CALENDARoutstanding American schools forAcademic, Literacy, Mathematics andScience Achievement, TechnologyExcellence, Technology Innovation,Leadership, Professional Development,Collaboration, and Teamwork. Anelementary-level and secondary-levelschool will be chosen in each of 10categories and will receive a grant of$10,000. In addition, every applicationwill automatically be entered for considerationfor the overall “Best of theBest” category, with one elementaryand secondary winner. The two “Bestof the Best” schools will receive$25,000 each. Winners will alsoreceive prizes from event sponsors.Applications for 2005 are now beingaccepted and are due on December 1,2004. For more information or toapply, visit www.schoolsofdistinction.com.Save the Dolphins! is the theme of anEngineerGirl! Web site contest thatwill take place in conjunction withNational Engineers Week. Contestantswill be asked to imagine that a pod ofdolphins has mysteriously comeashore, and then to think of a solutionto this problem, using design principlesand processes from one or morefields of engineering to move thedolphins from the beach and safelyback into their home in the water. Thecontest is open to individual girls andboys and teams of up to six studentsin two age categories—Grades 5-8and Grades 9-12. Entries must be e-mailed or postmarked by December31, 2004. Complete details areavailable at www.engineergirl.org.Want to know what today’s studentsthink about the future? According towinners of one of the world’s largestK-12 student science and technologycompetitions, the future will includeamazing new inventions to make lifehealthier, safer, and more environmentallyfriendly. The ExploraVisionprogram is sponsored by ToshibaCorporation, the Toshiba AmericaGroup Companies, and the ToshibaAmerica Foundation, and is administeredby the National ScienceTeachers Association. Students workin teams of two, three, or four toenvision what a technology that existstoday would look like 20 years in thefuture. Since the program’s inception,more than 180,000 students have submittedentries. Deadline to submitentries for the 2005 ExploraVisioncompetition is February 2005. Formore information or an application,call 1-800-EXPLOR-9, or visitwww.exploravision.org.CALENDAROctober 14-16, 2004The Florida Technology EducationAssociation (FTEA) will hold its 75 thAnnual Conference at the Holiday InnInternational Drive Resort in Orlando,FL. Visit www.ftea.com for details.October 15-17, 2004The Georgia Industrial TechnologyEducation Association will hold its fallconference in Waycross, GA. For additionalinformation, visit www.gitea.org.October 25-26, 2004The Keystone Conference to exploreK-12 videoconferencing best practiceswill be held in Indianapolis, IN.Designed for K-12 education stakeholders,this conference will explorevideoconferencing in classrooms,professional development, and contentdevelopment, as well as technologyaccessibility and usability. Attend inperson or via videoconferencing. Visitwww.keystoneconference.org or callAmy Hargis at 1-866-826-CILC (2452)for more information.October 28-29, 2004The 65 th annual SUNY FallConference will be held on theOswego Campus, where millions ofdollars in improvements will soon becompleted. Conference vendorexhibits will be available, showcasingthe newest products thattechnology education vendors haveproduced. Contact Dan Tryon,conference program chairman, attryon@Oswego.edu for additionalinformation.November 4-6, 2004The 52 nd Annual Technology EducationAssociation of PennsylvaniaConference (TEAP), “TechnologyEducation: Making Connections,” willbe held at the Radisson Penn HarrisHotel & Conference Center in CampHill, PA. For more information visitwww.teap-online.org or contactconference@teap-online.org.November 5-6, 2004The Technology Education Associationof Illinois (TEAI) will hold its 11 thAnnual Illinois Technology EducationConference in Peoria, Illinois atthe Holiday Inn City Centre. Visitwww.teai.net or contact Chris Merrillat 309-438-7862 for more information.November 7-8, 2004The Technology Educators of Indiana(TEI) Annual Conference will be held inJasper, IN. Information is available atwww.teiwww.org.November 11-12, 2004The Rocky Mountain StatesConference, “Building on OurSuccesses,” will be held at theMarriott Hotel in Fort Collins,Colorado. Registration information isavailable at www.cteaonline.org. Theconference contact is Robert Steketee(rstekete@psd.k12.co.us) and thevendor contact is Larry Grimes (303-347-7836).November 12-13, 2004The Kentucky Applied EducationAssociation will hold its stateconference at Central KentuckyCollege in Danville, KY. Visitwww.katea.org or contact conferencedirector, Dennis Bledsoe, atdbledsoe@gallatin.k12.ky.us fordetails.4 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

November 17-19, 2004DeVilbiss, Binks, and Owens CommunityCollege have teamed up topresent a Spray Finishing TechnologyWorkshop in Toledo, OH. Classesinclude both classroom and hands-onsessions. Two Continuing Educationcredits will be awarded. Attendeesshould be involved with industrial,contractor, or maintenance sprayfinishing applications, or sprayequipment sales and distribution.Information is available atwww.owens.edu/workforce_cs/index.html; or call 800-466-9367; ore-mail sprayworkshop@netscape.net.November 19, 2004The Massachusetts TechnologyEducation/Engineering Collaborative(MassTEC) will hold its annual conferenceat Fitchburg State College. Theconference theme is “design+build =technology/engineering education.”The keynote speaker will be BrianNationalAeronautics andSpaceAdministrationBrenner, a professor at TuftsUniversity. For additional informationplease visit the MassTEC Web sitewww.masstec.org.December 9-11, 2004The Centre for Learning Research atGriffith University will host the ThirdBiennial Technology EducationResearch Conference, which will beheld at the Crowne Plaza Hotel SurfersParadise, Queensland, Australia. Theconference theme is “Learning forInnovation in Technology Education.”For information, contact HowardMiddleton, Conference Director, ath.middleton@griffith.edu.au.December 9-11, 2004The Association for Career andTechnical Education (ACTE) will holdits annual convention in Las Vegas,NV. Visit www.acteonline.org fordetails.For program information and application: http://explorerschools.nasa.govApril 3-5, 2005The 67th Annual ITEA Conferenceand Exhibition, “Preparing the NextGeneration for Technological Literacy,”will be held in Kansas City, MO. Withan entirely new schedule, includingexpanded registration and resourcebooth hours, several new networking/social events, and, yes, even a freelunch, the Kansas City conferencepromises to be one of the most excitingin years. Visit www.iteawww.orgfor the most up-to-date details.List your State/Province AssociationConference in TTT, TrendScout, and onITEA’s Web Calendar. Submit conferencetitle, date(s), location, and contactinformation (at least two months priorto journal publication date) toiteapubs@iris.org.NASAExplorerSchoolsInspiring the next generation of explorersBecome a NASA ExplorerSchool and partner withNASA to bring excitingand unique opportunities toeducators, administrators,students, and families.Educator and administrator teamswill develop a 3-year partnershipwith NASA and receive grants upto $17,500 for their school.The 2005 program will focuson NASA content at Grades 4-9.Application Deadline:January 31, 2005NEWS AND CALENDARTHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 5

YOU & ITEAITEA PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPSSaturday, April 2, 2005All Workshops will be held at the Kansas City Convention CenterYOU AND ITEANASA Robotics: Using Robots toExplore the UniverseTime: 8:00am – 5:00pmPresenters: Brad Blue, Julie Farriss,Sherry Klug, and Jennifer RochlisCost: $95.00 (Includes Lunch)Workshop is limited to the first 25participants who register.This workshop will feature technicalpresentations by NASA scientists andengineers along with practical handsonactivities that will make thiscontent appropriate and interesting toK-12 students. The content emphasiswill be on robotics technology.Building Standards-Based Curriculafor Courses or UnitsTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Michael DaughertyIllinois State UniversityCost: $95.00This workshop will walk participantsthrough an approach for buildingstandards-based curricula and incorporatetime for each participant to workon his/her own curricula with the helpof an ITEA Standards Specialist.Participants are encouraged to bring aspecific unit or course of their own.Resources and materials will beincluded.I 3 : Invention, Innovation, andInquiry – A Hands-on PerspectiveTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Daniel EngstromCalifornia University of PACost: $95.00This workshop is designed for educatorswho are teaching in upper elementaryand early middle school andare interested in integrative standardsbasedunits of instruction for the studyof technology. Each of the 10 units tobe discussed has been nationallytested and refined. This workshop isdesigned to be practical in nature,as each participant will have anopportunity to try a few units andreceive the most recent version.Measuring Progress – A Workshopon How to Assess Students forTechnological LiteracyTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Len SterryUniversity of Wisconsin-Stout (Retired)Cost: $95.00This workshop will use ITEA’s newMeasuring Progress publication togive technology educators practice insetting up sound measures of theirstudents’ progress. Educators will beable to use their own situations toenable them to assess students’ work.Participants will receive a series ofideas and sample materials to assistthem in their work.Middle School Invention andInnovation Course MaterialsTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Edward Reeve, DTEUtah State UniversityCost: $95.00This pre-conference, hands-on workshopwill introduce teachers to therecently developed standards-basedmiddle school course entitledInvention and Innovation. Technologystarts with invention and is improvedthrough innovation. In this workshop,participants will learn how to incorporatestandard-based activities andexperiences related to invention andinnovation into their curriculum.Project Lead The Way – The 3Ds ofComputer DesignTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenters: Teresa Phillips and GailParsonsCost: $95.00. Workshop is limited tothe first 20 participants who register.Explore three-dimensional, computergeneratedsolid modeling and its effecton the design process in this hands-onworkshop. You will work with vectorbased,3-D modeling software to createrudimentary parts and assemblymodels. Learn how this computeraideddesign integrates with computer-controlledmachining and rapidprototyping processes.VisTE (Visualization in TechnologyEducation): Using Design to LinkTechnology and Science TogetherTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Aaron ClarkNC State UniversityCost: $95.00This workshop is designed to bringtogether science and technologythrough the creation of presentationgraphics. Activities demonstratedwithin the workshop will show howthe creation of 2-D and 3-D modelsand data sets can enhance students’learning of technology and sciencewhile promoting technological literacythrough design. Participants will learnhow design briefs can be used toenhance student learning, problemsolvingabilities, and visualization.2005 Boot CampTime: 1:00pm – 4:00pmPresenter: Richard SeymourCost: $95.00(Workshop is designed exclusively forteachers with two or less years ofexperience.)New technology teachers need theright information, the right tools, andsurvival mechanisms to manage thesea of changes facing them whenentering a new profession. Anaccomplished panel of teachers andteacher educators will openly discusstactics, game plans, and professionalgoals, influencing the school culture,formulating programmatic changes,and managing professional landmines. Learn powerful secrets thatwill make you and your programshine. Resources and materials willbe included.6 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

TECHNOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS STANDARDS:AN INTEGRATED APPROACHFEATURE ARTICLEChris MerrillMark ComerfordIntroductionThe use of standards-based teachingand learning has been gainingsignificant attention in the educationworld. State and national associationsnow base their specific subject areaor discipline solely on standards, i.e.,International Technology EducationAssociation (ITEA), National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics (NCTM),National Science Education Association(NSEA). Moreover, at thepublic school level, state boards ofeducation are holding school districtsaccountable for teaching standardsbasedcurricula. Standards-basedinstruction is not an educational fad,but a reality for public schools todayand for the future (Reeves, 2002). Inaddition to a standards-basededucation initiative, integration ofdisciplines, especially withintechnology education, has gainedattention throughout the years (Brusic,1991; Childress, 1996; LaPorte &Sanders, 1995; Loepp, 1999; Merrill,2002).Technology andMathematicsIf you were to ask middle or highschool students to definemathematics, they would probablytell you course titles or functions ofmathematics that they have completed;i.e., ratios, proportions,algebra, geometry. However, a moreopen-ended and broader definition ormeaning of mathematics is the studyof patterns. It is with the latterdefinition in mind that the authorscreated a standards-based, integratedtechnology and mathematics lessonusing the design and construction ofstair systems as the hands-onA more open-ended and broader definitionor meaning of mathematics is the study ofpatterns.activity—the catalyst to bridge theoryand practice through an authentic,meaningful standards-based approach.Stair design offers teachers andstudents alike the opportunity to drawupon integrated learning whileapplying a standards-based approach.It should be noted that, while stairdesign may be a traditional type ofactivity, the authors consciouslylooked at developing this lesson andactivity with a focus on Standards forTechnological Literacy: Content for theStudy of Technology (STL), using abackward design approach.Standard 3 in STL states that,“Students will develop an understandingof the relationships amongtechnologies and the connectionsbetween technology and other fieldsof study” (ITEA, 2000, 2002, p. 44).Likewise, Principles and Standards forSchool Mathematics lists twostandards that are appropriate for thislesson: Connections and Measurement.One of the subparts of theconnections standard reads that“Students will recognize and applymathematics in contexts outside ofmathematics” (NCTM, 2000).Curriculum DesignTo develop this lesson and activity,the backward design process, aspresented by Wiggins and McTighe(1998), was utilized for eleventh andtwelfth grade students. The backwarddesign process is a three-stageprocess that teachers use to developcurriculum. More specifically, to startthis process, teachers start by askingthemselves: What is worthy andrequiring of understanding? To answerthis question, one must consider local,state, and national standards.Standards are the driving force behindtoday’s education and therefore needto be addressed and taken seriously. Ifthe answer from this first question isnot based on the standards, it isprobably not worthy of teaching andlearning (Reeves, 2002; Wiggins &McTighe, 1998).The big picture of the backwarddesign process is for teachers toteach for enduring understanding; forstudents to see the connections madebetween subject areas—to develop acognitive bank of knowledge that islearned and internalized, notmemorized. The backward designprocess draws upon what thestudents currently know and are ableto do with cognitive and proceduralconstructs. The authors believe that,by using stair design and constructionas the construct, students can makethe connection for enduring understandingbetween what is currentlybeing taught in mathematics and thehands-on approach of technologyeducation.The first question (What is worthy andrequiring of understanding?) istranslated into the first stage of thisprocess—identifying desired results.The desired results, which are whatthe students should know and be ableto do at the conclusion of the lessonor unit, were identified as:8 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

