ITEA Standards Review Committee
21–22 May 1999 Meeting Minutes
International Technology Education Association (ITEA) Standards Review Committee
National Research Council
2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Green Building, Room 116
21–22 May 1999
Wm A.Wulf, chair*
Greg Pearson, NAE
Bill Dugger, Director, Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP)
Pam Newberry, TfAAP
Robert Pool, freelance writer for TfAAP
Jill Russell, University of Nebraska, and external evaluator for TfAAP
Melissa Smith, TfAAP
Kendall Starkweather, Executive Director, ITEA
Bridget Valesy, ITEA
Arvid Van Dyke, ITEA
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 APPENDIX F ITEA Standards Review Committee 21–22 May 1999 Meeting Minutes International Technology Education Association (ITEA) Standards Review Committee National Research Council 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Green Building, Room 116 Washington, DC 21–22 May 1999 Meeting Minutes Members: Wm A.Wulf, chair* Alice Agogino* Karin Borgh Rodney Custer Elsa Garmire Franzie Loepp James Rutherford Scott Warner Jane Wheeler Staff: Rodger Bybee Gail Pritchard Greg Pearson, NAE Lisa Vandemark DeVonne Robertson Sonja Atkinson Guests: Bill Dugger, Director, Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) Pam Newberry, TfAAP Robert Pool, freelance writer for TfAAP Jill Russell, University of Nebraska, and external evaluator for TfAAP Melissa Smith, TfAAP Kendall Starkweather, Executive Director, ITEA Bridget Valesy, ITEA Arvid Van Dyke, ITEA * indicates member was not present at meeting.
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Friday, 21 May, 1999 Introduction and Welcome; Background and Statement of Task At 2pm, Rodger Bybee (RWB) welcomed the committee on behalf of Bill Wulf, NAE president and chair of the ITEA Standards Review Committee. Introduction of members, staff, and guests were made. He then provided background on the impetus for the study and the development of the statement of task. This project was conceived as a mirror of the NRC’s internal review process, which operates generally in this manner: Following the initial completion of a project, a group of external peer reviewers assesses the document and offers comments for improvement. These reviewer comments then guide the final revision of the document. Composition and Balance Discussion RWB conducted the NRC’s Composition and Balance Discussion per NRC guidelines. Background and Rationale for Current Framework and Draft Standards William Dugger, Jr., principal investigator of the Technology for All Americans Project, presented background information on TfAAP, and the rationale behind the current framework and draft Standards. He identified five major problems that the series of reviews had identified: Major Concerns on Draft III: Organizers and Framework of the Standards (Universals and Dimensions) Writing Style Articulation of Standards (Grades K–12) Differences between Technology and Technology Education Format of the Standards Plenary Discussion The committee focused its discussion on the Proposed Framework for Standards for Technology Education: Content for the Study of Technology (Briefing Book Tab D). Members began discussion on the (original) 5 overarching standards: The Nature of Technology Technology and Society Technological Design Abilities for a Technological World The Designed World Wrap-Up Generally, all members thought the 5 overarching categories were broad enough yet clear, focused, and flexible enough to contain the fundamental aspects of technology that students should learn in grades K–12. The order of the standards was fine.
