September 2007 - Vol 67, No. 1 - International Technology and ...

iteea.org
  • No tags were found...

September 2007 - Vol 67, No. 1 - International Technology and ...

It’s your turn at the wheelBoyd Coddington is looking for your best steering wheel design. Enter theMastercam Innovator of the Future competition for a chance to win a $1000scholarship and a trip to California to meet Boyd and tour his shop. Take your bestshot at machining an innovative steering wheel and put yourself in the driver’s seatof your future now! For complete contest details including part specs and deadlines,visit www.mastercamiof.comCNC Software Educational Division5717 Wollochet Drive NW, Gig Harbor, WA 98335(800) ASK-MCAM • (253) 858-6677 • www.mastercamiof.com


ContentsSeptember • VOL. 67 • NO. 127A Model Technology Educator:Thomas A. EdisonProvides evidence of Thomas A. Edison asbeing a remarkable visionary and exceptionalrole model for today’s problem-solving anddesign-focused technology educator.William S. Pretzer, George E. Rogers,and Jeffery BushCover:Resources inTechnologyStatistics:It’s in theNumberspage 6DepartmentsFeatures12Web NewsTIDE News4 CalendarResources6in Technology23 ClassroomChallenge5 EditorialKatie de la PazThe Status of Technology Education in the United States14 Results of current research on the status of technology education in the U.S. in 2006-07.William E. Dugger, Jr., DTENEW FEATURE!32 NEW!Model Program: Brillion High School:Innovation in Educationsteve mEyerPublisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTEEditor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la PazEditor, Kathie F. CluffITEA Board of DirectorsAndy Stephenson, DTE, PresidentKen Starkman, Past PresidentLen Litowitz, DTE, President-ElectDoug Miller, Director, ITEA-CSScott Warner, Director, Region ILauren Withers Olson, Director, Region IISteve Meyer, Director, Region IIIRichard (Rick) Rios, Director, Region IVMichael DeMiranda, Director, CTTEPeter Wright, Director, TECAVincent Childress, Director, TECCKendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE,Executive DirectorITEA is an affiliate of the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science.The Technology Teacher, ISSN: 0746-3537,is published eight times a year (Septemberthrough June with combined December/Januaryand May/June issues) by the InternationalTechnology Education Association, 1914Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA20191. Subscriptions are included inmember dues. U.S. Library and nonmembersubscriptions are $80; $90 outside the U.S.Single copies are $8.50 for members; $9.50for nonmembers, plus shipping—domestic@ $5.00 and outside the U.S. @ $11.00(Airmail).The Technology Teacher is listed in theEducational Index and the Current Index toJournal in Education. Volumes are available onMicrofiche from University Microfilm, P.O. Box1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.Advertising Sales:ITEA Publications Department703-860-2100Fax: 703-860-0353Subscription ClaimsAll subscription claims must be made within 60days of the first day of the month appearing onthe cover of the journal. For combined issues,claims will be honored within 60 days fromthe first day of the last month on the cover.Because of repeated delivery problems outsidethe continental United States, journals will beshipped only at the customer’s risk. ITEA willship the subscription copy but assumes noresponsibility thereafter.Change of AddressSend change of address notification promptly.Provide old mailing label and new address.Include zip + 4 code. Allow six weeks forchange.PostmasterSend address change to: The TechnologyTeacher, Address Change, ITEA, 1914Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid atHerndon, VA and additional mailing offices.E-mail: kdelapaz@iteaconnect.orgWorld Wide Web: www.iteaconnect.orgPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER


New on theITEA Website:n The Status of Technology Education in the United StatesSee the complete data tables online at:www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/StatusofTechnologyDataTables.pdfTechnologyTEACHERT h e V o i c e o f T e c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o ntheEditorial Review BoardCochairpersonDan Engstrom, DTECalifornia University of PACochairpersonStan Komacek, DTECalifornia University of PAn ITEA Membership is easier than ever! You can now join or renew ITEAmemberships through the new ITEA e-Store. The e-Store will let you lookup your ID number, remember your information, change/update youraccount, view your history, and print invoices.The first 25 members to join or renew using the e-Store will receive the"Standards Poster" with a complete list of the STL standards in the leftcolumn and an overview of the basic concepts students should learn from astandards-based curriculum in technology education on the right. This willbe a great, FREE addition to your classroom.Go to http://store.iteaconnect.org.Steve AndersonNikolay Middle School, WIStephen BairdBayside Middle School, VALynn BashamVA Department of EducationClare BensonUniversity of Central EnglandMary BradenCarver Magnet HS, TXJolette BushMidvale Middle School, UTPhilip CardonEastern Michigan UniversityMichael CichockiSalisbury Middle School, PAMike Fitzgerald, DTEIN Department of EducationMarie HoepflAppalachian State Univ.Laura HummellManteo Middle School, NCFrank KruthSouth Fayette MS, PALinda MarkertSUNY at OswegoDon MuganValley City State UniversityMonty RobinsonBlack Hills State UniversityMary Annette RoseBall State UniversityTerrie RustOasis Elementary School, AZYvonne SpicerNat’l Center for Tech LiteracyJerianne TaylorAppalachian State UniversityGreg Vander WeilWayne State CollegeKatherine WeberDes Plaines, ILEric WiebeNorth Carolina State Univ.Editorial 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, includingadvertising, are expressions of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the official policy or the opinion of theassociation, its officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff.Referee PolicyAll professional articles in The Technology Teacher arerefereed, with the exception of selected associationactivities and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articlesare reviewed 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 Articleswww.iteaconnect.orgAll articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief,International Technology Education Association, 1914Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539.Please submit articles and photographs via emailto kdelapaz@iteaconnect.org. Maximum length formanuscripts is eight pages. Manuscripts should be preparedfollowing the style specified in the Publications Manual ofthe American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition.Editorial guidelines and review policies are available bywriting directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright© 2007 by the International Technology EducationAssociation, Inc., 703-860-2100. • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


TIDE NewsElection CandidatesThe 2007-2008 ITEA Board of Directors election ballot will be emailed to Professional and active LifeMembers in September. The highly experienced field of candidates is pictured here. Exercise your rightto vote by completing your ballot promptly! Ballots must be completed electronically on or beforeOctober 30, 2007.President-Elect (Supervisor)Ed Denton, DTEDirector of TechnologyNeshaminy School DistrictLanghorne, PAMelvin Lee RobinsonTechnology and EngineeringSpecialistUtah State Office ofEducationSalt Lake City, UTRegion II Director (Supervisor)Michael A. Fitzgerald, DTETechnology EducationSpecialistIndiana Department ofEducationOffice of Career and TechnicalEducationIndianapolis, INLynn Bernard (Barney)HixsonAssistant to the Career andTechnical DirectorHamilton CountyDepartment of EducationChattanooga, TNRegion IV Director (Classroom Teacher)Brad B. FleenerIndustrial TechnologyInstructorEagle River High SchoolEagle River, AKPatrick McDonaldTechnology Lab Facilitator -Classroom TeacherBingham High SchoolSouth Jordan, UT • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


ITEA Launches Inside TIDEIn June of this year, ITEA launched an entirely newelectronic newsletter—Inside TIDE! Its purpose is to bringyou all the “inside” information pertaining to the world ofTIDE—Technology, Innovation, Design, and Engineering.Inside TIDE is a free service of ITEA, the InternationalTechnology Education Association, in an effort to supporteducators from around the world who share the beliefthat technological literacy is a critical component of aneducation in today’s world.Inside TIDE recognizes the natural relationship betweenthe fields of technology, innovation, design, and engineeringand is designed to facilitate communication between allthose who support technological literacy.Inside Tide will regularly bring you timely informationpertaining to professional development opportunities,assistance with marketing your program, informationabout legislative efforts, opportunities to connect and shareinformation with other technology educators, and MUCHmore!You won’t be losing the features of TrendScout that you’vegrown to depend on: Inside TIDE will bring you the sameinformation and even more—another way that ITEA strivesto keep its members up to date with important informationgeared to assist you in your professional endeavors.If you have news or calendar items that you feel areappropriate to share in a future issue of Inside Tide, emailthem to kcluff@iteaconnect.org. We welcome your input!Salt Lake City 2008Watch your mail in the next several weeks for ITEA’s70 th Annual Conference Preliminary Program, and,as always, check the ITEA website regularly for thelatest conference information. www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htmFree Resources for Technology TeachersColleague Connection is a new service intended toallow potential professional or advocate members ofITEA the opportunity to experience the benefits of workingtogether with current members to advance the teachingof technology.The importance of teaching TIDE (Technology, Innovation,Design, and Engineering) in our schools is becoming moreand more evident. Increasing membership in ITEA is oneway we can make our voice stronger—greatly improving ourability to advocate the advancement of technological literacyin our society.Through Colleague Connection, a current ITEA membercan invite a colleague to experience ITEA membershipfor a limited period at NO CHARGE. After signing up,the potential member is permitted to share in listservdiscussions, receive up-to-date news regarding the fieldand association, and have increased access to other existingresources.To share this unique opportunity with someone you feelwould be a good candidate in our efforts to bring technologyeducation into the spotlight, please visit the ColleagueConnection informational page at www.iteaconnect.org/cc.htm. From there you can also click on the ColleagueConnection card to view printable cards that can thenbe shared.The best way to strengthen the position of our field is toincrease the number of those advocating the teaching oftechnology. This is a free opportunity for you to spreadthe word to your colleagues and invite them to experienceITEA, an association with the clear goal of advancingtechnological literacy.Connect YOUR colleagues today!www.iteaconnect.org/cc.htm. • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