1. Use mathematical formulas andfunctions such as slope,Pythagorean Theorem, addition,subtraction, multiplication, anddivision to design a new stairway.2. Design two different stairwaysand draw them to prescribedscales.3. Use tools to construct twodifferent stair designs (with treadsand risers) out of cardboard at halfscale, based on a given total riseand total run.4. Search various architecturalmagazines and the World WideWeb to identify various stairdesigns to assess their purposesfor a given space.5. Describe the historical influence ofstair designs by writing a onepagepaper on the history andapplication of stair designs.Figure 1. Stair elevation handout for students.The acceptable evidence (secondstage), based on the mathematics andtechnology education standards thatwere identified in stage one, consistsof the sketches (layout) of the stairdesign, mathematical formula usage,building/stair construction (finishedstringers), pictorial display of work,and the written paper. The acceptableevidence is what the teacher willaccept to show that, “yes, thestudents did understand, learn, andapply the content/constructs,” andhere is the evidence or proof. Theacceptable evidence stage should bethought of as a continuum. Thiscontinuum takes into account differentlevels of cognitive, affective, andpsychomotor abilities. In fact, it maytake weeks for the students to exhibitthe “evidence” needed to prove to theteacher that they understand thematerial being presented.FEATURE ARTICLEThe third stage of this curriculumdesign process is to plan the learningexperiences and instruction. Theauthors created a “tear out” lessonplan (Lesson Plan Part 1) that could beutilized for this stage of the curriculumprocess. Lesson Plan Part 2 is asample activity that could also beimplemented for this stage in thedesign process, and is intended for thestudent. Figure 1 is an elevation viewof a simple stair stringer that could behanded out to students. Figures 2 and3 are examples of completed modelsFigure 2. Sample student-completed stair stringer.THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 9

FEATURE ARTICLEscience. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 52, 3204A.Childress, V. W. (1996). Does integratingtechnology, science, and mathematicsimprove technological problem solving?A quasi experiment. Journal ofTechnology Education, 8(1), 16-26.International Technology EducationAssociation. (2000, 2002). Standardsfor technological literacy: Content forthe study of technology. Reston, VA:Author.LaPorte, J. E., & Sanders, M. E. (1995).Integrating technology, science, andmathematics education. In G. E. Martin(Ed.) Foundations for technologyeducation (pp. 179-219). Peoria, IL:Glencoe/McGraw Hill.Loepp, F. (1999). Models of curriculumintegration. The Journal of TechnologyStudies, 25(2), 21-25.Merrill, C. (2002). Integrated learning:Zoetropes in the classroom. TheTechnology Teacher, 61(5), 7-12.National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (2000). Principles andstandards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.Reeves, D. B. (2002). Making standardswork: How to implement standardsbasedassessments in the classroom,school, and district. Denver, CO:Advanced Learning Press.Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998).Understanding by design. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Development.that define the stair stringers, treaddepth, riser height, and landing (if any)all constructed to a specific scale.ConclusionFigure 3. Sample student-completed stair stringer.Integrating technology with otherdisciplines does not have to be aforce-fit. The use of mathematicswhen designing stairs is appropriateand necessary. Technology educationteachers basing their curriculum onstandards and benchmarks will readilysee the advantages of using multipledisciplines for students to developenduring understanding. By integratinga relatively simple technology educationactivity with other disciplines,students will begin to see the“connections or linchpins” thatconnect different fields of learning.ReferencesBrusic, S. A. (1991). Determining effects onfifth-grade students’ achievement andcuriosity when a technology educationactivity is integrated with a unit inChris Merrill, Ph.D. isan assistant professorin the TechnologyEducation Program atIllinois StateUniversity, Normal, IL.He can be reachedvia e-mail at cpmerri@ilstu.edu.Mark Comerford,M.S. is an assistantprofessor inConstructionManagement atIllinois StateUniversity, Normal,IL. He can be reached via e-amil atcomerford@indtech.it.ilstu.edu.10 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

Lesson Plan Part 1.Integrated lesson planTitle:Integrated Learning through StairConstructionSubtitle:Stair Design and Construction:Mathematics and Technology inActionStandards:Technological Literacy –• Students will develop an understandingof the relationships amongtechnologies and the connectionsbetween technology and otherfields of study.Mathematics –• Students will recognize and applymathematics in contexts outside ofmathematics.• Students will understandmeasurable attributes of objectsand the units, systems, andprocesses of measurement.• Students will apply appropriatetechniques, tools, and formulas todetermine measurements.Objectives:At the conclusion of this lesson,students should be able to:• Design two different stairways anddraw them to prescribed scales.• Define individual tread depth andriser height, stair slope, and stairstringer.• Use tools to construct two differentstair designs (with treads andrisers) out of cardboard at anappropriate scale, based on a giventotal rise and total run.• Search various architecturemagazines and the World WideWeb to identify various stairdesigns to assess their purposesfor a given space.•Describe the historical influence ofstair designs by writing a one-pagepaper on the history and applicationof a stair design.Equipment/Materials List:Pencil, paper, eraser, architect’s scale,calculator, poster board, cardboard, x-acto knife, word-processing program,access to the World Wide Web,magazines depicting home designand construction technologies, localbuilding code book (not required, buthelpful).Introduction:Stairs are a common structure athome, school, and in our society.Stairs are of different shapes andstyles, but the end result is always toprovide a means for movement fromone level to another in residential,commercial, or industrial structures.Stair designs are generally drawn byarchitects who follow building codesand requirements that dictate the stairgeometry, including slope of stairway,minimum tread depth, maximumriser height, and required overheadclearances. Stairs are built on site byconstruction workers, prefabricated ina manufacturing facility and deliveredon site, or are hand crafted bycabinetmakers. The design of stairsdoes not happen by chance, but bytechnological and mathematicalproblem solving, formulas, andtheorems.Activity:In this activity, students will be usingmathematical formulas, theorems, andtechnological tools to construct twodifferent stair designs, using twodifferent rise and run dimensions. Inaddition, students will have theopportunity to study the history ofstairs and the various styles of stairsby creating a display of their work.Assessment:There are several assessments thatare both formative and summativethat deal with this lesson and can befound in the activity.Enrichment Activity:After completing the stair design andconstruction activities, turn yourattention to roof design andconstruction. Roofs are mathematicallyfigured the same way asstairs, but the construction processis different. Students should beinstructed on roof designs and, in turn,can use previously learned knowledgeand skills.Bibliography:Kicklighter, C. E. (1995). Architecture:Residential drawing and design. SouthHolland, IL: Goodheart-Willcox.International Technology EducationAssociation. (2000, 2002). Standardsfor technological literacy: Content forthe study of technology. Reston, VA:Author.National Council of Teachers ofMathematics. (2000). Principles andstandards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.Lesson Plan Part 2.Integrated activityStair Construction: Mathematicsand Technology in ActionOverview:Stairs are a common structure athome, school, and in our society.Stairs are of different shapes andstyles, but the end result is always toprovide a means for movement fromone level to another in residential,commercial, or industrial structures.Stair designs are generally drawn byarchitects who follow building codesand requirements that dictate the stairgeometry, including slope of stairway,minimum tread depth, and maximumriser height, and required overheadclearances. Stairs are built on site byconstruction workers, prefabricated ina manufacturing facility and deliveredon site, or are hand crafted bycabinetmakers. The design of stairsdoes not happen by chance, but bytechnological and mathematicalproblem solving, formulas, andtheorems.Introduction:In this activity, you will be usingmathematical formulas, theorems, andtechnological tools to construct twodifferent stair designs, using twodifferent rise and run dimensions. Inaddition, you will have the opportunityto study the history of stairs and thevarious styles of stairs by creating adisplay of your work.Directions Part 1:#1 – Plain Stair DesignAfter receiving the handout from yourteacher, you should:1. Calculate the slope and overalllength of the stringer.FEATURE ARTICLETHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 11

FEATURE ARTICLE2. Identify how many risers andtreads will be needed. Note thatin a straight-run stair there isalways one more riser thantreads.3. Identify the size of the risers andtreads.4. Use a piece of 8.5 x 11" paper tolay out and sketch the plan andelevation views of a plain stringer,which has a total rise of 3' 9 1 ⁄2"and a total run of 4' 4 1 ⁄2" using ascale of 1"=1' 0".5. Use tools to construct your designfrom pieces of cardboard at halfscale.6. Turn in your sketches,calculations, and completed stairdesign.#2 – L-Shaped Stair DesignAfter receiving the handout from yourteacher, you should:1. Calculate the slope and overalllength of each stringer.2. Identify how many risers andtreads will be needed.3. Identify the size of the risers,treads, and landing.4. Use a piece of 11 x 17" paper tolay out and sketch the plan andelevation views of an L-shapedstair design, which has a total riseof 9' 1 1 ⁄4", using a scale of 1"=1' 0".5. Use tools to construct your designfrom pieces of cardboard at thesame scale.6. Turn in your sketches,calculations, stair design, and stairmodel.Materials:• Architect’s scale, paper, pencil,calculator, eraser, cardboard,x-acto knife, glue gun and glue,and safety glassesDirections Part 2:Using the World Wide Web, yourschool library, or home/buildingmagazines, search for informationrelated to the history of stairs,different stair designs, constructiontechniques, architects and theirinfluences, and technologicaladvances of materials. Using a pieceof poster board, create a pictorialdisplay of your work. Your displayshould also contain the sketches andpictures of the stair designs youcreated during the first part of thisactivity. Be creative!Directions Part 3:Compose and format a one-page paperon the history of stairs and thedifferent designs that are used inresidential, commercial, or industrialstructures.Evaluation:Stair Designs #1 and #2 (each)•Mathematical calculations• Sketches• Stair modelPoster Board Display• Number and quality of pictures• Design and layout• CreativenessWritten Paper• Overall° Readability° Composition° Spelling° GrammarFollow-up Questions:1. What is the relationship betweenslope and the overall run and riseof a stair design?2. What materials are mostcommonly used to constructresidential stairs? Why?3. What tools would be needed tobuild a complete set of stairs?4. Where else in construction-relatedprocesses would slope andPythagorean Theorem be used?Why?5. List and name three different stairdesigns and describe theirpurposes.Become a a member of of the the Council on on Technology Teacher Education and andreceive professional yearbooks that that can can enhance your your teaching. teaching.Recent editions include:• 2000 Technology for the 21st Century• 2001 Appropriate Technology for Sustainable Living• 2002 Standards for Technological Literacy• 2003 Selecting Instructional Strategies for Technology Education• 2004 Ethics for Citizenship in a Technological World• 2005 Distance Learning or the 21st Century; Perspectives and Strategies• 2006 International Technology Teacher EducationMembership form can be found online athttp://teched.vt.edu/ctte/HTML/Membership.html12 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