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Members generally concurred that 3. “Technological Design,” should be modified to just “Design.” Saturday, 22 May Plenary Discussion RWB began the plenary session by summarizing the goals of the second day of discussion: to review the content of each category; and to attend to content, structure, and form of standards (Tab D). He summarized some of the committee’s general concerns raised in the opening plenary discussion about the standards—audience, gradebands, themes—and stated that these issues could be considered while discussing each category. Category #1, “The Nature of Technology,”and #2, “Technology and Society.” Some members considered whether 1.3, “The Relationships Between Technology and Other Fields of Study,” would also capture the relationship between technologies or the influence of preceding technologies on subsequent technologies but decided not to wordsmith the Standards excessively to avoid diluting the power of them or else making them too dense or unrealistically ambitious. Members also discussed the placement of history in the framework—whether it should be contained within category #1, or split between category #1 and #2—but finally concluded that it’s placement signified its inherent importance as a Standards topic. There was some discussion of leading category 2 with “The History of Technology,” (i.e., making current 2.4 into 2.1), but were persuaded that the order was not crucial. Members were reminded that the Standards need not be taught sequentially, (although there might be a tendency toward that strategy). Wrap-Up The committee generally concluded that categories #1 and #2 were fine as is. The Nature of Technology As a result of an education in technological studies, students should develop an understanding of: 1.1 The Scope of Technology 1.2 Basic Concepts of Technology 1.3 The Relationships Between Technology and Other Fields of Study Technology and Society As a result of an education in technological studies, students should develop an understanding of: 2.1 The Influence of Technology on Society 2.2 The Influence of Technology on the Environment 2.3 The Influence of Society on Technology 2.4 The History of Technology
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Category #3, “Technological Design,” and Category #4, “Abilities for a Technological World.” The committee agreed category #3 should be abbreviated to “Design.” The committee identified some problems within these two categories. Members thought that combining conceptual understanding and skills was mixing ends and means. Although the technology education field expects Standards to combine understanding with activity, committee members thought that, in practice, understanding design might be overlooked or sacrificed for the action of designing. Members generally agreed that understanding design was difficult, so segregating it from the act of designing encouraged substantial discussion before students moved into designing. One member thought category 4 as it was originally organized was a clear description of pedagogy, but whose outcomes would be conceptual—another instance of actions leading to understanding, and the mixing of ends and means. He was confused by the intellectual challenge being proposed—either the ability to do or the ability to understand. Members had a debate about the drawbacks of splitting conceptual and designing apart, but finally agreed that the loads for category #3 and #4 were more logical and manageable in their new structure, and that the introduction to the Standards, the category, or the preface could impress upon readers the strong linkage between category #3 and #4 and the importance of “doing design” in general. Members reiterated that the goals of #3 would be grounded in the understanding of doing design, so that students were prepared to actually do design. Finally, one person commented that, in the structure and writing of each Standard, particular areas could be emphasized for effect— conceptual in the foreground in #3, ability in the foreground in #4. Ultimately, members decided that the most important and appropriate issues would be satisfactorily captured between category #3 and #4. Members also discussed the issues of individual learning goals and diverse skill-levels and generally agreed that the Standards should promote a reasonably high general knowledge base (which included undertaking technological design), but more to develop the ability to understand and discuss technology on a professional level, rather than to develop the skills of a technician. Standards should present an end goal, with doing as a means toward deeper understanding, which would promote general technological literacy. Wrap-Up Members recommended developing category #3 to understand design and organize category #4 to do design. One person commented that #3 could be organized as understanding the Design Method (like understanding the Scientific Method), then doing the Design Method in #4.