EditorialBy Katie de la PazLooking Back; Looking AheadNext month marks my ten-year anniversary with ITEA.Naturally, such a milestone provides an opportunity forreflection. For a full decade I’ve been a witness to the fieldof technology education and have come to the realizationthat, while certain aspects change and evolve with lightningspeed, others rarely change at all.Let’s face it; this field is a moving target. It’s an enormouschallenge to keep up with constant innovations, a shiftingpolitical landscape, and the advent of new measures such asNCLB. Yet, ITEA members have done an outstanding jobof assisting one another in trying to stay on the cutting edgeof all this information as it hurtles towards us—throughThe Technology Teacher as well as through more immediatecommunications options such as the IdeaGarden listserv.This brings me to my second point: that while some portionsof the field are ever-changing, there is one aspect thatremains steadfastly the same—the feeling of “community”among ITEA members. Over the past decade, I’ve beentouched and impressed on numerous occasions by thededication, selflessness, and deeply held beliefs of teachersand teacher educators in the field.While we have made inroads into making membersunderstand that we simply don’t receive enough articlesubmissions from classroom teachers, we still can’t seemto improve the ratio. To address that issue, we’ve workedwith PTC to create an authorship incentive programfor classroom teachers. See page 13 of this journal,or go to www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/Promos/PTCSponsorship.pdf for more information.As part of the most recent readership survey, we also askedif you would like to see the addition of a regular featurethat highlights model technology education programs. Youresoundingly answered “yes” (91%), and so we hope you’ll bepleased to see the introduction of this new, ongoing featureon page 32.It has been both an honor and a privilege to work alongsideyou as well as on your behalf for the past decade, and I lookforward to many more years spent together in the effort tochampion technological literacy.Katie de la Paz is Editor-in-Chief ofthe International Technology EducationAssociation. She can be reached atkdelapaz@iteaconnect.org.So it is with a keen sense of responsibility each summer thatwe undertake plans to “roll out” each new publishing year ofthis journal. We pay very close attention to survey results inan effort to bring you the journal that best suits your needs. • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Resources in TechnologyStatistics: It’s in the Numbers!By Mary M. Deal and Walter F. Deal, IIIMathematics offers a language withwhich to express relationships inscience and technology and providesuseful analytical tools for scientistsand engineers.IntroductionVery few people would argue that mathematics and statisticsare not important tools in business and industry. Muchthe same in middle and high school technology educationprograms, teachers and students use math skills in solvingtechnical problems, testing, measurement, and calculatingresistance, current, and voltage in electrical and electroniccircuits. Many of the machines, testing equipment, andtools that are commonly found in technology labs requiremath skills.When we consider learning activities in manufacturing andconstruction, we can readily see the role that math skillsplay in estimating material quantities and costs. Further,in construction, we can see examples such as calculatingarea for framing, sheathing, roofing, and floor materials,calculating cubic measure for soil and fill materials as well asconcrete and block estimates. In manufacturing, we can seeapplications in material lists, material costs, and inventoryand quality control.Figure 1. The fuel economy labels found on new vehicles providestatistical information about city and highway fuel consumption.However, new government regulations require that a range of mileagedata be provided that reflects more realistic and achievable fuelconsumption. The figure shown here presents a comparison of oldand new Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) mile-per-gallondata (www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm).Mathematics offers a language with which to expressrelationships in science and technology and provides usefulanalytical tools for scientists and engineers. As we lookat the larger picture, mathematics is used by engineers,scientists, and technicians to describe process, products,theories, and models. But wait! People in wholesaleand retail distribution, service companies, medicalprofessions, and many other areas also use many of thesesame skills and knowledge in mathematics, statistics, andprobability to market products, inventory, provide services, • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


conduct research, and provide health care. Two notableorganizations associated with statistics are The NielsenCompany and the United States Census Bureau.By the numbers: We see numbers in the daily weatherforecast, reflecting the average temperature and rainfall overperiods of time; car manufacturers promote the fuel mileageof their vehicles as shown in Figure 1; we see beverages bythe liter, frequency of accidents at intersections, test gradeaverages, cell phones per capita, and many other numberreferenceddata. Here, we are looking at statistics andhow numbers can show the analysis of data, quantitativerelationships, and interpretation of data to provide usefulinformation.A day does not pass that people are not bombarded withstatistical information in news reports (presidential andcongressional poll numbers), advertisements (four out offive dentists prefer sugarless gum, and choosy moms chooseBrand X peanut butter), and a consumer survey by TheNielsen Company found that two in five (42%) global onlineconsumers believe governments should restrict companies’emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Two infive online consumers also said governments should investin research to find environmentally friendly and energysavingsolutions (Nielsen).As consumers, we need to be aware that statisticalmethods and data must be used correctly and accuratelyto present information in a meaningful and useful way.Frequently, statistical information may be misrepresentedor incompletely presented inadvertently or on purpose.The result is an inaccurate use of the data and perhaps falseand misleading conclusions. Having a basic understandingof statistics can be helpful in interpreting much of thestatistical data that we encounter almost on a daily basis.Advertisers rely heavily on statistical data to reachconsumers with their advertising messages. Advertisementsmay appear in a mix of print media, broadcast radio andtelevision, cable, outdoor advertising, the Internet, andother media. The top ten advertisers, according to TheNielsen Company, are shown in Table 1 (page 8).One of the newest advances in advertising is the digitaldisplay billboard. Lamar Advertising has introduced fullsizedLight Emitting Diode (LED) billboards like the oneshown in Figure 2 that you may see along an Interstateor major highway. These displays change ads about everyten seconds. The digital images are bright and sharp ascompared with typical poster media. Advertising rates areFigure 2. Businesses rely on advertising to promote their productsand services and brand recognition. Advertising agencies usestatistical data to set ad rates and fees. Outdoor advertising is avery popular form of advertising, and the digital panel shown hererepresents the newest technology.determined by the number of impressions or views for aperiod of time, where the rate may be expressed as costper thousand. The analysis of statistical data is used todetermine advertising rates. The time of day and days of theweek affect advertising rates.Another example of statistical information in the newsindicates that hospital visits are up 20 percent over thelast five years. A survey by the U.S. Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention also found that most people whovisited emergency rooms had health insurance, but theuninsured were almost twice as likely to use emergencyservices as compared to those with insurance. Many healthcare experts are worried that the 43 million people wholack health insurance in the United States must rely onemergency rooms for care—not the best way to preventserious conditions. The survey suggests this is true. “Peoplewith no insurance are twice as likely to use the emergencydepartment as the privately insured,” said Catharine Burtof the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly28 percent of all doctors’ visits by uninsured people are toemergency rooms, compared to 6.6 percent of visits madeby people with insurance. As we approach a presidentialelection year, the significance of statistics takes on a newmeaning and may make a difference in an election outcome(Center for Diseases and Control).A leading online rating service, Nielsen/Net Ratings, willchange the way it rates web page traffic and activity. In thepast, Nielsen/NetRatings used “page views” as a measure ofhow many times a page had been viewed and the numberof visitors. However, changes in web-page formats, withincreased video content and techniques that update dataautomatically, reduce the number of page views and increasethe time spent on a page. This reduces the number of pageviews but increases the number of minutes, making this abetter measure of site traffic (Jesdanun). • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal factfindingagency for the Federal Government in the broad fieldof labor economics and statistics. The BLS is an independentnational statistical agency that collects, processes, analyzes,and disseminates essential statistical data to the Americanpublic, the U.S. Congress, other federal agencies, state andlocal governments, business, and labor. The BLS also servesas a statistical resource to the Department of Labor.BLS data must satisfy a number of criteria, includingrelevance to current social and economic issues, timelinessin reflecting today’s rapidly changing economic conditions,accuracy, consistently high statistical quality, andimpartiality in both subject matter and presentation.The U.S. Census Bureau is responsible for conducting acensus every ten years for the reapportionment of the Houseof Representatives. Additionally the Census Bureau collectsother data such as housing, income, state median income,health insurance, an economic census that features leadingeconomic indicators, maps, and other kinds of informationthat describe the United States and its people. An interestingfeature of the Census Bureau is the Population Clock, whichshows the current population at 303,307,238 people. Thepopulation count will literally change as it’s watched (Bureauof Labor and Statistics)!There are many cases where statistical information canbest be presented in a graphical format. The U.S. CensusBureau provides many different kinds of tables and graphsto provide a wealth of information that describes manydimensions of America’s people. The demographics of theUnited States are shown in a pyramid chart, (Figure 3) thatdescribes the population distribution by age and sex forthe year 2030. You can readily see that distribution by ageand sex is fairly close through age 70. If you were to go backin time to 1900, or even 1950, you would see significantlydifferent patterns, with a larger number in the youngerpopulation and fewer in the older populations. Why wouldthis be? You may wish to visit the Census Bureau’s website atwww.census.gov to explore the many kinds of data thatare available.Defining StatisticsStatistics have many roots and may be defined as thecollection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, andpresentation of data. It is applicable to a wide variety ofacademic disciplines, from the physical and social sciencesto the humanities. Statistics are also used for makinginformed decisions.Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describea collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. InTable 1Rank Parent Company Total Ad Dollars Spent Product/Service1 Proctor and Gamble Company $1,037,597,571 Household Products2 General Motors Corporation $657,909,756 Cars/transportation3 AT&T $619,780,062 Communication/Data Services4 Ford Motor Company $579,628,558 Cars/Transportation5 Johnson and Johnson Company $464,009,529 Household Products6 Daimler-Chrysler AG $454,861,243 Cars/Transportation7 Time Warner, Inc. $454,575,152 Entertainment/Information8 Verizon Communication, Inc. $450,911,521 Communication/Data Services9 Walt Disney Company $406,875,654 Entertainment/Information10 Toyota Motor Corporation $393,626,600 Cars/TransportationThe top ten advertisers spend millions of dollars per year to promote their products and services. Their advertising dollars purchasea variety of media buys that target demographic groups with the anticipation that the viewers will purchase products and services.Advertisers and ad agencies make extensive use of statistical methods and data to arrive at costs and reach of advertising messagesJanuary 2007–April 2007 (Adapted from Nielsen Monitor-Plus).Source: Nielsen Monitor-Plus. Based on spending estimates in the following media: Network TV, National Cable TV, Spot TV, Syndicated TV,Hispanic TV, National/Local Magazine, Network/Spot Radio, Outdoor, FSI (Free Standing Inserts - CPGs only), National/Local Newspapers(display ads only), National/Local Sunday Supplement. • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Notable Figures in the Field of StatisticsHistorically, one of the most notable and influentialstatisticians was Dr. William Deming. He is widely creditedwith improving production for the war effort during WorldWar II. However, he is probably better known for his workin Japan where he introduced innovative managementpractices to improve design, product quality, testing, andsales through statistical methods such as the analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) and hypothesis testing. Dr. Demingmade a significant contribution to Japan’s moving intoglobal markets and becoming renowned for high-qualityproducts. Additionally, Dr. Deming is regarded as havinghad more impact on Japanese manufacturing, production,and business than any other individual who was not ofJapanese heritage.Figure 3. Charts and graphs can be used to display complex informationclearly and emphasize relative measures between the data.This pyramid graph shows the population distribution by age andsex for the year 2030. You can readily see that distribution by ageand sex is fairly close through age 70.addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a waythat may account for randomness and uncertainty in theobservations, and then used to draw inferences about theprocess or population being studied; this is called inferentialstatistics. Both descriptive and inferential statistics area part of the larger field that is called applied statistics.There is also a discipline called mathematical statistics,which is concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject(Wikipedia: Statistics).Statistical LiteracyThere are a number of excellent documents that describe theneed for a technologically literate citizenry. One of these isStandards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Studyof Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002). Here we can see thatthese standards address the knowledge and skills needed toassess the impact of technology, measurement, testing andanalysis, interpretation of data that support decision-makingprocesses, problem solving, and critical thinking. Thesekinds of skills and knowledge are similar to those skills andexpectations found in the standards for mathematics. Theseexpectations include understanding the differences amongvarious kinds of studies and which types of inferencescan legitimately be drawn from each, recognizing thecharacteristics of well-designed studies, including the role ofrandomization in surveys and experiments, understandingthe meaning of measurement data and categorical data, andcomputing basic statistics and understanding the distinctionbetween a statistic and a parameter (NCTM).Early in Dr. Deming’s career, he was introduced to Walter A.Shewhart of the Bell Telephone Labs by Dr. C. H. Kunsmanof the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He found greatinspiration in the work of Shewhart, who was the originatorof statistical process control and the related technicaltool of the control chart. Dr. Deming moved toward theapplication of statistical methods to industrial productionand management. Accordingly, he saw that statisticalmethods could be applied not only to manufacturingprocesses but also to processes by which businesses may beled and managed. This insight made possible his significantinfluence on the economics of the industrialized worldafter 1950.Deming advocated that all managers need to have what hecalled a System of Profound Knowledge, consisting of fourparts (Wikipedia: W. Edwards Deming):• Appreciation of a system: understanding the overallprocesses involving suppliers, producers, and customers(or recipients) of goods and services.• Knowledge of variation: the range and causes ofvariation in quality, and use of statistical sampling inmeasurements.• Theory of knowledge: the concepts explainingknowledge and the limits of what can be known (see also:epistemology).• Knowledge of psychology: concepts of human nature.Dr. Deming’s principles support the global success ofToyota, Proctor & Gamble, The Ritz-Carlton, Harley-Davidson, and many other leading organizations. Histeachings are essential for the effective application ofSix Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, Loyalty/Net Promoterand other quality improvement, customer retention, andbusiness-growth methods (Managementwisdom.com). • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Another notable figure in the field of statistics was John W.Tukey (1915-2000), a chemist who became a mathematicianand then a statistician. During the Second World War,Tukey worked on the accuracy of range finders and gunfirefrom bombers. After the war, he continued to workwith government agencies and joined the mathematicsdepartment at Princeton University and Bell Laboratories.Tukey remained concerned that mathematical statisticswere ignoring real-world data analysis. He developedexploratory data analysis using modern computer methods.As a result of his studies, he developed two entirely newgraphic designs: the stem-and-leaf plot and the box-andwhiskerplot (commonly called the box plot). The stem-andleafplot simply arranges a series of data points in rows andcolumns. From this plot, judgments can be made about thedata, similar to actual bar plots.Among Tukey’s most far-reaching contributions washis development of techniques for “robust analysis,” anapproach to statistics that guards against wrong answersin situations where a randomly chosen sample of datahappens to poorly represent the rest of the data set.Tukey also pioneered approaches to exploratory dataanalysis, developing graphing and plotting methods thatare fixtures of introductory statistics texts, and authoredmany publications on time series analysis and other aspectsof digital signal processing that have become central tomodern engineering and science.Key 3 | 1 means that there are 31 computers.The numbers are now listed from smallest to largest andthe median can quickly be located. With 21 data points,the 11th number is the median. The median for thisexample is 27.The mean is the sum of the numbers, 554, divided bythe number of data points, which is 21. The mean equals26.38.Box Plot ExampleBox plots are based on a five-number summary:the median, the first quartile, the third quartile, themaximum, and the minimum.An example of a box plot—given 14 quiz grades: 86, 84,91, 75, 78, 80, 74, 87, 76, 96, 82, 90, 98, 93.First, rearrange the numbers in order from smallest tolargest.74 75 76 78 80 82 84 86 87 90 91 93 96 98Then locate the median. The median is the number in themiddle. In this case, with an even number of data, there isno number in the middle. The two numbers in the middlemust be averaged; this gives 85 as the median. The firstWhile there are many notable individuals in the field ofstatistics, W. Edwards Deming and John W. Tukey especiallystand out because of their work in developing statisticalmethods and tools and their significant influence on otherindividuals, governments, and corporations.Stem-and-leaf example:Assume that a group of students has been assigned todetermine the number of computers used in the citygovernment offices. The students prepared a “contact personcall list” to collect the data shown below.Given the data set (numbers of computers in eachdepartment):20, 15, 23, 29, 23, 15, 23, 31, 28, 35, 37, 27, 24, 26, 47, 28,24, 28, 28, 16, 271 5 5 62 0 3 3 3 4 4 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 93 1 5 74 7Figure 4 shows an example of a box plot using an online Javaapplet. This screen illustrates the concept of a Box Plot. Additionaldata is shown that includes the following statistical measures:median, upper and lower quartiles, minimum and maximumdata values. The box plot was originally published by John Tukey(National Library of Virtual Manipulatives).10 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