TEACHING MACHINES TO THINK FUZZYAre you a fuzzy thinker? If you have a human brain, you are.Now scientists are trying to teach computers to think likefuzzy-thinking people, instead of like purely logical machines.To a simple machine, a statement is true or false. A light is onor off. The answer is yes or no. But to a human, a statementmay be partly true. A light can be off, dim, bright, or anythingin between. And the answer to a question can be “sort of.”Computer scientists call this kind of information processing“fuzzy logic.”Fuzzy logic programs for computers make them more human.Computers can then think through messy situations and makesmart decisions. It makes computers able to control things theway people do. Fuzzy logic has been used to control subwaytrains, elevators, washing machines, microwave ovens, andcars. Pretty much all the human has to do is push one button,and the computer figures out what to do, how fast, howmuch, and for how long.Another really important use for fuzzy logic is in robots. Somerobots, especially those that work in space, must navigateand solve problems on their own. For example, two or morespacecraft can work together by flying in a very precise formation.Spacecraft formations can be used as large telescopesto look for planets around other stars. Or they can takepictures of the same scene on Earth’s surface, looking at itfrom different angles through the atmosphere. Or they cantake 3-D pictures of the clouds. Such spacecraft can use fuzzylogic to keep their positions in the formation.Earth Observing-1 is a NASA New Millennium Program spacecraftdeveloped at Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Ithas been testing an advanced new formation flying systemthat uses fuzzy logic. It has been flying in formation withanother satellite, called Landsat-7, for over three years now. Ithas proven that this new technology works well and can beused on many future space missions.The EarthObserving-1satellite flies information behindthe Landsat-7satellite, takingpictures of thesame groundalmost exactlyone minute later.Your Assignment (Should You Choose toAccept it) . . .Here’s a story about teaching a robot to think like peoplethink—fuzzily!You are part of a crew flying two non-identical orbiting spacecraftto gather important science data about planet Zorgon.Spacecraft “Astroblog” and spacecraft “Beemeup” move inthe same orbit, with Beemeup maintaining its station exactly20 meters directly behind Astroblog throughout the mission.You are the Orbit Pilot for Beemeup. Your job is to continuouslykeep your spacecraft exactly 20 meters behindAstroblog throughout all orbit maneuvers.The SituationYour job won’t be easy. Irregularities in the upper atmosphereof Zorgon and differences between the two crafts in mass andin surface friction cause the speed of each spacecraft tochange in different ways as they orbit the planet. In additionto that complication, Astroblog may occasionally changespeed intentionally to accomplish the mission objectives.Your spacecraft, Beemeup, has a range finder. It can detectthe distance to the spacecraft it is supposed to be following. Itdisplays the difference from any pre-set, target distance as an“error.” When set to 20 meters, for example, if the target is 20meters away, the range finder displays “0” error. If the targetcomes closer than 20 meters, it displays the error (actual distanceminus 20 meters) in meters “too close,” or m tc . Forexample, if the target is only 18 meters away, the range finderwill show the error as 2 tc . If the distance becomes greaterthan 20 meters, the error is shown inmeters “too far,” or m tf .The workstation for Beemeup’s orbitpilot has a slider bar control for theforward and reverse thrusters onthe spacecraft. The control handleslides along a scale with threemain positions: “Forward Thrust,”“Stop Thrust,” and “ReverseThrust.” Also, continuous scalesare marked off from Forward toStop (100%F to 0%) and fromStop to Reverse (0% to 100%R).Your on-the-job-training manualfor station-keeping in orbitalspace shows two methods:

Method 1: BASIC navigationThe approach is simple and obvious; it’s easily done with only afew “rules.”1. If range error is 0, keep the thruster bar at Stop Thrust.2. If range error is a number tc (you are too close), move thethruster bar to Reverse Thrust. Then, when range errorreturns to 0, move the thruster bar to Stop Thrust.3. If range error is a number tf (you are too far behind), move thethruster bar to Forward Thrust. Then, when range errorreturns to 0, move the thruster bar to Stop Thrust.While this system is both simple and effective, it probably isn’tthe one you’ll want to use; it has a downside.As the forward thruster reduces a “too far” range error to zero,for example, and Stop Thrust is selected, the spacecraft’s correctivemotion continues. This is called “overshoot.” A “tooclose” error now appears, and reverse thrust must be selected.This sequence will continue endlessly, requiring the pilot’s continuousaction and consuming excessive quantities of fuel.A more comfortable way to navigate requires just a few morerules.Method 2: REFINED navigation1. If range error is 0, set the thruster bar to Stop Thrust.2. If range error is a larger number tc (you are way too close),move the thruster bar a lot toward Reverse Thrust.3. If range error is a smaller number tc (you are a little tooclose), move the thruster bar a little toward ReverseThrust.4. If range error is a larger number tf (you are way too faraway), move the thruster bar a lot toward Forward Thrust.5. If range error is a smaller number tf (you are a little too faraway), move the thruster bar a little toward ForwardThrust.With a little practice, you get a feeling for just how muchthruster to use to minimize overshoot, and you’ve become aqualified station-keeping pilot! With the new rules, less frequentaction is required for station-keeping, but your continuous, alertattention is still needed to note changes in range that canhappen at any time.But you’re getting tired. And hungry. And bored! If you hope tosleep, to eat, and to experience the space wonders going on, it’sclear that you’ll require some assistance.Help is on the Way . . . MaybeEvery member in the small crew has a full assignment. TheCaptain, however, is able to spare a small, old fashioned, butuser-friendly robot to serve as your Assistant Orbit Pilot. You willhave to completely train the robot in piloting, though. TheCaptain calls it Mr. Bot.Training should be easy. Mr. Bot has jacks that can connect intoboth range finder and thrust control circuits. It’s just a matter ofdownloading your list of navigation rules to Mr. Bot’s memoryand determining whether he understands the job.After connecting to the circuits, Mr. Bot processes your download,then produces a lengthy printout for you:ATTN PILOT:RULE #1 IS UNDERSTOODRULE #2 CANNOT PROCESS—YOUR PARAMETERS AREFUZZY!‘LARGER’ IS UNDEFINED!‘A LOT’ IS UNDEFINED!RULE #3 CANNOT PROCESS—YOUR PARAMETERS AREFUZZY!‘SMALLER’ IS UNDEFINED!‘A LITTLE’ IS UNDEFINED!RULE #4 CANNOT PROCESS—YOUR PARAMETERS AREFUZZY!‘LARGER’ IS UNDEFINED!‘A LOT’ IS UNDEFINED!RULE #5 CANNOT PROCESS—YOUR PARAMETERS AREFUZZY!‘SMALLER’ IS UNDEFINED!‘A LITTLE’ IS UNDEFINED!It seems that Mr. Bot doesn’t appreciate your “fuzzy” way ofthinking.

One option could be to download your Method 1 BASIC navigationrule set to Bot’s memory. He‘d probably love it—nofuzzy words there. But with those rules, Bot would give thecrew a jerky ride that would exhaust the spacecraft’s thrusterfuel before the mission was over.Another option is to find a way to get Mr. Bot to think“fuzzy.” That is, we need to teach him to take these fuzzyinput parameters and do some kind of calculations on themthat tell him exactly how to control the thrusters.Maybe he raises a legitimate question: If the range measurementnumber is supposed to be 20, exactly what is a“smaller” range error number? Is it 10?…or is it 5?…or3?…or does it much matter to us? Whatever we decide, if itturns out too big, we’ll try a smaller number. Same for “a little”thrust. We might decide that means 60%, but change to20% when we get a “feeling” for it.Mr. Bot, of course, doesn’t have the freedom to make uprules and change them later. But maybe we can do that forhim. Let’s try by modifying Rules #2 and #3. Let’s just picksome numbers and say:2. When range error is more than 5 tc (too close), move thethruster bar to 100% Reverse Thrust.3. When range error is less than or equal to (< or =) 5 tc ,set the thruster bar percentage in proportion to the rangeerror, based on 100% Reverse Thrust for a range error of5 tc .This means that for a range error of 2 tc , for example, Botwould set Reverse Thrust to 40%, and at 0 meters to 0% orStop Thrust. It’s logical enough for Mr. Bot to understand,and it still follows the larger-smaller-a little-a lot of our “fuzzy”rules (more or less).So now we rewrite rules #4 and #5 the same way anddownload to Mr. Bot for his reaction.ATTN PILOT:ALL RULES UNDERSTOODGreat. He likes it! And it works! But only to a certain point.Making Little Men GreenAlthough Mr. Bot keeps Beemeup well locked onto its station20 meters behind Astroblog, the crew is getting seasick fromthe strong, lurching speed changes Mr. Bot is making.Perhaps we can slow Mr. Bot’s responses if we give himmore maneuvering room. Let’s pick new range numbers. Let’schange 5 meters to 10 meters (or to whatever). Then Rules#2 and #3 become:2. When range error is more than 10 tc (too close), move thethruster bar to 100% (Reverse Thrust).3. When range error is less than or equal to (< or =) 10 tc ,set the thruster bar percentage in proportion to the range,based on 100% (reverse) thrust for a range error of 10 tc .So now we rewrite rules #4 and #5 the same way anddownload to Mr. Bot for his reaction.This download works. Everyone is happy. Mr. Bot’s adjustmentsare smooth. Life for an Orbit Pilot is tranquil!Bot Not for Long!Things change! Astroblog’s mission now requires frequentadjustments in speed. This has caused Beemeup’s stationadjustments to become erratic—new errors now occurbefore previous ones are corrected. Bot’s responses sometimesmake the errors worse.When moving toward or away from Astroblog, speed of thatmotion has been controlled primarily by Beemeup’s thrusters.Now, changes are also caused by Astroblog’s movements.This complication isn’t covered in our original navigationrules. Additional rules are needed—and fast!If we are moving too fast toward Astroblog, it seems obviousthat we should use some amount of reverse thrust to slow usdown; and, conversely, some amount of forward thrust isneeded when speeding too quickly away. They really doseem fuzzy, but these are our new speed adjustment rules.Mr. Bot could deal with them—if we could somehow say itwith numbers. Mr. Bot needs numbers—even fuzzy ones! Ifwe could only find a way to measure the speed of our motiontoward and away from Astroblog.Beemeup’s technician has uncovered a simple toy radarspeedometer in a recreation gear storage locker. It was probablyused by earlier crews to measure speeds of things likethrown balls, other crew members, or whatever. The technicianhas cleverly targeted the radar’s beam on Astroblog,with an output connected directly to Mr. Bot. The radar’s digitaldisplay will now show us how fast we are approaching ormoving away from Astroblog. The radar has a low speedcalibration that covers from 30 meters per minute closing in(mpm c ) to zero to 30 meters per minute falling back (mpm f ).The speeds we are observing all seem to fall within thatrange.Adding Speed to the Fuzzy EquationWe now have rules for dealing with speed change and a wayto measure the changing speeds. While both the speed andthe position rules are followed at the same time, it’s obviousto us that the speed adjustment rules will be more important,

or less important, depending on what kind of range errorwe see:• If we’re closing in at high speed and we are already 10meters too close, a lot of reverse thrust makes sense.• On the other hand, if we’re 10 meters too far away andwe’re closing in at high speed, a lot of reverse thrust mightslow correction or make the error worse.We make these decisions easily. It’s just plain common sense.But how do we teach this kind of fuzz to Mr. Bot?Let’s consider a typical situation that Mr. Bot will deal with,such as when we’re too close to Astroblog and we’re moving intoo fast.In this case, our range rules say:1. When range error is 10 tc or less, set the thruster bar percentagein proportion to the range error. Or, to re-phrase thatso Mr. Bot will understand it:• For range error < or = 10 tc ,thrust = (100%R / 10) x range error.What thrust correction should we make if we’re movingtoward our station a lot faster or a little faster than planned?Since our speedometer measures up to 30 mpm, let’schoose to use maximum thrust for speeds over 20 mpm c(closing in) and make a rule like this:2. When speed is less than or equal to 20 mpm c , set thethruster bar to reverse thrust in proportion to the speed. Or,in Mr. Bot’s terms:• For speed < or = 20 mpm c ,thrust = (100%R / 20) x speed.How should that rule be written in case we are moving awayfrom our station too fast?Mr. Bot needs to combine the range and the speed rules andperform both at once. A very simple way is just to add bothresults, and, ignoring the portion greater than 100%, their sumequals the total thrust to be applied.*Here’s an example of what happens with range error of 3 tc andspeed of 8 mpm c :For RANGE ERRORS < or = 10 m tcThrust = (100%R / 10 m) x Range ErrorthereforeThrust = (100%R / 10 m) x 3 m tc = 30%RSo adding . . .Range Correction Thrust = 30%RSpeed Correction Thrust = 40%RTotal Correction Thrust = 70%RFor SPEEDS < or = 20 mpm cThrust = (100%R / 20 mpm c ) x SpeedthereforeThrust = (100%R /20 mpm c ) x 8 mpm c = 40%RThat seems reasonable! We would need a total of 70% reversethrust: 30% reverse thrust just to move away from Astroblog andan additional 40% reverse thrust to slow our rapid motion towardAstroblog. If it doesn’t work smoothly, the numbers we’veselected can be changed until it does. That’s the beauty of fuzz!What would the total correction thrust be for this situation?Range error 5 tc , speed 15 mpm c ? __________ %(Answer is given at end of article.)It Gets FuzzierMr. Bot can understand this stuff so far and execute it quitewell. Some of the other situations he faces may be a lot morechallenging, however. This table shows all nine potentialsituations where our rules either (1) say to do the same action(agree), (2) one rule requires nothing and the other rule says dosomething (no conflict), or (3) one rule says to do one thing andthe other rule says to do just the opposite (conflict).DIRECTION OF MOTION/Rule for Action:CLOSING IN/Reverse ThrustNONE/No ActionFALLING BACK/Forward ThrustLet’s see what happens when instructions for RANGE TOOCLOSE and MOTION FALLING BACK are in conflict. Let’s useRange Error of 3 tc and Speed of 8 mpm f :Note: In the case where you are combining forward andreverse thrust, they will tend to cancel each other out. Whatyou will have left is the difference between the two numbers,with the thrust in the direction of the larger number.So Mr. Bot would now select 10% forward thrust: 30% reversethrust to move away and 40% forward thrust to slow the excessspeed of moving away. That feels just about right.Think Like Mr. BotTOO CLOSE/Reverse ThrustAGREENO CONFLICTCONFLICT!For RANGE ERRORS < or = 10 m tcThrust = (100%R / 10 m) x Range ErrorthereforeThrust = (100%R / 10 m) x 3 m tc = 30%RSo adding . . .RANGE ERROR / Rule for action:JUST RIGHT/No ActionNO CONFLICTNO ACTIONNO CONFLICTRange Correction Thrust = 30%RSpeed Correction Thrust = 40%FTotal Correction Thrust = 10%FTOO FAR/Forward ThrustCONFLICT!NO CONFLICTAGREEFor SPEEDS < or = 20 mpm fThrust = (100%F / 20 mpm) x SpeedthereforeThrust = (100%F / 20 mpm) x 8 mpm = 40%FNow that you’ve taught Mr. Bot to think fuzzy like you, it’s onlyfair that you try out your own rules as Mr. Bot will have to do.