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Design As a result of an education in technological studies, students should develop an understanding of: 3.1 The Attributes of Design 3.2 An Engineering Design Process 3.3 Other Problem-Solving Strategies Abilities for a Technological World As a result of an education in technological studies, students should be able to: 4.1 Apply the Attributes of Design 4.2 Use and Maintain Technological Products and Systems 4.3 Manage and Assess the Products and Systems Category #5, “The Designed World” Members were comfortable on the overarching category, “The Designed World.” However, they were split on how to handle the divisions within category #5. One member was extremely uncomfortable with 5.1, Biotechnologies, because “The term “biotechnologies” is not typically used, i.e. “biotechnology” is the common term. “Biotechnology” utilizes molecular biology techniques in various applications, e.g. in fields such as agriculture, envrionmental remediation (bioremediation), and medicine.” Another thought the categories forced another layer to wade through. Members thought that technology cut across disciplines and encourages greater interdisciplinary experiences. Technology is an access point between disciplines. One member suggested handling this section by coordinating discussion around traditional technology education foci: transportation, communication, manufacturing, healthcare. Another member suggested structuring it similar to chapter 8 in Benchmarks (agriculture, materials and manufacturing, energy sources and use, communication, information processing, health technology), but adding warfare, entertainment, and transportation, thereby building on an already-published and widely disseminated document. Another member commented that she could support a disciplinary division—biological sciences, chemical sciences, informational sciences, physical sciences. But a member countered that the Standards should encourage students to deal with their world and not scientific abstractions. Another suggestion was biological world, physical world, informational world, or else survival (agriculture, housing), quality of life (agriculture, communications), and luxury technologies (entertainment), or to divide by technologies and not scientific point of view. One member speculated some topics that might come under these general headings. For instance, under physical sciences, Standards could concentrate on energy, transportation. Another member suggested: agriculture production—materials and manufacturing
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 energy and power communication and information (entertainment), transportation health technology One member recommended that ITEA develop the benchmarks, then decide how to group or structure them. Wrap-Up Members concluded that they preferred the category focused on applications approaches, but there was room for negotiation on this point as ITEA developed the accompanying benchmarks. However, the recommended structure would be more favorably received by the engineering community; it could encourage career connections more clearly, and perhaps make developing benchmarks easier. Format of Standards: Members generally agreed that the categories and benchmarks needed to be in sentence format to provide some context up front. The committee strongly endorsed the development of the K–12 technology standards, but believed that teachers, administrators and other interested parties could comprehend the standards better and therefore be more likely to integrate them into the curriculum, if the structure was comparable to previously published standards efforts. Members considered the AAAS document, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (particularly), or the National Science Education Standards, as excellent structural models for the technology standards and cautioned that if another model is adopted, the rationale behind the selection should be clear. Members were pleased with the AAAS Benchmarks document structure and encouraged ITEA to consider constructing its standards similarly. Model follows: CATEGORY—Essay Standard 1—Essay K–2 Essay Benchmarks 3–5 Essay Benchmarks 6–8 Essay Benchmarks 9–12 Essay
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Benchmarks Standards 2 K–2 Essay Benchmarks Standard 3 … CATEGORY This style shows growth of concept over a k–12 career. This would organize the standards/categories rather than grade band, as they were currently structured. One member commented that the grade bands could be color-coded for easy reference. One member commented that the language used in each category would be less critical if the benchmarks came at the end of the introduction, rather than the beginning. It would also be a powerful (“punchy”) ending to each section. The committee generally agreed that this would be a preferred structure for the benchmarks. Members recommended that ITEA be conservative on the number of benchmarks for each grade band, perhaps 2 or 3 in the elementary grades, 6 maximum, and a persuasive rationale for a greater number than that. Members wanted a grade-level appropriate lead in to each band of Standards using teacher-friendly, age-appropriate words. They were also concerned that there be some differentiation between the college-bound and school-to-work tracks. Members were in favor of a glossary or of a section for each category that called out particular terms. Members encouraged avoiding passive wording, such as “should develop an understanding.” Wrap-Up/Other Issues: The committee discussed other ongoing NRC projects related to this project, i.e., the NAE’s Committee on Technological Literacy and the National Science Education Standards Science and Technology Addendum and recommended that staff collaborate to be sure projects collectively send a coherent message.
OCR for page 93
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Members strongly encouraged cross-referencing to other standards documents where applicable (such as the Principles and Standards of School Mathematics, National Science Education Standards, Benchmarks, etc.) They encouraged consistency with the other Standards documents. Members agreed to review the direction that ITEA was heading in in relation to this meeting’s discussion to be sure they were on the right track, perhaps via a conference call. As any discussion draft will be available to the general public through out public access office, members reminded ITEA to write DRAFT on each page. RWB thanked the members, on behalf of Bill Wulf, for their work, cooperation, and candor, which helped to clarify the framework and therefore improved standards. Members commended ITEA staff and writers for their hard work, which had noticeably improved the standards already. The meeting was adjourned at 4pm.