quartile number is found by locating the middle numberof the seven numbers below 85, it is 78. The third quartilenumber is found by locating the middle number of theseven numbers above 85, it is 91. The maximum numberis 98; the minimum number is 74.A box plot can be easily illustrated using a “Nutrition Facts”panel from a box of breakfast cereal. Each student brings toclass the “Nutrition Facts” panel from their favorite cereal.Students collect the data for calories per serving from eachcereal and make a box plot of the data. Students then writea summary about the results, including how their favoritecereal ranked.Statistics Activity in the Technology LabThere are many local, regional, and global issues thattechnology students can identify and study that paralleltechnology and statistics. Examples of study topics andissues may include global warming, renewable energyresources and conservation, food and nutrition, food originsand distribution, mass transportation attitudes and use,attitudes toward recycling materials, and many other topics.Study topics may be addressed as class- or team-projectstudies. For example, the class teams would select a studyarea in the context of the current unit of study, suchas communication, biotechnology, manufacturing andconstruction, transportation, etc. The study teams wouldidentify a research area and title for the project, state theobjectives of the study and its purposes, identify the surveypopulation and sample, and identify the study limitations.Each of the teams would plan and prepare survey questionsthat address its topic, objectives, and purposes (Figure 5).Students would conduct their surveys according to thepopulation and sample they identified and analyze thecollected data using statistical tools such as mean andmedian. The teams would report their findings to the classin a presentation format using appropriate graphs andcharts.The evaluation of the research activity should focus on teamskills, planning and conducting the survey, analyses of thedata and use of statistical methods, formatting of the datafor presentation, and presenting the data to the class.SummaryMathematics and statistics play important roles in our livestoday. A day hardly passes that we are not bombarded withmany different kinds of statistics. As consumers we seestatistical information as we surf the web, watch television,listen to our satellite radios, or even read the nutrition factsFigure 5. Team skills are an important dimension in planning,designing, and preparing a survey project. These same skills aredesirable and applicable in the workplace.panel on a cereal box in the morning. Learning how torecognize and interpret mathematical and statistical datais an increasingly important skill toward technological andquantitative literacy. We should be aware that statisticalinformation is sometimes misrepresented, and we shouldcarefully consider the facts being presented and how theyare being presented.Applying statistical methods and analyses in technologyactivities can provide new insights in using technologyand information. As we look at statistics, the messages andmeanings are all in the numbers!ReferencesBurt, C. W., McCaig, L. F., & Rechtsteiner, E. A. (2007).Ambulatory Medical Care Utilization Estimates for2005. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics,Number 388. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Retrieved June 29, 2007 from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad388.pdf.Jesdanun, Anick. (2007). Nielsen to rank Web sites by visitlengths. Retrieved July 9, 2007 from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19680567/.ManagementWisdom.com. (2007). What Deming TaughtToyota: Every 21st Century Manager Needs to Know.Retrieved June 25, 2007 from www.managementwisdom.com/weddechofqua.html.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000-2004).Data Analysis and Probability Standards for Grades 9– 12. Retrieved July 5, 2007 from standards.nctm.org/document/chapter7/data.htm.11 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


The Nielsen Company. (2007). Global Nielsen Survey:Consumers Look to Governments to Act on ClimateChange. Retrieved June 30, 2007 from www.nielsen.com/media/pr_070605.html.The Nielsen Company. (2007). Top Tens and Trends.Retrieved June 30, 2007 from www.nielsen.com/media/toptens_advertisers.html.U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics(2001). Mission Statement. Retrieved July 8, 2007 fromwww.bls.gov/bls/blsmissn.htm.Glossary of Common Statistical TermsPopulation: the entire group of people or products thatwe want information about.Sample: a part of the population that we actuallyexamine to gather information.Random: a method of selection of the samplemembers in such a way that every set of data is a truerepresentation of the population.Central Tendency: measures that reflect averages suchas the mean or median.Data: numerical information that is collected.Mean: add the data values and divide by the number ofdata.Median: the mid-point of the distribution.Range: the differences between the maximum (largest)value and the minimum value. For a distribution with acontinuous random variable, the range is the differencebetween the two extreme points on the distributioncurve, where the value of the function falls to zero.Stem and Leaf: A stem-and-leaf plot is a display thatorganizes data to show its shape and distribution. In astem-and-leaf plot each data value is split into a “stem”and a “leaf.” The “leaf” is usually the last digit of thenumber, and the other digits to the left of the “leaf”form the “stem.” The number 123 would be split as stem12 and the leaf 3.Box Plot: an efficient method for displaying a fivenumberdata summary. The graph is called a box plot(also known as a box and whisker plot) and summarizesthe following statistical measures: median, upper andlower quartiles, minimum and maximum data values.The box plot was originally published by John Tukey.Utah State University, National Library of VirtualManipulatives. (1999-2006). Data Analysis & Probability:Box Plot. Retrieved July 5, 2007 from nlvm.usu.edu/en/nav/frames_asid_200_g_3_t_5.html?open=instructions.Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). W. Edwards Deming.Wikipedia. Retrieved June 25, 2007 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming.Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2007). Statistics. Wikipedia.Retrieved June 30, 2007 from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics.Mary M. Deal, M.A., is a mathematicsteacher and chairperson of the mathematicsdepartment at York High School, Yorktown,VA.Walter F. Deal, III, Ph.D., is an associateprofessor at Old Dominion University inNorfolk, VA. He can be reached via email atwdeal@odu.edu.12 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Classroom teachers whose submitted manuscripts are accepted and published by way of TheTechnology Teacher’s peer-review process will receive the following:•••Your Classroom is Already Full of Good Ideas!A Free Teacher Certification Workshop from PTC—upon completion, you will receive 300seats of PTC’s Pro/Engineer Schools Edition software, classroom materials, project-based activities,student certification and assessments, discussion groups, and web-based resources.A Technology Teacher authorship pinA Technology Teacher authorship certificateFor more information about submitting a manuscript to The Technology Teacher, go towww.iteaconnect.org/Publications/ttt.htm for support materials to help you get started.Questions? Ready to submit an article? Contact Katie de la Paz at kdelapaz@iteaconnect.org.This offer is brought to you by ITEA and PTC, who recognize the importance of classroomteachers sharing their experiences with others. To learn more about PTC’s educational outreach,visit: www.ptc.com/go/education. This offer is currently extended to the first 10 classroomteachers whose manuscripts are accepted.