Again, here are the rules for handling the fuzzy inputparameters:For SPEEDS…> 20 mpm c (closing in)Thrust = 100%R< or = 20 mpm cThrust = (100%R / 20 mpm) x Speed> 20 mpm f (falling back)Thrust = 100%FFor RANGE ERRORS…> 10 m tc (too close)Thrust = 100%R< or = 10 m tcThrust = (100%R / 10 m) x Range Error> 10 m tf (too far)Thrust = 100%F< or = 20 mpm fThrust = (100%F / 20 mpm) x SpeedFill in the thrust values for the following situations. Note thatthe total correction thrust percentage may add up to morethan 100%R or 100%F. If so, just give it all you’ve got, whichcan be no more than 100%!SPEED10 mpm c (closing in)0 (none)8 mpm f (falling back)8 m tc(too close)Thrust =Thrust =Thrust =See bottom of article for answers.< or = 10 m tfThrust = (100%F / 10 m) x Range ErrorRANGE ERROR0(just right)Thrust =Thrust =Thrust =10 m tf(too far)Thrust =Thrust =Thrust =After you review how the rules work in all possible situations,you download the rules and Mr. Bot responds:This article was written by Diane Fisher, writer and designerof The Space Place Web site at spaceplace.nasa.gov. AlexNovati drew the illustrations. Thanks to Gene Schugart,Space Place advisor, for activity concept and helpful advice.The article was provided through the courtesy of the JetPropulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,Pasadena, California, under a contract with the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration.Answers:Range error 5 tc , speed 15 mpm c ? 125%R or 100%RSPEED10 mpm c (closing in)0 (none)8 mpm f (falling back)8 m tc(too close)Thrust = 100%RThrust = 80%RThrust = 40%RRANGE ERROR0(just right)Thrust = 50%RThrust = 0Thrust = 40% F10 m tf(too far)Thrust = 50%FThrust = 100%FThrust = 100%FATTN PILOT:THESE RULES ARE REALLY CRISP AND CLEAR!THANK YOU! ☺…and it really works!* While this simple method can do our job, more sophisticatedstatistical tools are used to produce very smooth,precise maneuvering. These include math techniques such asroot-mean-square averaging and others.Go to The Space Place Web site athttp://spaceplace.nasa.gov to learn about some of the otheradvanced technologies on Earth Observing-1.

From IDSACLUSTERING STUDENTS TO EVALUATE AND UNDERSTANDHANDHELD COMMUNICATION INTERFACESIDSAR. Brian StoneA user communicates, or interacts,with a handheld device via a series ofinterfaces. These interfaces facilitate adialog between the person and the cellphone, PDA, or MP3 player by receivinginput and responding to humanaction with feedback. We interact withhandheld screen interfaces at a veryintimate level. It is rare that someonewill demonstrate to colleagues howpleasurable or intuitive their cellphone’s interface works. Conversely, ifthere are deficiencies in an interface,users will quietly find a work-around,live with the frustration, or ignore thefunction altogether. In either event,broad exposure to these interfaces isnot seen at the same level as Websites promoting usability or CD-ROMprograms touting innovation.With the growing complexity, functionality,and increased use of“responsive” three-dimensional products,such as cell phones, personaldata assistants or PDAs, and digitalcameras, designers must direct theirfocus to designing the “experience ofinterface interaction” as well as thephysical form of the object. The wayThe way we use a product is as important as what thatproduct can do, or what it looks like.we use a product is as important aswhat that product can do, or what itlooks like; thus the issue of what anobject means or causes one to dowith it has moved to the foreground.Reviewing and evaluating screenbasedinterfaces for handheld devicesshould be of great interest to aspiringproduct or visual communicationdesigners, engineers, informationarchitects, and interaction designers.Through these shared evaluations,students will realize the range andlimitations faced when dealing withinterfaces for screens in a handheldproduct context. Having early exposureto the concepts relevant to interfacedesign for handheld devices willbetter prepare students for the uniquechallenges that lie ahead in this ubiquitousand dynamic application.Because handheld devices are sopervasive in our society, it won’t takemany resources to get started conductingevaluations of handheldcommunication interfaces. Virtually allstudents have access to a PDA, cellphone, language translator, or MP3player (Figure 1).To help establish a context for whatcan be done, this student’s evaluationof a low-cost digital camera withzoom typifies the assortment ofproblematic issues that may occurwith handheld communication devicescreens. The camera received favorablereviews for its size, features, andincluded peripherals. Ideal for theentry-level consumer, it provides bothautomatic and manual modes. Ananalysis and observation of usersinteracting with the camera revealedthat point-and-shoot activities werefairly easy to perform, although thedisplay only shows five of the sixavailable menu options. Task difficultiesand interface shortcomingsbecame apparent, however, onceusers attempted to use some of thecamera’s advanced functionality.Figure 1. Encourage students to evaluate an array of handheld communication interfaces. These products offered a range of interface andinteraction schemes, as well as unique opportunities for analysis, design, and evaluation.18 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

In this situation, the student designerdiscovered several problems. Amongthese problems were the issues offunctional hierarchy, task structure,the visibility of functions, and feedback.The student went on to proposesolutions to some of the problems,which were mocked-up (Figures 3-4)using a vector drawing program, suchas Adobe Illustrator ® .As with virtually all digital cameras,users interact with some level of operationthrough an LCD screen. Tactilebuttons control the movement throughmenus and actuate functions. In manyinstances, opaque expanding and collapsingmenus obstruct any view of anintended photographic subject. Thismay not be a problem in some scenarios,but occludes any visibility whenattempting to adjust and previewchanges to exposure, aperture, orwhite-balance settings (Figure 2). Thisissue can be resolved by revising thebehavior of the menu structure andGUI (Figure 3). Only the appropriate, or“in-context,” menu is displayed. Thisallows users to see real-time changesto the preview when adjusting exposure,aperture, and white-balance controls(Figure 4). Feedback is immediate,and visibility is maximized.You may begin your project by havingstudents bring in a variety of handheldproducts that have screens as the primarymode of responsive communication.This may be his or her own MP3player, a PDA of a close friend, or adigital camera of a family member.Divide the products into categories,with the primary classification beingon the “type of task” the product isintended to support; e.g., organizing orretrieving information, communicating,entertaining, translating, etc. Clusterthe students into groups and havethem conduct an evaluation, using theforthcoming principles. Included in thisevaluation should be an identificationof a typical user, a clear identificationof a problem, and a proposed resolution(which may be mocked-up as anadditional design activity).Once the students have been clusteredwith an array of product interfaces,they should begin with adescription of the product’s typicaluser(s) and the tasks that must besupported. Having an understanding ofa user is the first step in delivering aninterface that meets the user’s needs,goals, skill set, and experience level.This information is easily extracted bytalking to real users of the product.The discoveries made in this phasecan radically change assumptions andinspire innovation.Once the user and user tasks aredefined, students can begin their evaluation,using some of the followingprinciples posed as questions. This isnot an exhaustive list, but is enough tocreate a meaningful dialogue withineach group setting.How does the task flow work?Look at the sequence of steps necessaryto complete a given task anddetermine if they are efficient, useful,and clear. Try to make predictions onwhere users may get confused ormake possible errors due to unclearlanguage, poorly depicted graphics,confusing directional paths, or poorlymapped button controls.What is the hierarchical focus?Our eyes are drawn to animated areasof an interface display more readilythan static areas. Determine if the useof motion or flashing cursors helpsusers notice important state changes,or if they become distractions towhat is important. Outline additionalstrategies to bring focus to importantinformation, such as highlights, sizechanges, or other differences inappearance.Are the product’s functions andfeatures visible?Determine if important features andfunctions are visibly exposed. Manyusers prefer to see “up-front” whatfunctions are available to them.Important features and functionsburied deep in an interface structuremay go unrealized. Users should beable to understand what actions theproduct’s interface affords through aquick visual scan.Do the interfaces behave consistently?The action, input, and feedback of theproduct’s interface should behave in aconsistent and coherent manner.These behaviors should make sense tothe user from one part of the product’sinterface to the next. For example, ifIDSAFigure 2. The image view is obstructedby the current menu interface.Figure 3. Image preview is now visible,and feedback is immediate via aredesigned menu interface.Figure 4. The application ofdesign principles yields effectivecommunication interfaces.THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 19

IDSAan item is selected for deletion, and awarning message is given, similarwarning messages should be deliveredwhen an irrevocable action is input bythe user.Are “cause and effect” actionsvisualized?Each input by the user or change inthe behavior of the program should beaccompanied by a correspondingchange in the appearance of the interface.This is often achieved by arollover, sometimes accompanied byan audible tone, once an interface isengaged. A “current selection” shouldbe displayed with some visual contrast,and specific states should bedisplayed in a consistent, clear, andunambiguous manner.Are metaphors appropriately used?There are situations where an interfacecan be more easily understood bythe use of a metaphor. By resemblinga commonplace system, such as thecontrols on a tape deck, an interface’sfunctionality may be quickly familiarized.Identify any metaphors used andconclude if they are used consistentlythrough the product’s interface.Will users be able to recover from anerror?It is inevitable that someone will hitthe wrong button. Ascertain if anysuch action can be undone. Certaininterface functions should have aCancel button or Undo feature. Actionsthat are irreversible, like “overwriting afile,” should require a user to make anexplicit commitment. These safetynets will give novice users a realsense of comfort.Does the interface have a sense ofaesthetics?Because users interact with handheldscreen interfaces at a close and personallevel, the interface family shouldhave a sense of beauty, and at thevery least not be ugly. Determine ifthe organization of the interfaceappears refined. Ask questions like,“are the colors harmonious, is the typelegible, and are the graphics clearand consistent?” Also note if usershave the ability to customize thedisplay of the interface, i.e. changethe colors or type font to suit theirown sense of aesthetics.ConclusionSeveral important concepts can berealized by examining the issues relevantto handheld communication interfacesand their design. Additionalprinciples or “heuristics” can be foundon the Web sites of usability advocatesJakob Nielsen and Bruce “Tog”Tognazzini. Having an understanding ofthese concepts, considering the constraintsof handheld communicationinterfaces, and then applying them inthe design process, can begin to yieldscreen-based interfaces that trulymeet or exceed the expectations ofusers. By encouraging students toconduct an evaluation, they will notonly gain exposure to interface andinteraction strategies and technologies,but may be inspired to look atnot previously considered professionssuch as information design, productdesign, software engineering, interfacedesign, or interaction design.Through this activity, students willbecome more confident and forwardthinkingwhen speaking about theseissues. And they will become moredemanding and critical of the productinterfaces with which they interactas consumers.R. Brian Stone is anassociate professorteaching VisualCommunication atThe Ohio StateUniversity. He is afrequent speaker andauthor on the subjectsof interactive visual communication,Web usability, type in motion,and multimedia interface design. Heis a recipient of the 2002 OSU AlumniAward for Distinguished Teaching andan Apple Computer DistinguishedEducator. He can be reached viae-mail at stone.158@osu.edu.AD INDEXITEA Announces KansasCity Conference GeneralSession Speaker,Dr. Harry WongITEA First General Session andProgram Excellence AwardsSunday, April 3, 20059:00am-10:50amDr. Wong has over 30 publications,including a leading book in educationon how to start the first day of school,a video and audiotape series, a sciencetextbook series, three films, andnumerous magazine and journalarticles to his credit.Because of his achievements, Dr.Wong has been awarded the OutstandingSecondary Teacher Award,the Outstanding Biology TeacherAward, and the Valley Forge Teacher’sMedal. He was also the subject of astory in Reader’s Digest.Register to attend: www.iteawww.orgGoodheart-Willcox...............27NSTA/NASA ..........................5Pitsco ..................................3620 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYA GLOBAL NEED, A GLOBAL RESOURCENUCLEAR POWER AND THE NEW MILLENNIUMStephen L. BairdThe technological literacy standardswere developed to act as a beacon foreducators to guide them in their questto develop a population of technicallyliterate citizens who possess the skills,abilities, and knowledge necessary toactively and constructively participatein the democratic, technologicallydependent society of the UnitedStates. Chapter Four of Standards forTechnological Literacy: Content for theStudy of Technology (ITEA, 2000,2002) illuminates the necessity fordeveloping students’ abilities to constructan understanding of the cultural,social, economic, and political effectsof technology. Attaining this understandingwill enable students to makeresponsible, informed decisions aboutthe development and use of technologicaladvancements (ITEA, 2000,2002). Nowhere will those decisionshave the potential to affect everyaspect of future technological development,the world’s population, and thewell-being of our planet’s environment,than in decisions pertaining to energytechnologies and the world’s increasingneed for it. Energy is essential forsustainable development. If concernsfor the environment, continued economicgrowth, and our finite resourcesare sincere, then a rational, objectivereevaluation for the increased use ofnuclear power needs to be undertaken.The development of nuclearpower, both fission and fusion, hasthe potential to meet the world’sIn contrast to the 25 billion tons of carbondioxide emitted into the atmosphere eachyear as fossil fuel waste, the spent fuel producedyearly from all the world’s reactorswould fit inside a two-story structure built ona basketball court.energy needs in a responsible manner,promoting conservation of naturalresources and sustainable economicgrowth not only in the United Statesbut also on a global scale.Nuclear Power TodayAt the present time, nuclear powergenerates 16% (about one sixth) of theworld’s electricity. There are 440nuclear power plants operating in 31countries. Most operating nuclearpower plants are in Western Europeand North America, but most newplants under construction are in Asia.Although the construction of newnuclear power plants in WesternEurope and North America has virtuallyhalted, existing plants around theworld have become more productive,adding new generating capacity withoutnew plant construction. Twentytwoof the last 31 nuclear powerplants connected to the world’s electricitygrid have been built in Asia,driven by the pressures of economicgrowth, natural resource scarcity, andincreasing populations (NEI, 2004).According to the Nuclear EnergyInstitute (NEI), the United States hasthe most operating nuclear powerplants, with 103, the second largestsource of electricity in the UnitedStates, supplying about 20 percent ofthe nation’s electricity each year.Lithuania generates 80 percent of itselectricity from nuclear power, thehighest of any country. France comesin second, generating 78 percent of itselectricity from nuclear power plants.Figure 1. The numerical ranking of the topten countries by their number of operatingreactors and by the percentage of electricitysupplied by those reactors shows that mostnuclear reactors are in Europe. It issignificant to note that the United Stateshas the largest number of operating reactorsbut does not rank in the top 10 as apercentage of energy generated.(Source: International Atomic Energy Agency)RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYTHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 21

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYFigure 1 shows the top ten countriesutilizing nuclear power for theirelectrical needs. Nuclear power ismostly utilized in industrializedcountries, which have the necessarytechnological, institutional, and financialresources. Only 39 of the world’s440 nuclear power plants are in developingcountries, and because they aresmaller than average, they account foronly 5.6 percent of the world’s nuclearpower capacity (NEI, 2004). Today,a growing demand for affordable,reliable, and emission-free electricityis renewing worldwide interest innuclear energy.A Global NeedAccording to U. S. Census Bureauestimates, world population hit the sixbillion mark in June 1999. This figureis over 3.5 times the size of theearth’s population at the beginning ofthe twentieth century and roughlydouble its size in 1960. During thenext 50 years, a surge in global populationfrom six billion to nine billion willoccur, mainly in nations on the ladderof economic development. (See Figure2). During this period, humanity willconsume more energy than the combinedtotal used in all previous history.Figure 2. The world population willincrease over 3.5 times from 1950through projections for the year 2050according to the U. S. Census Bureau.During this period, humans will need andconsume significantly more energy thanthe combined total used in previoushistory. (U. S. Census Bureau)Of all energy sources, nuclear energyhas perhaps the lowest impact on theenvironment, including water, land,habitat, species, and air resources.Nuclear energy is the most ecologicallyefficient of all energy sourcesbecause it produces the mostelectricity in relation to its minimalenvironmental impact. Nuclear energyis the world’s largest source of emission-freeenergy. Electricity producedby nuclear power results in almostnone of the greenhouse and acid gasemissions associated with fossil fuelfiredplants. Nuclear power plants producevirtually no sulfur dioxide,particulates, nitrogen oxides, volatileorganic compounds, or greenhousegases. The complete nuclear powerchain, from resource extraction towaste disposal, including reactor andfacility construction, emits only asmall amount of carbon, about thesame as wind and solar power,including construction and componentmanufacturing.Globally, nuclear power currentlyavoids approximately 600 milliontons of carbon emissions annually,about the same as hydropower(IAEA, 2004). The Director General ofthe International Atomic EnergyAgency, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, saidin advance of a gathering of 500nuclear power experts assembled inMoscow for the “InternationalConference on Fifty Years of NuclearPower—the Next Fifty Years”(June 27-July 2, 2004), “The more welook to the future, the more we canexpect countries to be considering thepotential benefits that expandingnuclear power has to offer for theglobal environment and for economicgrowth.” Dr. ElBaradei added, “Thedecision to adopt nuclear power cannotbe made on a “one-size-fits-all”basis. New nuclear plants are mostattractive where energy demand isgrowing and alternative resources arescarce, and where energy securityand reduced air pollution and greenhousegases are a priority.” In orderfor nuclear energy to play a meaningfulrole in the global energy supply,innovative approaches will be requiredto address concerns about economiccompetitiveness, safety, waste, andpotential proliferation risks (Perera,2004).A Global ResourceMajor developing nations, such asChina and India, have joined countrieslike France, Japan, Russia, and theUnited States in recognizing that anystrategy for a clean-energy futurerequires nuclear energy. Nations representingfully half the world’s peopleare now constructing new nuclearpower plants, and countries withoutnuclear power have begun to plan forit, seeking reliability, clean air, andenergy independence. Nuclear poweris the only proven option that can generateprimary energy cleanly, on thevastly increased scale required tomeet global demand (IAEA, 2004).Nuclear Power—Pros andConsThere are many disputes that ariseover the use of nuclear power.Deciding about future energy developmentsrequires balanced and trustworthyinformation about issues such asthe relative environmental effects ofdifferent options, the safety of installations,economics, and the availabilityof resources. These decisions take onan added importance now becauseworld energy use is expected to growsignificantly over the next fifty years,and the reality is that global emissionsof greenhouse gases will have to bedrastically cut (Beck, 2004). Nuclearopponents stress the absence of highlevelradioactive waste disposalfacilities, the high risk of nuclearweapons proliferation, and the beliefthat nuclear power will never be sufficientlysafe to be part of sustainable22 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

development. Nuclear proponentsadvocate expanding energy options forfuture generations. They emphasizeexpanding all energy supplies to bringelectricity to the nearly one third ofthe world’s population without it.Proponents also point out that nuclearpower is ahead of other technologiesin incorporating environmental andpublic health costs into the price ofelectricity (NEI, 2004).Nuclear Facts Presented bythe World NuclearAssociationThe goal of the World NuclearAssociation set forth by DirectorGeneral John Ritch is “the broadestand most open public debate—adebate focused on facts rather thanmyths, and on the real choices facinghumankind.” In support of these goalsthey have put forth these facts:1. Overall Environmental Value. Inevaluations of lifecycle ecologicalimpact—which weighs resourceuse, health effects, and wasteconsequences—nuclear poweroutperforms all other major energyoptions and ranks on a par withthe best renewable energysources.2. Safe operations. Chernobylspurred the creation of a globalnetwork of technical cooperationthat has helped nuclear powerattain a superior record of safety.3. Affordability. A new generation ofstandardized reactors, developedon the basis of 10,000 reactoryearsof experience, will raiseefficiency and lower costs for bothconstruction and operation.4. Manageability of Waste. Far frombeing an “unsolvable” problem,wastes are a positive aspect ofnuclear energy because spent fuelis small in size and can be safelymanaged:Limited Quantity. In contrast tothe 25 billion tons of carbondioxide emitted into the atmosphereeach year as fossil fuelwaste, the spent fuel producedyearly from all the world’s reactorswould fit inside a two-storystructure built on a basketballcourt.Effective Isolation. Geologicalrepositories for permanentstorage can ensure that harmfulradiation would not reach theearth’s surface, even withsevere earthquakes or thepassage of many millennia.5. Reliable and Sustainable Supply.The fuel for nuclear power—thenatural element uranium—isplentiful in the earth and oceansand can sustain nuclear energy forcenturies to come.These key facts underscore nuclearenergy’s contribution to sustainabledevelopment and reduced carbonemissions to meet air quality concernson a worldwide platform (NEI, 2004).The Future of NuclearEnergyNuclear power is and will remain animportant energy resource, especiallyas world energy use increases. Fiftyyears of harnessing the power of theatom has provided a good basis forgoing forward with advancing technologiesfor generating nuclear powerand for managing the associatedwastes. Nuclear power is the onlyenergy-producing industry that takesfull responsibility for all its wastes andfully incorporates this cost into its production.With sustainable developmentas a driving force, nuclearenergy has much to offer in the extentof resources supplying it and becauseit is environmentally benign (World,2004). The safety record of nuclearpower is second to none, and theunderlying philosophy of the industryis one of continual improvement.Parallel to research in nuclear energygeneration, there are significant developmentsin the materials and processesused to fabricate nuclear reactorsand systems, such as the Gleeblewelding machine shown in Figure 3.For the future, technological progresscan be expected to reduce nuclearpower plant costs along with theFigure 3. Innovativewelding/joining techniques areneeded for many advancedmaterials (e.g., oxidedispersion strengthened or“ODS” materials) that areslated for Generation IVnuclear reactor service.Pictured are two technologistsat the Gleeble machine, whichis used for welding/joiningspecial materials.(Courtesy: Idaho NationalEngineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory)RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYTHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 23

RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYcosts of renewable and advanced fossilfuel technologies as each competeswith the other. Currently, nuclearpower is most suitable for electricityproduction, as are hydro, wind, andsolar power. However, technologicalprogress is likely to make possible theeventual cost-effective production ofchemical fuels, including hydrogen,from all these sources. They couldthus help meet transportation energyneeds now largely met by oil. Finally,nuclear power might also be extensivelyused in the future for seawaterdesalination, thereby helping toaddress another pressing challenge ofsustainable development—theprovision of plentiful, safe, and securesupplies of clean freshwater for agrowing global population (IAEA,2004).SummaryThe choice of what type of energytechnologies to use in order to advancesustainable development and reduceharmful emissions remains a sovereignchoice of every country. Every countrywill need a mix of energy technologies(hydro, solar, wind, nuclear) that issuited to that country’s geography andavailable resources. Given the advantagesof nuclear power in contributingto sustainable development objectives,it should be an important mix in manycountries. The world will face majorenergy challenges in the twenty-firstcentury, and the energy industry willface a future filled with change. Thereare unanswered questions about theevolving competitive environment forelectricity, and uncertainty about thefuture price and supply of fossil fuels.Questions abound about the economicviability of solar and other renewableenergy sources as well as how to managegrowth in electricity demand byincreasing efficiency of use whiledealing with the increasingly stringentenvironmental restrictions on theburning of fossil fuels. The answers tothese questions will require decisionsto be made by an informed and educatedpopulace, taking into considerationall social, economic, and ethical issuesby examining the balancing of benefits,uncertainties, and competing interests.One thing is certain—nuclear energywill play a vital role in the future.Design Brief—The Factsand Not the Myths ofNuclear PowerThe development of nuclear power,both fission and fusion, has the potentialto meet the world’s energy needsin a responsible manner, promotingconservation of natural resources andsustainable economic growth, not onlyin the United States but also on aglobal scale. With carbon emissionsnow threatening the very stability ofthe biosphere, the security of ourworld requires a massive transformationto clean energy. Renewable energysources such as solar, wind, andbiomass can help, but nuclear energypower has the potential for clean,safe, environmentally friendly energyon a massive scale, and it can bemade available to every country in theworld. Unfortunately there are stillmany misconceptions and myths surroundingnuclear power.ChallengeThomas Jefferson said, “I know nosafe depository of the ultimate powersof the society but the people themselves;and if we think them notenlightened enough to exercise theircontrol with a wholesome discretion,the remedy is not to take it from them,but to inform their discretion.”Your challenge is to create a series ofpublic service announcements to bepublished in a variety of media formats,illuminating the need for arenewable, safe, environmentallybenign energy source that will meetthe world’s growing population needsand encourage sustainable growth.Your media campaign can be for anyrenewable energy source for whichyour presentation can be justifiablysupported by your research. You canpresent both negative and positiveaspects of the energy solution youhave chosen, but your campaign mustfocus on factual information.ReferencesBeck, P. & Grimston, M. (2002). Double orquits? The global future of civil nuclearenergy. Retrieved June 14, 2004, fromwww.riia.org/pdf/research/sdp/Nuclear_Double_or_Quits.pdfInternational Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). (2004). Focus on sustainabledevelopment. Retrieved June 15, 2004,from www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sustaindev-e.pdfInternational Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). (2004). Nuclear power’schanging future. Retrieved July 26,2004, from www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2004/prn200405.htmlInternational Technology EducationAssociation (ITEA). (2000, 2002).Standards for technological literacy:Content for the study of technology.Reston, VA: Author.Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). (2004).Nuclear facts. Retrieved August 5,2004, from www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=106Perera, J. (2004). Fuelling innovation,countries look to the next generation ofnuclear power. Retrieved July 30, 2004,from www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull461/article15.pdfUnited States Census Bureau (2004).Global population at a glance.Retrieved July 17, 2004, fromwww.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp02/wp02-1.pdfWorld Nuclear Association (2004). ForSustainable strategy, indispensablenuclear energy. Retrieved July 28,2004, from www.world-nuclear.org/sustdev/one_page_flyer/index.htmStephen L. Baird is atechnology educationteacher at BaysideMiddle School,Virginia Beach,Virginia and adjunctfaculty member atOld DominionUniversity. He can be reached viae-mail at slbaird@vbschools.com24 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

