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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: OCTOBER 2004 Volume 64, No. 2NUCLEA
Page 5 and 6: IN THE NEWS & CALENDARWhat is the T
Page 7 and 8: November 17-19, 2004DeVilbiss, Bink
Page 10 and 11: TECHNOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS STANDARD
Page 12 and 13: FEATURE ARTICLEscience. Dissertatio
Page 14 and 15: FEATURE ARTICLE2. Identify how many
Page 16 and 17: Method 1: BASIC navigationThe appro
Page 18 and 19: or less important, depending on wha
Page 20 and 21: From IDSACLUSTERING STUDENTS TO EVA
Page 22 and 23: IDSAan item is selected for deletio
Page 24 and 25: RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYFigure 1 sho
Page 26 and 27: RESOURCES IN TECHNOLOGYcosts of ren
Page 28 and 29: When each team had its car runningt
Page 30 and 31: Request for Special RecognitionNomi
Page 32 and 33: FEATURE ARTICLEFigure 1: Summary of
Page 36 and 37: Table 2: Data on the Status of Tech
Page 38 and 39: Are Your Students BecomingTechnolog
Page 40: This series of activity guides is d

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?