The Status of Technology Educationin the United StatesA Triennial Report of the Findings from the StatesBy William E. Dugger, Jr., DTEThe increase in the number ofstates that include technologyeducation in the state frameworkmay indicate that, as a nation,we are placing increasingimportance on technologyeducation as part of the overalllearning experience.The International Technology Education Association(ITEA) conducted research on the status of technologyeducation in the United States in 2006-07. This wasthe third study conducted by ITEA on the condition ofthe study of technology in all 50 states. The previous studieswere completed by ITEA’s Technology for All AmericansProject in 2000-01 and 2003-04. The reports of the previoustwo studies were published in The Technology Teacher(ITEA, 2001), (ITEA, 2004).Survey MethodologyQuestionnaires were sent via email in October, 2006 to all50 state technology education supervisors. In cases whereno supervisor was available, alternate contacts in the stateeducation departments were used. Two additional follow-upsurveys were emailed in January and March 2007 to thosestates that did not return their responses. Telephone followupcalls were conducted in April and May 2007 to attemptto gather unreported data from those states that had notresponded and to clarify responses as necessary.ITEA utilized the services of Zoomerang, an online webbasedfirm, to provide the respondents a questionnaireto complete on their computer screen and returnelectronically. The survey consisted of 10 questions.Questions 1, 2, and 4 were duplicated from the Newberry2000-2001 study (a total of three questions) and questions5 and 6 were added in the 2004 survey (a total of fivequestions). Questions 3 and 7 through 10 were added to the2006-07 instrument. The specific questions were:1. Is technology education in your state framework?(Yes or No)2. Is technology education required in your state?(Yes or No)3. If you answered Yes to question #2, is it:__ Under local control__ An elective__ A requirement that is pending/proposed__ At what grade level? _______________________4. How many technology education teachers are in yourstate? _______________5. Have you used Standards for Technological Literacy:Content for the Study of Technology (STL) in any of thefollowing ways? (Select all that apply.)__ Not used at all__ Placed in your state standards__ Adopted “as is” for your state standards__ Used in your curriculum guides__ Conducted workshops using the standards__ Other, please specify _________________6. Have you used Advancing Excellence in TechnologicalLiteracy: Student Assessment, Professional Development,14 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


40-35-30-25-20-15-10-5-0-2001 2004 200714 12 12 10 0 34 3 1 4Yes No No ResponseFigure 2. Summary of 2001, 2004, and 2007 responses to, “Is technology educationrequired in your state?”Question 3: Further elaboration on Question 2In the 2006-07 status survey, ITEA wished to find out moredetails to Question 2. Question 3 was created to do this andstated “If a state answered ‘Yes’ to Question 2, it is:• Under local control• An elective• A requirement that is pending/proposed• At what grade level? _______________”Results from the 2006-07 survey showed, from the limiteddata being reported, four states (24% of those reporting) saidthat requiring technology education was under local schooldistrict control. Five states (29%) reported technologyeducation as an elective. Only two states (12%) answeredthat technology education is being proposed as an electiveand that this action is pending.When asked at what grade level technology educationis required, there were 13 responses. One state reportedthat technology education was required at the elementarythrough middle school levels. Five other states respondedthat it was required at the middle school level only, whilefour other states indicated that technology education wasrequired for graduation at the high school level.Question 4: Number of Technology Teachers in StatesQuestion 4 was “How many technology teachers are inyour state at the secondary (MS and HS school) level?”Several states indicated that the data they submitted aboutthe number of technology education teachers was anapproximation. The number of teachers reported by 40states (86.9% of those reporting) in 2006-07 was 25,258teachers. This number is much lower than was reportedin 2004 and 2001. This number is partly attributable tothe fewer number of states that provided data. A graphiccomparison of the 2006-07 data is given in Figure 3,and state-by-state data is found in Table 1A, whichcan be accessed online at www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/StatusofTechnologyDataTables.pdf.In 2003, Hassan Ndahi, DTE and John Ritz, DTE reportedon follow-up research conducted by Old DominionUniversity based on the study conducted by Shirley Westonin 1997. The Weston research focused on technologyteacher demand. The Weston figures for 1997 estimated thatthere were 37,968 technology teachers who were employedin the United States, with one state unreported. Ndahi andRitz reported that there were 36,261 teachers employed in2001. This is different from the results from the 2000-01academic year findings of Newberry, which reported 38,537technology teachers. Potentially this inconsistency is dueto the sources used: the Weston and Old Dominion studiesused state supervisors and state boards of education fortheir figures, while the Newberry study reportedly made useof alternative sources. In any case, the 2004 study, whichrelied upon state supervisors and state boards of educationsimilar to the methods used in the Weston and OldDominion studies, indicated 35,909 technology educationteachers with one state unreported. This 2006-07 studyrelied on data reported by state supervisors of technologyeducation.16 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


40,00037,50035,00032,50030,00027,00025,00037,968•38,537•36,26135,909• •25,258*•1997 Weston Study 2000-2001Newberry Study2003 Ndahi and RitzStudy2003-2004 ITEA-TfAAP Study2006-2007 ITEAStudy (*only 40states reporting)Figure 3. Summary of 1997 Weston study, 2001 Newberry study, 2003 Ndahi and Ritz study, 2004 ITEA-TfAAP study, and the ITEA 2006-2007 study on the number of technology education teachers in the United States.Question 5: Utilization of ITEA’s Standards forTechnological Literacy: Content for the Study ofTechnology (STL) in StatesQuestion 5 stated “Have you used Standards forTechnological Literacy, Content for the Study of Technology(STL) in any of the following ways? (Select all answersthat apply).”In response to Question 5, there were 42 states (91.3% ofthose reporting) in 2006-07 that reported using STL eitherat the state or local school district level. Two states (4.3%)stated that they did not use STL; two states reported theywere not sure whether they used it or not; and four statesdid not report. In 2004, 41 states (78.8%) reported usingSTL, with two states reporting “unknown.” This comparesvery favorably to the Ndahi and Ritz 2003 findings that 43states (83%) were using STL. Both the 2004 survey and theNdahi and Ritz survey showed that seven states (13.5%)were not using STL. Averaging these data indicates that STLis used by over four out of every five states across the nation.Refer to Figure 5 for a description of how STL was used instates.Only one state (2%) reported that STL was not used at all.There were 14 states (30%) that said that STL was placed intheir state standards. When asked if STL was adopted “asis” for their state standards, 11 states (24%) reported that itwas. There were 22 states (48%) that reported that STL wasused in their state curriculum guides. When asked if theyconducted workshops using STL, 18 states (39%) answeredthat they had.State supervisors were also asked other ways that STLwas used in their states. There were 13 responses (28%)provided, and STL was used primarily as a resource orreference and as a guideline for technology and engineering.STL Used?2004STL Used?2003*STL Used?2007AETL Used?2004AETL Used?2007Yes 41 43 42 22 29No 7 7 2 23 13Unknown 2 0 2 5 2No Response 1 0 4 1 4No Answer 1 0 0 1 2* Data from Ndahi & Ritz report in 2003.Figure 4. Summary of this 2007 study, the 2004 ITEA-TfAAP study, and the 2003 Ndahi and Ritz Report on the usage of nationaltechnological literacy standards in the United States.17 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


5. Have you used Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology in any of thefollowing ways?Not used at all 1 2%Placed in your state standards 14 30%Adopted “as is” for your state standards 11 24%Used in your curriculum guides 22 48%Conducted workshops using the standards 18 39%Other, please specify 13 28%Figure 5. Responses from state supervisors on Question #5.0% 50% 100%Question 6: Utilization of Advancing Excellence inTechnology Education: Student Assessment, ProfessionalDevelopment, and Program Standards (AETL) in StatesState supervisors were asked in Question 6: “Have you usedAdvancing Excellence in Technology Education: StudentAssessment, Professional Development, and ProgramStandards (AETL) in any of the following ways? (Select allanswers that apply.)”As one may expect, Advancing Excellence in TechnologyEducation: Student Assessment, Professional Development,and Program Standards (AETL) shows less usage than STL.In response to Question 6, AETL was reported as being usedin 29 (63% of those reporting) of the states. Only 13 states(28.3%) of those reporting have not used AETL yet. Thedifference between STL and AETL usage is not unexpected,considering that AETL had been published four years priorto the time that that this survey was conducted. Refer toFigure 4 to see how AETL was used in 2004 and 2007.Refer to Figure 6, which provides some of the ways thatAETL may be used in states. Eleven states (25% of thosereporting) said that they did not use AETL at all. Five states(11%) reported that they were using AETL in their statestandards. Three states (7%) stated that AETL was adopted“as is” in their state standards. Eight states (18%) reportedthat AETL was used in their state curriculum guides,while nine other states (20%) said that they had conductedworkshops for teachers on AETL.When asked what other ways AETL was being used, 15(34%) of the state supervisors stated that it was used asa reference or resource and as a document to provideguidance to local school districts.Question 7: Assessments Based on STL in StatesQuestion 7 asked “Are you doing Standards forTechnological Literacy (STL) assessments in your states atthis time?” The responses are presented in Figure 7.Seven states (15% of those reporting) stated that they weredoing STL assessments in their state at this time. Therewere 39 states (85%) that reported they were not doing STLassessments in their state currently.6. Have you used Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development,and Program Standards (AETL) in any of the following ways?Not used at all 11 25%Placed in your state standards 5 11%Adopted “as is” for your state standards 3 7%Used in your curriculum guides 8 18%Conducted workshops using the standards 9 20%Other, please specify 15 34%0% 50% 100%Figure 6. Responses from state supervisors on Question #6.18 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