PLANNING ACTIVITIES ACROSSTHE CURRICULUMDoug HauserRonald D. Yuill, DTEAt Tecumseh Middle School in Indianathe technology education teachers arepart of a team consisting of languagearts, math, social studies, and science.Teachers work together on items ofcommon interest and student needs.There is a scheduled period each dayfor instructors to meet to developplans and activities to help studentsbecome more productive.Science teacher Doug Hauser wantedto develop an activity that would providethe students with hands-on,inquiry-based learning. He studied theIndiana State Science Standards anddetermined that the area least coveredwas physical science, specificallyforces and motion. He rememberedproducing a Pinewood Derby Car whenhe was younger, and really liked itspossibilities. He purchased two of thekits and started looking for grants topurchase kits for the students.A student drills holes for axles.When developing items that are interdisciplinary,care must be taken to ensure that theactivities align with the standards of all thedisciplines involved.At this point, Doug contacted technologyinstructor Ron Yuill, and theplanning soon became cross-curricular.What can we do to get this going?What will the students do and learn?How much will it cost? How long willit take? These were some of the questionsthat needed to be addressed atthe outset. There must be communicationbetween teachers if an activity isto produce positive results.As Doug and Ron viewed the car kit,they shared possible activities—like selection of students workingin teams, research of designs,development of working designs,production, items to test, calculationsto be made, what to do with the data,and how to share the informationwith others.The activity was introduced in thescience lab, with a brief overview ofwhat was to happen in the car’sdevelopment process. There wasmuch excitement exhibited by thestudents at this time. They were todesign, build, and test the performanceof a wooden car. They wouldalso share the data with their classmates.To make this job easier andmore accurate, they were to keep ajournal of each day’s summary, whichbrings language arts into the process.During science class, the studentswent to a “build your own racecar”site (www.pbs.org/tal/racecars/index.html) and were introduced toaerodynamics and car design. Thissite also lists other sites to searchfor related information. Studentsinterested in racing can really have funwith some of these. The next stepwas the assignment of students toteams by the science teacher. Theteam’s members were divided duringthe technology education classes. Thiscould have been a problem, but thestudents communicated very well andno problems were exhibited.After two days of research, studentscommitted their best possible designFEATURE ARTICLETHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 25

When each team had its car runningthe best, a run was made so that thescience teacher could record the besttime. Students wanted their team’scar to be the fastest. The students hadto use the information gained andcalculate the speed of their best run.FEATURE ARTICLEA student cuts her car to shape.ideas to paper. These designs were tobe used in their technology educationclasses to develop full-size workingdrawings. It was during this stagethat it was determined that the kit’swooden piece would not lend itself toeasily changing wheels and testingdifferent lubricants. A new design wasused, with a hole drilled through thewood for a steel rod axle. This wouldmean the kit could no longer be used,and wood would need to be cut forthe cars. It also meant axles andwheels needed to be purchased.Car wooden bodies were cut out of2 x 4s and given to each team. Whenthey had their working drawings completed,they copied their shapes onthe wooden bodies. After receivinginstruction on machines and passingrelevant safety quizzes, students werepermitted to cut out the shapes. Thecar bodies were then finish-sanded toa smooth finish.Wheels were attached, and the studentsmade sure their cars would godown the ramp in a straight path. Thiswas a very good time to watch thestudents as they reacted. Some carshad problems that needed some problemsolving. Teams were first to makecorrections. If this could not be done,it was suggested that they work withanother team for a solution. Theteacher was the last contact for thesolution. From a teaching point ofview, it was fantastic the way studentshelped each other. The teachersuggested that students should usethe concept of helping others in reallife.Some students, who had completedtheir projects ahead of schedule,applied paint to their cars. Many hadto do some problem solving to seewhy the wheels would not turn aseasily after the painting. It wasnow time for the cars to go to thescience room.The cars were weighed and theinformation recorded. Studentsrecorded the car’s time for goingdown the technology education ramp.Students could add weight (washersattached with a stickpin) and test tosee if it improved the car’s speed.They applied the weight all over thecar and had a lot of fun in the process.The data for this was also recorded.When the team arrived at its besttime, the students kept their car inthat configuration.The teacher recorded each car’s speedbefore any testing or changes, as areference point to plot its progress.Students were given a chance to usegraphite, lithium grease, or siliconlubricant to make the cars run faster.Again the data was recorded.After all the information was collected,the students went to the computerroom and designed a Web page todisplay their findings. A digitalpicture was taken of the teamand uploaded to the site along withthe information gained.Another interdisciplinary activity usedwas the designing of a Rube Goldbergdevice. The students were to make adevice at home and display it atschool. The students were havingproblems with making a drawing ofthe device, so the technology educationteacher helped in the process. Amath teacher suggested that the technologyeducation department continueto have students learn aboutmeasuring, as it helps the studentsimprove that skill. For more activities,go to the “Members Only” area onthe ITEA Web site and locate theIdeaGarden Archives.When developing items that areinterdisciplinary, care must be takento ensure that the activities alignwith the standards of all the disciplinesinvolved.The science teacher said, “One ofthe biggest successes of this projectwas the level of excitement. I do notremember when I last had studentsthis excited about a project. Studentswere talking about their cars, comparingresults, bragging about howwell they did, etc. It was verygratifying to see them so excited. Idon’t know how much knowledgetransfer has taken place but, if nothingelse, we excited them about scienceand technology.”One of the items in the discussionstage was to share our ideas. Theresult is this article. In the future,26 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

when we do this again, we plan toobtain as much media coverage as wecan. We may consider having the languagearts teacher work with the studentsto write an article for the schoolnewspaper. The math teacher canobtain some of the data and developsome story problems for the studentsto solve. The social studies teachercan search for the history of thePinewood Derby cars.We hope this article will provide someideas or methods to encourage yourstudents to try harder and learn moreas they participate in class. Thisactivity was fun for the teachers andstudents and, as all of you know,when students are having fun theywill work harder and learn more.Doug Hauser is ascience teacher atTecumseh MiddleSchool, Lafayette, IN.He can be reachedvia e-mail atdhauser@lsc.k12.in.us.Ronald D. Yuill, DTEis a technology educationteacher anddepartment chair atTecumseh MiddleSchool, Lafayette, IN.He can be reachedvia e-mail at ryuill@lsc.k12.in.us.Washers used as weights were added to increase speed and held in place withpush pins.Make itHappen!FEATURE ARTICLEFor more information onclassroom activities, search thefollowing, located on the ITEAWeb site (www.iteawww.org)IdeaGarden Archives forActivitiesICON (Innovation CurriculumOnline Network)HITS (Humans InnovatingTechnology Series)Also check affiliate associationWeb sitesCall today for a free catalogor visit our on-line catalog.1-800-323-0440www.g-w.comcustserv@g-w.comGOODHEART-WILLCOX PUBLISHER18604 West Creek DriveTinley Park, IL 60477-6243THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 27

Request for Special RecognitionNominationsITEA members are invited to submit nominations for the following awards. Recognize colleagues who give extra effort!Academy of FellowsThis is the highest recognition thatthe International Technology EducationAssociation (ITEA) can bestowupon any person. To qualify, theindividual must have gained prominencein and brought honor to theprofession of technology education.The recipient must be an ITEAmember. The awardee will begranted membership in the Academyof Fellows of the InternationalTechnology Education Association.Individuals will be considered basedon:a) Leadership roles in ITEA andother affiliate organization(s),andb) Presentations and professionaldevelopment activities at localto international level, andc) Recognition by peers.Award of DistinctionThis award is presented to an individualwithin technology educationwho has advanced the professionthrough a sustained and recognizedrecord of exemplary professionalactivity. To qualify for the Award ofDistinction, the individual must bean ITEA member and have distinguishedhim/herself through accomplishmentsin:a) Improvement of Instruction, orb) Research and Scholarship, orc) Effective Teaching.William J. Wilkinson MeritoriousService AwardThe Meritorious Service Award ispresented to an ITEA memberworthy of commendation for serviceto the International TechnologyEducation Association. To be considered,individuals must have providedcontinuous service to ITEAanda) Affiliate Association(s) orb) The profession.Lockette/Monroe HumanitarianAwardGiven to an individual who is anITEA member and has promotedhumanistic values while serving as atechnology education professionalon the national/international, state/province, or local level in one ormore of the following areas:a) Developing social awareness,b) Preserving democratic and/orhuman dignity processes, and/orc) Maximizing the potential ofindividuals.Special Recognition AwardThis award is presented to an individualwho has established a sustainedrecord of outstanding serviceto the field of technology education.To qualify for this award, the recipientmust be an ITEA member andhave made a significant contributionto ITEA or technology education. Tobe considered, individuals mustmeet one of the following criteria:a) Promoted technology educationat any level (local to international)with a resulting impact;orb) Actively facilitated or participatedin professional developmentfor technology educatorswith a resulting impact; orc) Recognized at any level foroutstanding service or achievementin technology education.Prakken ProfessionalCooperation AwardThis award is presented to an individualwho, through teaching,research, and professional service,has promoted the field of technologyeducation in collaboration with otherfields of discipline. To qualify for thisaward, individuals should be involvedwith projects that collaboratewith other disciplines, such asscience, engineering, mathematics,marketing, management, etc. Therecipient of the award may be frominside or outside of the field oftechnology education. Nominees donot need to be members of ITEA.Sales Representative ExcellenceAwardThis award, sponsored by intelitek,inc., is presented to a full-time salesrepresentative who has been in thetechnology education field for atleast three years. It recognizesoutstanding service, training, andfollow-up support.ITEA MEMBERS ARE INVITED TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS TO:Chairperson, Awards CommitteeInternational Technology Education Association1914 Association Drive, Suite 201Reston, VA 20191-1539(703) 860-2100 Fax (703) 860-0353 e-mail: itea@iris.orgNOMINATIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED BY DECEMBER 31You may also download the nomination form from the ITEA Web siteat www.iteawww.org.