7. Are you doing Standards for Technological Literacy assessments in your state at this time?Yes 7 15%No 39 85%Total 46 100%0% 50% 100%Figure 7. Responses from state supervisors on Question #7.State supervisors were asked to provide elaborations to theirresponses on assessments, which were:• We have code that indicates all non-standardized testedareas by standards have to be assessed at the local leveland results available for public inspection.• We test technology/engineering at Grades 5, 8, and highschool.• Assessment is done at the high school level whenstudents complete a sequence of 3-4 courses in a careerpathway “Technology/Pre-Engineering.”• By April 2008, concentrator exams will be developed.• Assessments are done at the individual school level.• Some schools use STL assessments.• This supervisor was concerned about this and needsITEA’s help on what to do in the future.• Using Aims test.• No statewide assessments of TE. Local school districtsare working to develop their own assessments.• Voluntary assessments.• We are working on this now.Question 8: Descriptions of Secondary School LevelTechnology Education Curriculum in StatesWhen asked, “What course titles best describe the secondaryschool technology education curriculum taught in yourstate?”, state supervisors provided a wide variety of answers.Many stated that the local school districts have theresponsibility to provide course titles. The most frequentresponse was “technology education.” Some states reportedthat they used the ITEA/CATTS course titles at the middleand high schools. See Table 1B and the state “notes section”after Table 1B for some state-by-state course titles.Question 9: State Curriculum Guides in TechnologyEducationQuestion 9 was “Do you have a technology education statecurriculum guide(s)?” The responses provided are given inFigure 8.Twenty-seven states (59% of those reporting) answered thatthey had technology education curriculum guides. Therewere 19 states (41%) that reported they did not have anycurriculum guides for technology education.Question 10: Sources of Technology Education Fundingin StatesITEA wished to determine the source(s) of funding fortechnology education programs in states. Question 10 was“What best describes where technology education programfunding comes from in your state (i.e., relationships to local,state, and national programs)?”All of the 46 state supervisors (100%) who respondedprovided input to this question (four states did not respond).The largest response provided, by a great majority, wasthat states receive a combination of local, state, and federal(Perkins) funds for their technology education programs(20 states or 43.5% reported this). (See Figure 9.) Eightstates (17.4%) reported that they used local funds solelyfor funding technology education programs. There were9. Do you have a technology education state curriculum guide?Yes 27 59%No 19 41%Total 46 100%0% 50% 100%Figure 8. Responses from state supervisors on Question #9.19 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


10. What best describes where technology education program funding comes from inyour state (i.e., relationships to local, state, national programs?Technology Education Funding Sources # %Local (only) 8 17.4 %Local and State 4 8.7 %Local and Federal 1 2.2 %State (only) 2 4.3 %State and Federal 7 15.2 %Federal (only) 4 8.7 %Local, State, and Federal 20 43.5 %TOTAL 46 100 %Figure 9. Sources of funding for technology education programs in states.seven additional states (15.2%) that reported using stateand federal funds for technology education programs. Fourstates (8.7%) use local and state funds, while four otherstates (8.7%) reported using only federal dollars to fundtechnology education programs. There were two states(4.3%) that reported using state funds only for technologyeducation programs. Finally, there was one state (2.2%)that used local and federal dollars to fund its technologyeducation programs.Conclusions:It was disappointing that all states did not respond to the2006-07 ITEA Status Study. Even with 46 states (92%)reporting, some questions were skipped or not fullyanswered.The increase in the number of states that include technologyeducation in the state framework may indicate that, as anation, we are placing increasing importance on technologyeducation as part of the overall learning experience. Thistrend is likely instigated by research on the increasing needfor a technologically literate populace. (ITEA, 1996; ITEA,2006; ITEA, 2000/2002; ITEA, 2003, ITEA, 2004; ITEA,2005, ITEA, 2006; NAE & NRC, 2002; and the two ITEAGallup Polls: Rose and Dugger, 2002 and Rose, Dugger,Gallup, and Starkweather, 2004).As was stated in the 2004 article on this ITEA research,requiring technology education is another issue. Thesame number of states (12 in 2004 and 12 in 2007) requiretechnology education (either at the state level or the locallevel). This is somewhat disappointing since ITEA has avision that the study of technology is important and vital forall students. The bottom line is that technology education isstill an elective in most states.The number of technology teachers in the U.S. reported inthis 2007 study was 25,258. This number was based on inputfrom 40 states. In the 2004 study, 49 states provided datathat there were 35,909 teachers. Naturally, with the datamissing from 10 states in 2007, the number of technologyeducation teachers was much lower than what was reportedearlier. An unofficial estimate of teachers, based on the dataprovided by the states that reported in 2004, indicates thatprobably we may have had approximately 30,500 technologyteachers in the U.S. in 2006-2007. Again, it was verydisappointing that 10 states could not or would not providea more accurate count of the number of technology teachersin their state.STL is being used by a majority (over 91%) of states as amodel for developing state technology education standards.Additionally, 11 states reported that they had adopted STL“as is” for their state technology education standards. It ispositive news that 22 states used STL in their curriculumguides for technology education, and 18 states reported thatthey had conducted workshops on STL. Only one supervisorreported that STL was not being used at all in her/his state.AETL is not being used as widely as STL at the state level.There were 29 states (63%) that reported using AETL in2007. STL was published in 2000 (and reprinted in 2002)and AETL was published in 2003. Only 13 states reportedthat they were not using AETL at all in their state.Assessing technological literacy based on STL is onlybeing done by seven states. There were 39 states reporting20 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


that they were not doing standards-based assessments atthis time. Several states said that they were working onassessments currently.There were a myriad of responses on course titles fortechnology education curriculum at the secondary schoollevel. The most frequent “umbrella” name given was“technology education.”Twenty-seven states reported that they have technologyeducation curriculum guides. There were 19 states that saidthey did not have curriculum guides.Regarding sources of funding for technology educationprograms in states, 20 states out of the 46 reporting statedthat they use a combination of funding from the local,state, and federal (Perkins) levels. The next most frequentlisting (by eight states) was the use of local (only) funding.Additionally, two other states use state (only) funding fortheir technology education programs. The other sources offunding are presented in Figure 9.Another replication of this research needs to be done in2009-10.This 2006-07 survey data and the implications of thatdata reinforce the need for continued dissemination andimplementation of STL and AETL, with an emphasis onprofessional development and outreach efforts. Thereare now valuable new tools available to help the statesin the implementation of STL and AETL. These are thefour “Addenda” for the ITEA standards on assessingstudents, professional development of teachers, structuringstandards-based technology education programs, anddeveloping standards-based technology educationcurriculum. (See References.) Additionally, ITEA hasdeveloped a new video series on STL, AETL, and theAddenda, available at www.iteaconnect.org.ReferencesITEA. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale andstructure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy:Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy:Student assessment, professional development, andprogram standards. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2004). Measuring Progress: A Guide to AssessingStudents for Technological Literacy. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2005) Developing Professionals: Preparing TechnologyTeachers. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2005) Planning Learning: Developing TechnologyCurricula. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2005) Realizing Excellence: Structuring TechnologyPrograms. Reston, VA: Author.ITEA. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale andstructure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.Meade, S. & Dugger, W. E. (2004). Reporting on the status oftechnology education in the U.S. The Technology Teacher,64(2), pp. 29-35.National Academy of Engineering (NAE) & NationalResearch Council (NRC). (2002). Technically speaking:Why all Americans need to know more about technology.(G. Pearson & T. Young, Eds.). Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.Ndahi, H. B. & Ritz, J. M. (2003). Technology educationteacher demand, 2002-2005. The Technology Teacher,62(7), pp. 27-31.Newberry, P. B. (2001) Technology education in the U.S.: Astatus report. The Technology Teacher, 61(1), pp. 1-16.Rose, L. C. & Dugger, W. E. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll revealswhat Americans think about technology. The TechnologyTeacher, 61(6) (Insert).Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather,K. N. (2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Galluppoll and what it reveals as to how Americans think abouttechnology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1) (Insert).William E. Dugger, Jr., Ph.D., DTE is theSenior Fellow at ITEA and was formerlyDirector of ITEA’s Technology for AllAmericans Project from 1994-2005. Hecan be reached via email at wdugger@iteaconnect.org.Special thanks to Catherine James at ITEA for herconsiderable work in utilizing Zoomerang, sending outquestionnaires, and compiling data for this research.Complete data tables may be accessed at: www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/StatusofTechnologyDataTables.pdfReprints may be ordered by calling 703-860-2100 or byemailing tmacdonald@iteaconnect.org.Ad IndexAutodesk.........................................................C-4CNC Mastercam...........................................C-2Geico...............................................................C-3Goodheart-Willcox Publisher...................... 38Kelvin Electronics........................................... 31PTC...................................................................... iiToshiba.............................................................. 37Valley City State University.......................... 12White Box Robotics Inc................................ 3621 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Think You’re Prepared?Think Again.If you don’t have THE technological literacy standards document forstudent assessment, professional development, and programs, you’renot fully prepared to implement standards-based learning in your K-12laboratory-classroom.Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy is the companion documentto Standards for Technological Literacy and, like STL, is based on thevision that all students can and should become technologically literate.For the month of September, when youorder AETL, you will receive a copy of theaccompanying Executive Summary, FREE!Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment,Professional Development, and Program StandardsPrice: $30.50 (CD $24.50)Member Price: $25.50 (CD $20.50)Order before September 30, 2007 by calling 703-860-2100.Shipping fees apply.


Classroom ChallengeMs. D. and Harry and the “SingleSheet of Paper” ChallengeBy Ginny D’Antonio and Harry T. RomanBackgroundMs. D. and Harry have been working together for sevenyears. She is an eighth grade science teacher at AbingtonAvenue Grammar School in Newark, NJ, and he is a retiredresearch engineer and inventor who went to the school backin the 1950s. Together they motivate students to stretchbeyond the normal classroom activities into the realm ofopen-ended problem solving, hands-on demonstrations, andteam-based design challenges.IntroductionNothing sticks in the mind of a student like a topicallyrelevant example of how to use what was just learned.Several times a year, we team up to drive educational pointshome in an unforgettable fashion. Over the last five years avariety of special two-hour programs have been conductedwith the students:• Measuring and analyzing the output of a solar-electricpanel• Statistical analysis of student physical dimensions• Design of a new board game• Design of an anti-theft car system• Design of a robot to assist the handicapped• Famous NJ inventions and inventors and their impactson lifeHowever, the all-time favorite activity of the students is the“single sheet of paper challenge,” which is the main subjectof this article. Here is an account of the activity as we mostrecently conducted it in May 2007.Getting StartedThis team activity is best served with four to five membersper team. Make sure to divide your students into equallybalanced teams with both head- and hand-learners on eachteam, so they can learn from each other.It’s a simple design challenge…Each team may do whatever it wants to a single sheet ofpaper, just so long as it supports their history book one inchoff the table.We suggest using some Xerox-machine-quality paper forthe exercise and also have some scissors, a little tape, andsome things like rulers, pencils, and other readily availableobjects. It will be okay for them to use a little tape, but notexcessive amounts of it. The key is to get the paper to dothe work.Making It HappenAll teams usually begin by trying to manipulate the paperso as to increase its strength. There is not a great deal ofdeductive reasoning at this point as most teams are anxiousto crumple, fold, twist, and bend paper to get the challengeunderway. The teams are running on instinct at this pointand flying by the seat of their pants. In almost all cases,students ignore the “one inch” criteria…but for now thatis okay.23 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Team prepares to start stacking books. Two students dream of setting a record. Author steadies book-stacking student.Generally, students end up crumpling the paper and tryingto see if that will let them support the book. We usuallywalk around with a ruler, doling out the bad news about thatpesky “one inch” request. It seems most students are muchmore concerned with simply supporting the book, ratherthan meeting the “one inch” requirement.Students also often fold the paper into a long strip andusually tape it into a cylindrical form and then attempt tobalance the book on this shell of paper. Again, our trustyruler reveals a continued lack of respect for the “one inch”criteria. Some students, at this stage, will try to add morebooks to their paper foundation to see how many books theycan support. The urge to compete is great. We keep pushingthem to meet that “one inch” criteria.A team or two may, just by luck, hold a book off the table atone inch or maybe a bit more—but purely by luck. They mayalso become adept at balancing about four to eight bookson a shell of paper. Here is where they resort to the tape tomake the paper immune to crumpling. Eventually they failat maybe 10-12 books. At this point we call a breather andinject some tips about thinking the problem through…“All teams….listen-up! That ‘one inch’ request isimportant. You need to pay attention to it. We noticethat many of you are having trouble balancing thebooks on your single paper support. Think abouthow you can make that book more stable. How arethings supported in the real world? What makes atable so strong? We said you must use no more thana single sheet of paper. We set an upper limit onwhat you can use—not a lower limit. Now let’s resumeour challenge.”Trying Even HarderAt this point some lights go on, and the students realize theycan cut the single sheet of paper to make supports for thecorners of their book. Some teams choose a triad design aswell, using three supports instead of four.Away we go again with the urge to pile books up. Alas, the“one inch” request still gets little serious play. Teams areback to crumpling and folding paper furiously. Now theymight by luck get 12-18 books off the table, but they are farfrom the “one inch” criteria. Frustration starts to set in asteams bend the rules, trying to force a solution. Lots oftape will be used in a vain effort to make the paper verystrong. Or some students will try using more than one sheetof paper.It’s now time for Harry’s talk on engineering. Tearing a pieceof cardboard, students see why the cardboard is so strong.The inside is a rolled and glued column-like structure.We discuss how this type of construction provides greatstrength—emphasizing that the columns of paper runningthrough the sheets of cardboard perform the same functionas columns in a building. Engineers have built cardboardstructures so strong that they can hold up battle tanks.Surely, this class can design some paper structure that canhold up some books…one inch off the table.We now focus hard on the “one inch” criteria. This is whereengineers start—with the specifications about exactlywhat is needed. The “one inch” is what gets the planningprocess started, because planning comes before buildinganything. In fact, more than 50% of any project is analysisand planning. The rest is pretty straightforward. But here inclass, it seems to be all building and no planning.Soon the teams are experimenting with columns, andeventually they begin constructing columns from one inchstrips of paper they measure and cut from a single sheet ofpaper. As they learn how to make the columns nice and tightand seal them with a little tape, the number of books theycan support radically increases…all while meeting the24 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Uh-oh. Things are getting a bit wobbly! Teamwork in progress. A new record is set!“one-inch” criteria. Flushed with success, the kids nowscramble for books; and if they don’t get over-anxious—andload them up carefully…we’re talking something like 25-40 books nicely piled up and still exactly “one inch” off thetable. We use the floor at this point for the column test,as it is much easier to stack the books that way. Desks canwobble under the weight of the books.In the pictures accompanying this article, readers cansee that the enthusiastic students were able to supporta new record of 52 books. The old record was 42 books,established back in 2004 by an all-girl team. In establishingthis new record, we almost ran out of books, so innovativestudents figured out how many five-pound history booksequal the weight of a small student, and up that studentwent onto the existing pile of books—with several morebooks in hand as well!The Summing UpThis exercise reinforces the following points:1) The key to success is in the details and the specificationsgiven about what the solution must satisfy.2) Those specification details drive the design challenge, andhence the analysis and planning for a successful project.3) We all want to “do” the challenge, and get caught upin the excitement. The right thing is to step back andunderstand the problem.4) Jumping around, trying one thing and then another, justwastes time and makes for frustration.5) Real creativity starts with understanding exactly what thespecifications are and innovating around them.This is an exercise where hand-learners can often shine—able to see solutions before their book-learner counterparts.In the challenge activity discussed here, one student almostimmediately started making columns. When asked whatmade him think of that, he replied, “I saw a TV show abouthow buildings are built, and that is the first thing I thoughtof when you challenged us to support a book.” In his mind,the activity was akin to building a structure, an exactanalogy. This is why it is so important to have both headandhand-learners on each team.Have fun with this activity, and remember…the key is in thedetails and that one-inch specification; and have plenty ofbooks on hand!Book-stacking champs pose for a picture.Ginny D’Antonio Livingston grew upin East Orange, NJ and attended KeanUniversity. She is the mother of four childrenand has coached boys baseball and soccer.She is a former president of the LivingstonBabe Ruth League and Big L Booster Club.Ginny has taught eighth grade science andsocial studies at Abington Avenue for 12 years. Additionalhobbies include running, kickboxing, bicycling, and hiking.Harry T. Roman recently retired from hisengineering job and is the author of a varietyof new technology education books. He canbe reached via email at htroman49@aol.com.25 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


We’ve got a bridge we’d like to sell you.It’s called Engineering byDesign (EbD), and it will help your students crossover to the future, to the next step in their education and to the world in whichthey will live and work.How sturdy is your bridge? EbD is based on a solid foundation ofeducational standards and uses leading-edge process development.Standards-Based. Comprehensive. Hands-On.EbD has a solid foundation.Get the bridge that will take you places!States’ Career Clusters Initiative, 2006www.careerclusters.orgwww.engineeringbydesign.org


A Model Technology Educator:Thomas A. EdisonBy William S. Pretzer, George E. Rogers, andJeffery BushRecognizing Edison’sincorporation of team-based,cooperative learning into hisdevelopment process is essentialto appreciating his success andhis influence today.In Ann Arbor, Michigan, there is a software design firmcalled Menlo Innovations. Rich Sheridan, the founder,has modeled his firm’s operations after Thomas Edison’spractices at his Menlo Park, New Jersey laboratorybetween 1876 and 1882; thus, the firm’s name. Sheridanwas inspired, he says, by visiting the installation of Edison’sMenlo Park laboratory in Greenfield Village in Dearborn,Michigan. He has gained further insight by closely readingWorking at Inventing: Thomas A. Edison and the Menlo ParkExperience (Pretzer, 1989), a collection of essays on Edison’swork practices. Sheridan walks around with copies of Edisonbiographies and excitedly points out where he has markedideas, practices, events, or experiences that his firm shareswith Edison’s.The firm is housed in a single-room storefront, with wallsfestooned with posters and insightful quotes from variousinventors. A small library with comfortable chairs faces thestreet. Workers sit at long tables stretching the length of theroom in full view and hearing of others. Pairs, sometimestrios, of young programmers share a single computer,batting ideas back and forth as quickly as a Pong machine.Students from the University of Michigan wander in andare invited to sit in on work sessions. Sometimes they showup repeatedly, taking advantage of the informal internshipopportunity. More than one has been contacted monthslater and offered work. The three-year-old firm now doesmore than $3 million a year in business and is expandingfrom its one-room storefront space to a large, open loft thatSheridan calls his “West Orange” (Edison’s second and muchlarger laboratory established in West Orange, New Jersey in1886). Sheridan himself has been featured on the cover ofFortune magazine. Are there lessons in this Edison-inspiredenvironment for today’s technology educators?Thomas Edison: role model for today’s technology educator.Edison: An Inspirational Role ModelReflecting back over a century ago to the small village ofMenlo Park, New Jersey provides insight into a remarkable27 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