REPORTING ON THE STATUS OF TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION IN THE U.S.Shelli D. MeadeWilliam E. Dugger, Jr., DTEThe International Technology EducationAssociation’s Technology for AllAmericans Project (ITEA-TfAAP) conducteda survey in the spring andsummer academic semesters of 2004to determine the current state of technologyeducation. This survey was afollow-up to a 2001-2002 study byPamela Newberry, former staffmember at TfAAP, in 2000-2001(Newberry, 2001). It is intended tocontribute to longitudinal data ontechnology education.As indicated by Newberry, states inthe last two decades have movedtoward mandating a core set of subjectareas for all students as away to meet national educationalstandards. This trend has beenencouraged by the need for states tocomply with the No Child Left Behind(NCLB) Act in terms of accountability.This survey sought to obtain asnapshot of the current state of technologyeducation and place the dataobtained in the context of the standardsmovement, NCLB requirements,and the increasing need for a technologicallyliterate citizenry.Survey MethodQuestionnaires were sent via e-mail toall state technology education supervisorsin the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico. In caseswhere no supervisor was available,alternate contacts in the state educationdepartments were used. Telephonefollow-up was conducted inThe data on STL and AETL usage is positive inthe respect that more and more states arebecoming informed about what technology/technological literacy encompasses.summer 2004 to attempt to gatherunreported data and clarify responsesas necessary.The survey consisted of five questions.The first three questions wereduplicated from the Newberry 2000-2001 study. Questions 4 and 5 wereadded in the 2004 survey.1. Is technology education in yourstate framework?2. Is technology education requiredin your state? If so, at what gradelevels?3. How many technology educationteachers are in your state?4. Is Standards for TechnologicalLiteracy: Content for the Study ofTechnology used in your state? Ifso, how?5. Is Advancing Excellence inTechnological Literacy: StudentAssessment, ProfessionalDevelopment, and ProgramStandards used in your state? Ifso, how?Based upon responses received byNewberry in 2001 and by TfAAP staffin 2004, telephone follow-up was conductedon Question 2, asking respondentsto clarify their answers basedon the following choices: yes, no,under local control, it is an elective,the requirement is pending/proposed.The data tables that follow this reportare abbreviated. Brackets indicateinterpretation by TfAAP staff basedupon the comments provided by therespondent. The full data tables withcomments are viewable online atwww.iteawww.org/TAA/ResourcesMainPage.htm.Who Responded?All 50 states and the District ofColumbia contributed to this survey.Puerto Rico did not respond, makingthe return rate 98%. For ease ofreporting, the term “states” is used torefer to the 50 states as well as theDistrict of Columbia and Puerto Rico.Technology Education inState FrameworksData indicate that 38 states (73.1%)include technology in the state framework.This is an increase over the2001 report of 30 states (57.7%).Correspondingly, the number of statesthat answered “no” to Question 1decreased from 18 (34.6%) in 2001 to12 (23.1%) in 2004 (see Figure 1).New Jersey indicated that a proposalfor state standards for technologicalliteracy was being considered.Out of the 38 states that respondedaffirmatively, five states (13.2%),Alabama, Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon,FEATURE ARTICLETHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 29

FEATURE ARTICLEFigure 1: Summary of 2001 and 2004 Responses to “Is technology education in your stateframework?”and Vermont, indicated that technologyeducation was part of a careerpreparation framework. Iowa includestechnology education as part of“Industrial Technology,” which alsoincludes industrial education and tradeand industry.Also, five of the 38 states (13.2%)(Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,and New Hampshire) commentedthat technology educationwas embedded into the curricularframework. In other words, technologyeducation was not being deliveredseparately but as part of other coresubject classes. Maryland is planningto present content standards alignedwith Standards for TechnologicalLiteracy (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002) tothe Maryland State Board of Educationfor approval, thereby shifting from anembedded framework to an independentframework for technology education.In Massachusetts, technologyeducation is incorporated into a science,technology, and engineering curricularframework, and all of theircurricular frameworks are availablefor viewing on the Internet atwww.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html. And Colorado reportedspecifically that, while technologyeducation is embedded, STLStandards 14-20 are not embedded,but are under district or local control.These standards deal with TheDesigned World, which includes medicaltechnologies, agricultural andrelated biotechnologies, energy andpower technologies, informationand communication technologies,transportation technologies,manufacturing technologies, andconstruction technologies.Technology EducationRequirementsWhen asked in Question 2 if technologyeducation was required, 12 states(23.1%) answered yes (see Figure 2).This is a slight decrease from the2001 figure of 14 states (27%).Respondents provided a variety ofexplanatory comments when answeringQuestion 2 that begged thequestion: How many of those whoresponded “no” would have chosen toanswer “local control” or “elective” ifthose options had been provided? Allof those who initially responded negativelywere contacted via telephoneand provided with the options: “Yes,”“No,” “Under Local Control,” “Elective,”or “Pending/Proposed as a Requirement.”As a result, there were nostates (0%) that answered negativelyin the 2004 survey, as compared tothe 2001 data of 10 states (19.2%). Acomparison between responses otherthan “yes” to Question 2 in the 2001and 2004 surveys is not valid,because although 22 states indicated“local control” or “elective” in the2001 survey, and the data wasreported in that fashion, there is noindication that follow-up phone callswere made to give respondents theopportunity to revise their negativeanswer. It is recommended thatfollow-up surveys on this question beconducted in a fashion similar to the2004 survey rather than being asked a“yes or no” question.As a result of the revision of Question2, 15 states (28.8%) indicated thattechnology education requirementswere under local or district control.Twenty-two states (42.3%) indicatedthat technology education was offeredas an elective.Figure 2: Summary of 2001 and 2004 Responses to “Is technology education required?”30 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

Additionally, two states (3.8%) areproposing technology education as arequirement. In New Jersey, it is tobecome required in Grades K-8 andoffered as an elective in Grades 9-12.In Oregon, it is currently under localcontrol, but state mandates as arequirement are pending.Of the states with requirements fortechnology education, the grade levelsat which it is required vary. Arizonaand Massachusetts report requirementsK-12. Nevada has standardsthat must be achieved at Grades 3, 5,and 12. New Jersey is proposingrequired integration with other schoolsubjects from Grades K-8. New Yorkrequires a unit of study by Grade 8.Wyoming has requirements at Grades4, 8, and 11. And Iowa, Maryland,Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,Pennsylvania, and Utah all haverequirements at the secondary level.Number of TechnologyEducation TeachersResponding to Question 3, 20 statesindicated that the number of technologyeducation teachers was anapproximation, which may imply thatthe same is true for other states,although it was not indicated. Onestate, New Jersey, was unable toprovide any data on Question 3. Thecomments provided by respondentsindicate potential inconsistency onwhat defines a technology educationteacher. For example, in the case of anembedded curricular framework, shouldthe science or social studies teacher becounted as a technology educationteacher?In any case, comparison of the 2004approximation with previous surveysindicates an overall decrease in thenumber of technology educationteachers across the nation (seeFigure 3). In 2003, Hassan Ndahi andJohn Ritz reported on follow-upresearch being conducted by OldDominion University based on agraduate study conducted by ShirleyWeston there in 1997. The OldDominion research focused on technologyeducation teacher demand. TheWeston figures for 1997 estimate that37,968 technology education teacherswere employed in the United States,with one state unreported. Ndahi andRitz reported that there were 36,261technology education teachersemployed in 2001 (Ndahi & Ritz,2003). This is different from theresults of the 2000-2001 academicyear findings of Newberry, whichreported 38,537 technology educationteachers with two states not reporting.Potentially, this inconsistency isdue to the sources used: The OldFigure 3: Summary of 1997 Weston study, 2001 Newberry study, 2001 Ndahi & Ritz Study,and 2004 ITEA-TfAAP Study on the number of technology education teachers in the UnitedStates.Dominion studies used state supervisorsand state boards of education fortheir figures, while the Newberrystudy reportedly made use of alternativesources. In any case, the 2004study, which relied upon state supervisorsand state boards of educationsimilar to the methods used in the OldDominion studies, indicates 35,909technology education teachers, withone state unreported.National TechnologicalLiteracy Standards UsageIn response to Question 4, state supervisorsreport that 41 states (78.8%)are using Standards for TechnologicalLiteracy (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002)either at the state level or in localitiesand districts, with two states reportingas unknown. This compares to the2001 Ndahi & Ritz findings (reported in2003) that 43 states (83%) were usingSTL. Both the 2004 survey and theNdahi & Ritz survey showed thatseven states (13.5%) were not usingSTL. Averaging these data indicatesthat STL is used by four out of everyfive states across the nation.Based on the comments provided inthe responses, 28 states (53.8%) haveeither based their own standards andcurricular materials on STL or alignedtheir standards and curricular frameworkswith STL. An additional fivestates (9.6%) have adopted or adaptedSTL: North Dakota, Ohio, SouthDakota, Tennessee, and Washington.It is interesting to note that three ofthese states—North Dakota, Ohio, andTennessee—are members of ITEA’s2004 Center to Advance the Teachingof Technology & Science (CATTS)Consortium, which provides manybenefits in terms of professional developmentand implementation of thestandards in STL and AETL.Additionally, of the 12 CATTS states,eight of them indicated that their ownstandards and/or curricular materialsare based on or aligned with STL:Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri,FEATURE ARTICLETHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 31

FEATURE ARTICLENorth Carolina, Virginia, Utah, andWisconsin. The final CATTS state,Maryland, is in the process of presentingstandards based on STL to thestate board of education for approval.The companion standards to STL,which were published by ITEA in 2003in a document entitled AdvancingExcellence in Technological Literacy:Student Assessment, ProfessionalDevelopment, and Program Standards(AETL), show less usage than STL. InResponse to Question 5, AETL usagewas reported by 22 states (42.3%).Twenty-three states (44.2%) are notusing AETL yet. The differencebetween STL and AETL usage is notunexpected, considering AETL hadbeen published one year prior to thetime the survey was conducted. Fourstates—Florida, Georgia, Indiana, andNorth Carolina—commented on theneed for implementation proceduresfor AETL. Comments also revealedthat, at the state level, the professionaldevelopment standards in AETLwere of particular use.Conclusions/DiscussionThe increase in the number of statesthat include technology education inthe state framework may indicate that,as a nation, we are placing increasingimportance on technology educationas part of the overall learning experience.This trend is likely instigated byresearch on the increasing need for atechnologically literate populace.(ITEA, 1996; ITEA 2000/2002; ITEA2003; NAE & NRC, 2002; Rose &Dugger, 2002; Rose, Gallup, Dugger, &Starkweather, 2004.)YesNoUnknownNo ResponseNo AnswerSTLUsed?2004417211Requiring technology education isanother issue, however. While nearlya quarter of the nation requires technologyeducation in some way, and theother three-quarters of the nation offerit as an elective or leave the decisionto localities or districts, the methodused to deliver technology educationvaries considerably. While conclusivedata is not available, comments indicatethat some states offer technologyeducation as a separate subject, onedesigned to deliver technological literacy.Other states embed technologicalliteracy concepts into the curriculumof other core subject areas, such asscience. And still other states providetechnology education as part of acareer and technical context.While NCLB does not identify technologyeducation as a subject area, itdoes require technology literacy—sometimes referred to interchangeablyin U.S. Department of Educationdocuments as technological literacy—forall students by 2006.However, NCLB does not define preciselywhat technology/technologicalliteracy means. The Partnership for21 st Century Skills, which broughttogether educators, administrators,parents, businesses, and communityleaders to define twenty-first centuryskills, has been building a consensualdefinition of what technology/technologicalliteracy means. Information onthe Partnership can be found online atwww.21stcenturyskills.org. The U.S.Department of Education is identifiedas a key partner of this group, anddiscussions with the Office ofEducational Technology reveal thatthe U.S. Department of Education isvery much interested in a definitionthat extends beyond informational/STLUsed?2003*437000AETLUsed?20042223511Table 1: Summary of 2004 ITEA-TfAAP Study and 2003 Ndahi & Ritz Report on theusage of national technological literacy standards in the United States.educational technology alone andincludes relevance to such things asagriculture, medicine, manufacturing,and construction, much like the definitionin STL. For example, a math andscience initiative is underway toexamine how a broader definition oftechnological literacy can be deliveredin the classroom.Hence, it appears that the intent ofNCLB mandates for technology/technologicalliteracy are very much in linewith the vision for technological literacydefined in STL. It remains to beseen, however, whether implementationof NCLB mandates will focus,through a lack of awareness, on informationand communication technologyalone. And while aspects of technologicalliteracy can and should bedelivered through mathematics, science,and other core subject classrooms,full implementation of thestandards in STL is unlikely throughembedded curricula at the secondarylevel. Technology education is the onlysubject area specifically designed todeliver technological literacy.Identifying technology education as acore subject area—and therefore arequirement for graduation—is oneway to ensure that all students willbecome technologically literate asintended by NCLB and STL. Such adistinction would also ensure that32 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

technological literacy is delivered in apractical, real-world fashion, incorporatinghands-on teaching and learningstrategies, as mandated by the standardsin STL. The U.S. Department ofEducation commented that delivery oftechnology/technological literacy tomeet NCLB requirements is not specifiedas either a separate subject or anintegrated/embedded subject, thusgiving states flexibility on the issue ofimplementation. In any case, it isimportant that efforts continue to educateeducators, administrators, andthe public on the broader definition oftechnology/technological literacy assupported by NCLB, the U.S.Department of Education, and STL.Indications that the number of technologyeducation teachers is decreasingis cause for concern in the wake ofthe NCLB mandates for technology/technological literacy. The seemingdecrease may be misleading, as itdoes not reflect the science, socialstudies, and other core subject teacherswho are expected to delivertechnological literacy in addition totheir traditional curriculum. Additionally,the numbers collected havelittle or no reflection on the number ofelementary teachers delivering technologicalliteracy in the classroom.Future studies on the state of technologyeducation in grade schoolclassrooms is much needed, asengagement by the early learner isimportant to the vision of technologicalliteracy for all students. It is importantthat elementary teachers, as wellas core subject area teachers at thesecondary level who are teachingtechnological literacy, be wellacquainted with the standards in STL,as they are the only nationally-acceptedaccountability measures for technologicalliteracy.The data on STL and AETL usage ispositive in the respect that more andmore states are becoming informedabout what technology/technologicalliteracy encompasses. Continuedimplementation and disseminationefforts will likely help maintain andeven increase the number of statesusing the standards, particularly in thecase of AETL, which was releasedrelatively recently.Considered in totality, the survey dataand the implications of that data reinforcethe need for continued implementationand dissemination of STLand AETL, with an emphasis on professionaldevelopment and outreachefforts. And with the publication of thefirst addendum to the standards (onstudent assessment), MeasuringProgress: A Guide to AssessingStudents for Technological Literacy(ITEA 2004), and the expected publicationof three additional addenda onprograms for technology, professionaldevelopment, and curricula, the toolsare becoming available to enhanceimplementation of the standards inboth STL and AETL.ReferencesITEA. (1996). Technology for all Americans:A rationale and structure for the studyof technology. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2000/2002). Standards fortechnological literacy: Content for thestudy of technology. Reston, VA:Author. Retrieved August 3, 2004,from www.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf.ITEA. (2003). Advancing excellence intechnological literacy: Studentassessment, professional development,and program standards. Reston, VA:Author. Retrieved August 3, 2004, fromwww.iteawww.org/TAA/PDFs/AETL/pdf.ITEA. (2004). Measuring Progress: A Guideto Assessing Students for TechnologicalLiteracy. Reston, VA: Author.National Academy of Engineering (NAE) &National Research Council (NRC).(2002). Technically speaking: Why allAmericans need to know more abouttechnology. (G. Pearson & T. Young,Eds.). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.Ndahi, H.B. & Ritz, J.M. (2003).Technology education teacher demand,2002-2005. The Technology Teacher62(7), pp. 27-31.Newberry, P.B. (2001) Technologyeducation in the U.S.: A status report.The Technology Teacher 61(1), pp. 1-16.Rose, L.C. & Dugger, W.E. (2002).ITEA/Gallup poll reveals whatAmericans think about technology. TheTechnology Teacher (61)(6) (Insert).Rose, L.C., Gallup, A.M., Dugger, W.E., andStarkweather, K.N. (2004). The secondinstallment of the ITEA/Gallup poll andwhat it reveals as to how Americansthink about technology. The TechnologyTeacher (64)(1) (Insert).Shelli D. Meade isthe Assistant ProjectManager and Editorfor ITEA’s Technologyfor All AmericansProject. She can bereached via e-mail atmeades@itea-tfaap.org.William E. Dugger,Jr., DTE is theDirector of ITEA’sTechnology for AllAmericans Project.He can be reachedvia e-mail atduggerw@itea-tfaap.org.Special thanks to Lisa Delany, formerstaff member, and Crystal Nichols,Administrative Assistant for OfficeOperations, for their considerablework in sending out questionnairesand compiling data. Appreciation isalso given to Steve Shumway,Brigham Young University, whoassisted with this research.FEATURE ARTICLETHE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 33

Table 2: Data on the Status of Technology Education in the U.S., 2004.FEATURE ARTICLENumberTE in State TE Required, of Tech Ed STL Used? AETL Used?States Framework? grades? Teachers? How? How?Alabama Yes* Elective 180 Yes* NoAlaska [No]* Elective Approx. 200 [Yes]* [Unknown]*Arizona Yes Yes* 2,355 No* No*Arkansas Yes Elective* 85 No NoCalifornia [No]* Local* Approx. 1500* [No]* [No]*Colorado Yes* [Local]* 100-250* Yes* NoConnecticut Yes Elective 625 Yes* NoDelaware No Elective* 92 Yes* Yes*District of Columbia [No]* Elective* 61* Yes* Yes*Florida [Yes]* Elective* 1635* Yes* [Yes]*Georgia Yes* Elective* 650 Yes* Yes*Hawaii Yes* Elective* 35 [Yes]* NoIdaho No [Local]* 95* Yes* NoIllinois No [Local]* 1086* Yes* [Unknown]*Indiana Yes Elective* 1044* [Yes]* [Yes]*Iowa [Yes]* Yes* 1,100* [Yes]* [No]*Kansas [Yes]* Local Estimate 450* Yes* [No]*Kentucky [Yes]* Local* 285 Yes* [Yes]*Louisiana Yes Elective* 500 Yes* Yes*Maine No* Local 270 No* NoMaryland [Yes]* Yes* 1021* [Yes]* No*Massachusetts Yes* Yes* 700 [No Answer] [No Answer]Michigan Yes* Yes* 1288* Yes* Yes*Minnesota Yes Local* Approximately 850 Yes* Yes*Mississippi Yes [Yes]* 390 Yes* NoMissouri No [Elective]* 926 Yes* Yes*Montana Yes Elective* 230 Yes* NoNebraska Yes Elective* 487* Yes* Yes*Nevada [Yes]* Yes* Approximately 60 [No]* [No]*New Hampshire [Yes]* [Yes]* 155 Yes* [No]*New Jersey [Proposed]* [Proposed]* [No Answer]* Yes* Yes*New Mexico No No Approximately 250 [Yes]* [Unknown]*New York Yes Yes* Approximately 2800 Not sure. Unknown Not sure. Unknown.North Carolina Yes* Elective* 650* Yes* [Yes]*North Dakota Yes [Local]* Approximately 120* Yes* [Yes]*Ohio [Yes]* [Elective]* 1,900?? [Yes]* [Yes]*Oklahoma Yes Local 250 Yes* NoOregon Yes* Pending/Proposed* 2700+ No NoPennsylvania No Yes* About 2,000 Yes* [No]*Puerto Rico [No Response] [No Response] [No Response] [No Response] [No Response]Rhode Island No Local Control* 425 No* [No]*South Carolina No Elective* 200-250 Yes* Yes*South Dakota Yes [Elective]* About 210* Yes* [No]*Tennessee Yes* [Elective]* 389* Yes* Yes*Texas [Yes]* [Local]* 2,171 [Yes]* [No]*Utah Yes Yes* 279 active teachers Yes* Yes*Vermont Yes* Local Control 260* [Unknown]* [Unknown]*Virginia Yes* Elective* 1,100 Yes* Yes*Washington Yes Elective Less than 50 Yes* Yes*West Virginia Yes* Elective 208* Yes* NoWisconsin [Yes]* Local Control Approximately 1,100 Yes* Yes*Wyoming Yes Yes* 192* Yes* Yes*34 October 2004 • THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER

Table 2: (Continued)TE in State Framework? Totals: Percentages:2001 2004 2001 2004Yes 30 38 57.7% 73.1%No 18 12 34.6% 23.1%No Response 3 1 5.8% 1.9%No Answer 1 — 1.9% —Proposed — 1 — 1.9%Number ofTech Ed Teachers?2001: 38,5372004: 35,909TE Required? Totals: Percentages:2001 2004 2001 2004Yes 14 12 27% 23.1%No 10 0 19.2% —Local 6 15 11.5% 28.8%Elective 1 22 30.8% 42.3%Pending 2 2 3.8% 3.8%No Response 3 1 5.8% 1.9%No Answer 1 0 1.9% —FEATURE ARTICLESTL Used? (2004 Only)AETL Used? (2004 Only)Totals: Percentages: Totals: Percentages:Yes 41 78.8% 22 42.3%No 7 13.5% 23 44.2%Unknown 2 3.8% 5 9.6%No Response 1 1.9% 1 1.9%No Answer 1 1.9% 1 1.9%Notes:Data collected as of August 16, 2004 from 50 states and the District of Columbia. Puerto Rico did not respond.[ ] Indicates staff interpretation of comment.* Indicates additional information/comments were received. The full data tables are available at www.iteawww.org/TAA/ResourcesMainPage.htm.2001 figures from Newberry, 2001.THE TECHNOLOGY TEACHER • October 2004 35

Are Your Students BecomingTechnologically Literate?Measuring Progress: A Guideto Assessing Students forTechnological Literacy is aresource for teachers to use asthey plan and implementstandards-based studentassessment of technologicalliteracy. It provides an approachthat teachers mayfollow as well as descriptions of several assessmenttools and methods. The appendices include forms thatcan be photocopied for teachers to use as they worktoward standards-based reform of student assessmentin their own laboratory-classrooms. Teachers will findMeasuring Progress helpful for understanding how thetechnology content standards (STL, ITEA, 2000, 2002)relate to the student assessment standards (AETL,ITEA, 2003). [ISBN: 1-887101-04-7]VISIT THE ITEA ONLINE CATALOG ATWWW.ITEAWWW.ORG OR CALL703-860-2100 FOR ORDERING INFORMATION. You don’t want to miss this one!Completely NEW conference schedule, and all that KansasCity has to offer! Pre-register today at www.iteawww.org!

Save the Dolphins!An EngineerGirl! Website ContestIn Conjunction with National Engineers WeekHow would you solve this real-world experience usingengineering and your creativity?The ChallengeEach year, thousands of dolphins die after beaching themselves, often in spite of effortsof volunteers working furiously to move them back out to sea. Imagine that a pod ofdolphins has mysteriously come ashore and you are asked to help. Think of a solution tothis problem using design principles and processes from one or more fields ofengineering, removing the dolphins from the beach and safely back into their home inthe water.How Do I Enter? Make a plan to solve this problem. Include charts, pictures, diagrams,lists of supplies, etc. for how you would get the dolphins off the beach. Use up to fourgraphics pages, including pictures and charts, and no more than 500 words. Scoring willinclude points for presentation, thoroughness, and creativity.Who Can Enter? The contest is open to individual girls and boys and teams of up to sixstudents. There are two age categories: Grades 5–8 and Grades 9–12.How Do I Submit My Entry? You may e-mail your text and scanned or electronicallyproduced images to NAE at nkahl@nae.edu. Please clearly indicate in the subject linethat the email is regarding the contest. You can also mail hard copies of your entry orsubmit your entry on an IBM-formatted 3.5” disk by regular mail to:National Academy of EngineeringW1026 Keck Bldg.500 5 th Street, NWWashington, DC 20001EngineerGirl! Website ContestWhen Is the Deadline? Entries must be e-mailed or postmarked by December 31, 2004.Awards First-place entries will be displayed on the EngineerGirl! Websiteand will be awarded $250. Second-place entries will be awarded $150. Third-place entries will beawarded $100. The winners will be announced on February 25, 2005.Go to www.engineergirl.org for more details!

This series of activity guides is designed to supplement Standardsfor Technological Literacy through the use of classroom activities.The activities are directly linked to recommended K-12 courses andpresent a variety of contemporary methods that will infuse recentresearch concerning learning and teaching.The guides provide detailed guidance for teacher preparation andimplementation.They include ready-to-duplicate student handouts and reflectionquestions and provide multiple assessment strategies.Currently available titles:Classroom ActivitiesNow Available from ITEA!ITEA-HITS (Human Innovating Technology Series) is geared toward secondary students.Agricultural Equipment Models and Prototypes Applying Energy NEW!Processes and Feedback Artificial Ecosystems and Habitats Shaping Technology NEW!Communicating Design Ideas Technological Impacts Communicating with Symbols NEW!Technological Influences on History Communication Media NEW! Technology and EcosystemsComputers and Information Technology and Human Needs Consumers and Information NEW!Technology and Society NEW! Design Requirements Technology and the EnvironmentDesigning Messages Technology Transfer Development of TechnologyTransportation Systems Energy Conversion Transportation Processes NEW!Evaluating Designs NEW! Transportation Vehicles Human-Made World NEW!What is Design? Invention and Innovation What is a System?Learning How Things Work What is Technology? Manu. Enterprise & Marketing NEW!What is Engineering Design? Manufacturing ProcessesITEA-KITS (Kids Inventing Technology Series) is designed for elementary classrooms.Agricultural Technology NEW! Needs & Wants in the Design Process NEW!Collecting and Analyzing Data Parts of a Structure Communicating DesignsTechnological Interactions Communication Media Technological SymbolsCommunication Symbols Technology and Human Needs Design RequirementsTechnology and Medicine NEW! Technology and Waste Designing Manufactured Things NEW!Developing Design Solutions The Human-Made World Development of TechnologyTools Make Work Easier NEW! Exchanging Information NEW! Transportation SystemsExperimentation and R&D Transportation Vehicles NEW! Farming and Technology NEW!Troubleshooting NEW! Forms of Energy Using Technological Devices NEW!Housing What is a System? How Things WorkWhat is Design? Invention and Innovation What is Engineering Design?Manufacturing Enterprise What is Technology? What are Materials?Each five-activity pack is available for the low price of $15.00 to ITEAmembers ($20.00 for non-members) plus shipping and handling.For more information or to order, call (703) 860-2100 or visit theITEA Web site at www.iteawww.org.