visionary and an exceptional role model for today’s problemsolvingand design-focused technology educator: Thomas A.Edison, inventor, innovator, and model technology educator.Since Edison could not simply apply existing knowledgeto industrial ends, he was forced to develop a system forcreating new knowledge, disseminating it amongst his team,and then discovering how to apply that new knowledge. Hiswas not just a research and development operation, it was alearning community.The key to capitalizing on Edison’s success as an inventorand educator is to recognize that he pioneered a systematic,but flexible, team-based approach to inventing, designing,and problem-solving. Edison was famous for oncecommenting about his Menlo Park facility, “We don’t haveany rules here; we’re trying to get something done.” Edisonnevertheless followed a general pattern in his work.Choosing to tackle a technological project, Edison firstdetermined that there was indeed public demand for asolution. Early in his career, he learned that there was noneed to invent something that no one was willing to payfor. Market research was still unheard of, so Edison gaugedinterest from the public reactions to other inventors’activities and the level of support from investors.He then researched what was known and previouslyattempted in addressing the issues at hand. Often thisentailed sending a young associate to the library hemaintained at Menlo Park to research a topic in technicalliterature and public media, with instructions to reportdirectly to Edison everything the associate had learnedabout a topic in two weeks or so. Many technologyeducators today employ a similar, project-based systemfor directing student research.Next, Edison determined a general research direction—amental model—that seemed, based on his own and others’experience, to offer the most promise. Breaking theproblem down into discrete pieces but never losing sightof the systemic character of technology, Edison’s teammembers learned from each investigational experiment andnarrowed their approach as they went. Edison organizedspace at the laboratory to facilitate this process. The firstfloor was segmented into specific rooms for specificanalytical processes: chemistry, ore assays, photometricmeasurements, etc. The second floor utilized open-spacearchitecture, with tables and equipment organized so thathis dozen or so closest associates were constantly seeing andhearing what others were doing. Edison moved from table totable discussing progress and offering ideas.Once solutions were developed and proven, Edisoninvestigated methods of manufacturing the product andredesigned the product for manufacturability. He was neverinterested in the unique scientific finding but rather inthe ubiquitous use of his inventions. He refined the initialinvention to simplify and standardize its parts as much aspossible, often using ideas developed during work on otherinventions. He often developed and patented innovativemechanisms for the mass-production of his breakthroughtechnologies: the telephone microphone, the phonograph,and the electric lighting system. Students using designjournals in class will find this practice very familiar. Theyalso may find additional methods for making the most oftheir journals by studying Edison’s actual journals, availableon the web from The Thomas A. Edison Papers Project atRutgers University (http://edison.rutgers.edu/).Finally, Edison recognized from the beginning thathe needed to promote his projects through the use ofappropriate language and other symbols in exhibitions anddemonstrations, technical journals, the popular press, andthe artifacts themselves. He modeled new technologies,such as the electric lighting system, after well-known andwidely accepted systems, such as the gas lighting system. Hedescribed his inventions in idioms that mirrored commonlyunderstood language. He insisted on high levels of visualfit-and-finish (craftsmanship), even when the item wasfor display purposes only and, of course, his recognizablesignature became the brand icon for his innovations.In all of this, Edison seldom acted alone. In fact, Edison’sinsights into the diverse resources needed for competitiveinventing were as important as his technical virtuosity.Edison’s role was to articulate the opportunity and theobstacles, acquire the financing, procure the equipment,materiel, and skilled labor, provide technical insights atcritical times, and orchestrate the entire process. It was abravura performance over a 50-year career of productiveinnovation. And it not only produced technologicalinnovations, but completely new industries (such as electricutilities and equipment manufacturers) and an entiregeneration of electro-mechanical technologists.Recognizing Edison’s incorporation of team-based,cooperative learning into his development process isessential to appreciating his success and his influencetoday. Edison’s attention to communicating clearly abouthis inventions in a variety of technical and popular mediaestablished a pattern that continues to this day. Steepingstudents in professional design journals, technical andmarketing manuals, and patent office records as well28 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


as other technological literature is an effective methodof illustrating different communication systems andintroducing learners to contemporary technologicalissues. As leader of his learning community, Edison saw toit that his associates had access to an unending series ofchallenging projects and intriguing questions. He also madesure that they had sources of reliable information as well asthe tools and equipment and raw materials they needed toaddress those questions.Just as technology continually evolves, so do thecharacteristics of effective technology educators. Fromtheir beginnings as unit shop teachers in Victor Della Vos’sImperial Moscow Technical School to Lois Mossman’svision of industrial arts as a social science to the multiactivityteachers of the Industrial Arts Curriculum Projectto facilitators of problem-solving-based contemporarytechnology education, technology educators have adjustedto the dynamic content of the discipline and the changingneeds of their students. In today’s world of rapid innovation,technology education programs are emphasizing processskills as much as content knowledge. Accordingly, thetechnology education curriculum and instructionalmethodology increasingly focus on developing capabilityin knowing how to design and develop an idea to satisfya need.One characteristic of technology education teachersthroughout these various curricular changes has been theteacher’s focus on allowing his or her students to expandtheir knowledge and skills via creative and innovativeactivities and projects. As technology teacher educatorsstrive to develop “highly qualified” teachers for the twentyfirstcentury, it may serve the profession well to learn fromthe past rather than focus on the current challenges posedby legislative mandates.Long considered the “inventor’s inventor,” Edison hasbecome a role model for various other “real world”activities. As Brown (1985) documented in Inventors atWork, many contemporary inventors and technologists havedrawn inspiration and lessons from Edison’s work. Morerecently, Edison’s “invention factory” has been redubbed a“solution factory.” Jack Harich, a former computer systemsanalyst, is developing social and political ideas in supportof environmental sustainability. On his organization’swebsite, Harich proposes a complex but creative applicationof Edison’s work processes at Menlo Park as a modelfor developing emergent ideas responding to issues ofsustainability and social decision-making (Harich, 2006).Business consultants have found Edison to be a bountifulsource of ideas and approaches, useful in the everydayworld of companies, high or low tech, large or small,technologically innovative or not. In The Edison Effect:Success Strategies for the Information Age, Ploof (1995)focused on the speed of information flow and processingengendered by modern electronic systems, which he tracesback to Edison’s discovery of the flow of electrons across avacuum. In this context, Ploof asserts that individual workersneed to learn what to learn and what to filter out, how tolearn quickly, how to use the scientific method to problemsolveand how to “use technology, rather than being usedby it” (Ploof, back cover). In Edison in the Boardroom: HowLeading Companies Realize Value from Their IntellectualAssets, on the other hand, Davis and Harrison (2001)examined the process of corporate intellectual assetmanagement. They rightly suggest that Edison’s image asa technical genius working alone on little sleep should bereplaced with the image of Edison, the originator of profitdriven,team-based, corporate “research and development”labs. They focus on the issues that Edison’s career brought tothe fore in terms of business strategy and practice: the utilityof developing and controlling intellectual property, especiallytechnological knowledge, through patents, trademarks, andcopyright. Edison was a master at using these techniques tohis advantage.Effective Teacher CharacteristicsThe U.S. Department of Education (2004) noted that “highlyqualified teachers matter” (p. 1). Through its legislativechannels, the U.S. Department of Education has provideda definition of a highly qualified teacher as one who hasearned a bachelor’s degree, demonstrated a high level ofcompetency in the subject matter, and has passed a rigorousstate licensing examination. While these characteristics maybe easily quantified for statistical purposes, are these thedescriptors of technology education teachers who truly havean impact on students?Ryan (1992) noted that effective teachers engagedstudents actively in the learning process, provided creativeenvironments conducive to learning, encouraged students tolearn independently, and provided problem-solving learningexperiences. Meanwhile, McEwan (2002) noted thathighly effective teachers were creative, open to new ideas,empowered their students, collaborated with colleagues,and expected the best from each student. An additionaleducation study indicated that human characteristics ofteachers, such as the ability to show understanding, wererated at the top of effective teacher characteristics by highschool students (Koutsoulis, 2003).29 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Is it a coincidence that the characteristics noted by bothRyan (1992) and McEwan (2002) coincide with Edison’seffective characteristics as noted by McCormick and Keegan(2001)? McCormick and Keegan indicated that lessonslearned from Edison’s style included: innovators must beprepared to fail; environments must encourage creativity,stretching intellectually but not to the point of burnout;and that play is to the innovative process as rules are tobureaucracy.Strangely enough, where Edison’s role as technologicalinventor had once occupied a significant place in Americanhistory texts, he now barely merits a mention. In part,at least, this disinterest is encouraged by the nationalhistory standards’ focus on the broad social impacts oftechnological change rather than the causes and creatorsof technological innovation. This is another reason to becautious in allowing national standards to unilaterally driveteaching and learning. Edison continues to inspire scholarlyand popular works of history, but these generally fail to findtheir way to middle school and high school students. This isunfortunate, for understanding Edison’s experience clearlyhas much to offer individuals interested in technology andinnovation.Implications for the ProfessionThe overlapping themes in Edison’s disposition and styledepict highly desirable characteristics of technologyeducation teachers. Ideally the technology educationteacher will have the mindset that he or she is notsatisfied with repeating the same activity, but rather,is continuously seeking different contexts to enhancethe realism and authenticity of the learning experience.The practicing teacher should strive to set parameters thatcause the journey through the process to be as unique aspossible for each learner. The instructional approach andmethods should reflect patterns of proven strategies andtechniques, but the intimacy of the learner’s experienceshould be as unique for each student as possible.Teachers should allow, even encourage, failure in the designand innovation process. By allowing failure, technologyeducation teachers are encouraging creativity and criticalthinking. They are positioning their students to developan understanding of the characteristics and nature oftechnology, the rationale for science, and the need formathematics so well that innovative applications developwhen circumstances demand it. Technology educationteachers should establish learning environments thatpromote student creativity and imagination, and includereal-world problems related to their community.Table 1Characteristics of an Edison-Inspired TechnologyEducation Teacher• Encourages cooperation and teamwork• Provides open communications• Provides a non-restrictive learning environment• Provides reference and resource materials• Supports, even encourages, failures in order toanalyze and learn from them• Involves analytical analysis• Emphasizes quality and craftsmanship• Incorporates lateral thinking and comparisonsbetween technological systems• Insists on prototyping and authentic testing ofpotential solutionsTechnology education teachers are versed indesign, problem-solving, invention, innovation, andexperimentation, plus research and development(International Technology Education Association, 2003).In order for the discipline to take the lead in educationalreform, technology education might benefit by mentoringits future educators on the experiences of innovators likeThomas A. Edison. This standard for the profession willovershadow the current legislation’s definition of a “highlyqualified teacher” and provide the nation’s students theenvironment to develop the requisite skills for today’stechnological society.ReferencesBrown, K. A. (1988). Inventors at work. Buffalo, NY:Microsoft Press.Davis, J. L. & Harrison, S. S. (2001). Edison in theboardroom: How leading companies realize value fromtheir intellectual assets. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Accessed March 27, 2007 from http://thwink.org/sustain/glossary/SolutionFactory.htm.Harich, J. (2006). Analytical activism: A new approach tosolving the sustainability problem. Clarkson, GA: Thwink.org.International Technology Education Association. (2003).Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Studentassessment, professional development, and programstandards. Reston, VA: Author.Koutsoulis, M. (2003). The characteristics of the effectiveteacher in Cyprus Public High School: The students’perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of30 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


the American Educational ResearchAssociation. Chicago, IL. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED478761).McCormick, B. & Keegan, J. P. (2001). Atwork with Thomas Edison. New York:McGraw-Hill.McEwan, E. K. (2002). Ten traits of highlyeffective teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.Ploof, R. (1995). The Edison effect: Successstrategies for the information age.Leawood, KS: Cypress Publishinggroup.Pretzer, W. S. (1989, reprint 2002).Working at inventing: Thomas A.Edison and the Menlo Park Experience.Baltimore, MD: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.Ryan, C. (1992). Advising as teaching.Paper presented at the annual meetingof the National Academic AdvisingAssociation. Atlanta, GA.U.S. Department of Education. (2004).The secretary’s third annual reporton teacher quality: Meeting thehighly qualified teachers challenge.Washington, DC: Author.Jeffery Bush is the designand technological studiesconsultant for OaklandSchools in Waterford, MI.He can be reached at Jeff.Bush@oakland.k12.mi.us.William S. Pretzer,Ph.D. is associateprofessor of History andDirector of the Museumof Cultural and NaturalHistory at CentralMichigan University,Mount Pleasant, MI. He can be reached atpretz1ws@cmich.edu.This is a refereed article.George E. Rogers,Ph.D. is professorand coordinator ofengineering/technologyteacher education atPurdue University inWest Lafayette, IN. He canbe reached at rogersg@purdue.edu.31 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Model Program:Brillion High School, Brillion, WISubmitted by Steve MeyerThe rebuilding provedsuccessful, as enrollment inthe program has tripled in thepast two years.The Brillion School District is located in Brillion,Wisconsin, approximately 20 miles south of GreenBay in the heart of the Fox Valley. Brillion High School(BHS) has approximately 330 students in Grades9–12. Brillion is home to approximately 3000 residents.Interestingly, Brillion also serves as the headquarters ofthree major manufacturing companies (Ariens Company,Endries International, and Brillion Ironworks). Collectivelythese companies employ almost as many workers as theentire city’s population. This, coupled with the proximity tothe manufacturing-rich Fox Valley Area (Neenah, Menasha,Appleton, Kaukauna, Green Bay, etc.) and the extremelyinnovative Fox Valley Technical College, lends itself to manyrich resources to use in the teaching of a contemporarytechnology and engineering curriculum. According totechnology and engineering instructor Steve Meyer, thecommunity of Brillion is “a technology and engineeringteacher’s heaven.”The driving force of the Brillion Technology andEngineering Department is:To Create Innovative Thinkers and Doers!The goal of the program is to create technologically literateyoung people who have the skills, knowledge, and innovativeways of thinking that will allow them to be successfulin all future employment, citizenship, and educationopportunities. The curriculum and facility are continuallydeveloping to meet this ever-changing goal.Brillion High School’s entry at the Fox Valley TechnicalCollege Supermileage Challenge.In the past four years, the district has gone through a majorphilosophical change. Just four years ago, the curriculumwas based mainly on traditional skill development in theareas of auto mechanics and woods. The curriculum isnow based on design, engineering, and innovation, withover two-thirds of the school population taking classes32 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


in automation, invention, engineering design, computeraidedmodeling and manufacturing, robotics, electronics,material science, etc. The curriculum has been developedand is continually improving with the aid of Standards forTechnological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology(ITEA 2000/2002) as a guide. With the use of the contentstandards, virtually all student experiences are based on thefollowing curriculum model:Brillion School District Curricular FrameworkTechnology and Engineering Education• Introduction to new content• New content experience• New content application: students given open-endeddesign problem or opportunity to solve• Research and modeling of solutions to the problem/opportunity• Fabrication of a prototype• Testing• Presentation and ReflectionA typical student experience following this pattern mayinclude (example from automation class):1. Students receive new content covering controltechnology and the use of microcontrollers in society.2. Students program microcontrollers to control a stoplight,using computer simulation software.3. Students are given the problem/opportunity to create anew automated device.4. Students research current automated devices, electronics,etc. and invent a new device to solve a human need orwant.5. Students develop and test a working prototype of thedevice.6. Students present the device to the class as though theywere proposing their product to a board of directors at anautomation company.By following this pattern, students are continuallyexposed to innovation and the integration of technology,engineering, and other disciplines such as mathematics,the sciences, English, and history. Examples of automateddevices invented by students include the examples listedhere:• Gas grill that weighs the cut of meat and cooks it for theappropriate amount of time• Guitar trainer• Duck decoy system• Parallel-parking vehicle• Can crusher• Vehicle lighting system• Livestock feeding systemIn order to meet the needs of this curriculum and thenumber of students involved in the program, the BHSTechnology and Engineering Department is receiving aStudents present the flow process of theirproduct during an enterprise class.Cardboard prototype of a supermileagevehicle.Automated devicesdesigned and fabricatedin the Robotics andAutomation class.33 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Dan Ariens of Ariens Company sits on a chopper motorcycledesigned and built by BHS students.major revamping and additional technology wing. A local,award-winning manufacturing company, Ariens Company,is playing a major role in developing the Brillion programand promoting our field across the nation.This spring, the Ariens Company Foundation is completelyfunding the construction of a new, multimillion dollarTechnology and Engineering Education Center to be addedto Brillion High School. This is an incredible gesture and anunbelievable addition to the Brillion community. Becauseof the wonderful people at Ariens Company, young peopleattending Brillion High School for years to come will havethe opportunity to use one of the most state-of-the-artfacilities in Wisconsin.The BHS Technology and Engineering Department and theschool board have been working on this initiative for thepast three years. It began with the complete revamping ofthe department to create a contemporary curriculum toreflect the content standards for technological literacy. Therebuilding proved successful, as enrollment in the programhas tripled in the past two years. A larger, more diversegroup of students take multiple classes and are continuingtheir post-secondary education at local technical collegesand engineering universities across the state. Studentsin the Brillion Technology and Engineering program areinvolved in numerous state and national initiatives includingthe National Center for Technology and EngineeringEducation (NCETE), MIT-Lemelson InvenTeams GrantProgram, Wisconsin Supermileage Competitions, FoxValley Technical College Mini-Chopper Program, and manyothers. The number of students in the program, along withthe innovative curriculum requirements, have created thisneed to expand the current facility.The new facility will have a 58-seat tiered lecture room, adesign room that will house computers, CNC machines,laser engravers, electronics and robotics stations, materialtestingequipment, and a large 4-plex material processinglab. The renovation and addition of this facility will allowteachers to hold multiple classes at one time, and allowstudents to work on larger, more complex activities and towork on integrated class projects with other disciplines suchas mathematics and the sciences. The facility is designedaround the curricular framework described above, not thetypes of equipment available. The improved arrangementwill also create a better environment for classroomsupervision and safety.The new addition is on track for completion for the startof the 2007-2008 school year. A grand opening ceremony,including renowned technology speaker Dr. Jim Bensen, isplanned for late September. Key people from industry, postsecondaryeducation institutes, and government will partakein the grand opening of the new facilities. “It is my hopeand dream that this facility and grand opening event will bethe catalyst for other industries to make commitments tothe development of technology and engineering educationprograms across the country,” says Steve Meyer.The philosophy of the technology and engineering programis not to create craftspeople, but to create individuals whoare innovative thinkers and doers. “We want the youngpeople who go through our program to have the skills,knowledge, and methods of thinking that will allow them tobe successful in any future career or education opportunity,”says Steve Meyer. The future of manufacturing andengineering in Wisconsin and the United States requiresall workers to continually be more efficient and innovativethan the competition. The Brillion School District, alongwith its industry and post-secondary education partners,is continuously striving to provide young people with aninnovative curriculum and exciting atmosphere to meetthis important need. A special thank-you is extended tothe International Technology Education Association for itsefforts and dedication towards helping the cause. For furtherinformation, please contact Steve Meyer at smeyer@brillion.k12.wi.us.To submit information about your program forpublication consideration, please email kdelapaz@iteaconnect.org.34 • The Technology Teacher • September 2007


Coming in the next issue of The Technology Teacher....“The space shuttle Endeavour blastedoff August 7, carrying seven astronautsto orbit on a complex flight tocontinue the assembly of the InternationalSpace Station and fulfill a longstandinghuman spaceflight legacy.The 119th flight in space shuttlehistory and the 22nd to the stationis unique to ITEA because one of itscrew is one of our own, ITEA memberBarbara R. Morgan.”In the October issue of TTT, we takea closer look at Morgan’s career, theSTS-118 mission, and the design challengesin which ITEA has taken part.ALSO, make plans to attend ITEA’s70th Annual Conference in SaltLake City, Utah, where BarbaraMorgan will address attendeesduring a special keynote address.Visit www.iteaconnect.orgfor more details!Photograph by Jason Mathis.


GEICO could save you $500a year on car insurance.Wouldn’t thathelp yourbottom line?Special memberdiscountITEA members could receive a special discount on GEICO car insurance.Visit geico.com for your free rate quote and be sure to select ITEA whenasked for your affiliation.GEICO offers you:• Outstanding, 24-hour service online or on the phone.• Fast, fair claim handling.• Guaranteed claim repairs at GEICO-recommended shops.To find out how much you could savevisit geico.com or call 1-800-368-2734 today.Average savings information based on GEICO New Policyholder Survey data through August 2005.Discount amount varies in some states. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. One group discountapplicable per policy. Government Employees Insurance Co. • GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire HathawayInc. GEICO auto insurance is not available in Mass. GEICO, Washington, DC 20076. © 2005 GEICO


Image use courtesy of Korean Railroad Technical Corporation (KRTC), an Autodesk customer.At Autodesk, we’re committed to preparing the next generation of engineers for successful, exciting careers.We provide educators and students access to industry-leading software and curriculum resources. Introduce middle school students to the design process through fun and motivating projects such as designinga skate park or jewelry line. The Autodesk Design Kids curriculum is an exploratory program that covers Science,Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) concepts. Engage students in real-life projects that develop STEM skills. The Autodesk Design Academy isa comprehensive pre-engineering, pre-architecture, and cross-discipline program for high schoolstudents that includes the Introduction to Engineering Foundation course from Project Lead The Way.Equip your high school and middle school students for future success.Download free* student editions of Autodesk 3D design software, usenew curricula, participate in Q&A forums, and invite your students to join!*Free products are subject to the terms and conditions of the end-user license agreement thataccompanies download of the software.Autodesk and DesignKids are registered trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., in the USA and/or othercountries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respectiveholders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product offerings and specifications at any timewithout notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear inthis document. © 2007 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved.

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines