National Academies Press: OpenBook

Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 (1999)

Chapter: Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4

« Previous: Appendix D: Roster, Technical Reviewers
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Introduction

APPENDIX E

Larry Leifer received the document electronically, so he embedded his comments in the original text. References to his comments appear as “[LL#]” and are highlighted in gray in the text of the respective chapters.

Chapter 1

Preparing Students for a Technological world

The Need for Technology Education

Humans have been called the animals who make things, and at no time in history has that been so evident as the present. Today, every human activity, from the growing of food and the provision of shelter to communication, healthcare, and entertainment, is dependent upon tools, machines, and systems of various sorts. Some of them, like the tractor, speed up and make more efficient activities that humans have done for hundreds or thousands of years. Others, such as the X-ray or the Internet, make possible things that humans have never been able to do before.

This broad collection of devices, capabilities, and the knowledge that accompanies them is called technology. From the Greek work techne, meaning art or artifice or craft, technology literally means the science of making or crafting, but more generally it refers to the diverse collection of skills, processes, and knowledge that people use to extend human abilities and to satisfy human needs and wants. In short, technology is how people modify nature to suit their own purposes.

That modification has been going on since humans first harnessed fire, formed a blade from a piece of flint, and dragged a sharp stick across the ground to create a furrow for planting seeds, but today it exists to a degree unprecedented in history. Planes, trains, and automobiles carry people and cargo from place to place at high speeds. Telephones, television, and computer networks help people communicate with others across the street or around the world. Medical technologies, from vaccines to magnetic resonance imaging, allow people to live longer, healthier lives. Furthermore, technology is evolving at an extraordinary rate, with new technologies being created and existing technologies being improved and extended.

All this makes it particularly important that people understand and be comfortable with the concepts and workings of modern technology. From a personal standpoint, people benefit both at work and at home by being able to choose the best products for their purposes, to operate the products properly, and to troubleshoot them when something goes wrong. And from a societal standpoint, an informed citizenry is the best guarantee that decisions about the use of technology will be made rationally and responsibly.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

For these reasons and others, the past several years have seen a growing number of voices calling for technology education to be included as a core field of study in primary and secondary schools. The chorus includes professional and government organizations—the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Foundation, and others—as well as individuals who write and speak about education, such as Neil Postman in his influential 1995 book, The End of Education. Among the experts who have addressed the issue, the value and importance of teaching about technology is unquestioned.

Despite this consensus, however, technology classes are available in only a haphazard collection of primary and secondary schools around the country. A few school districts have put comprehensive technology education programs in place, and a handful of states have set forth technology education standards, but nationwide most students receive little or no formal exposure to technological studies. They are graduating with only a minimal understanding of one of the most powerful forces shaping society today.

The reasons for this situation are not hard to find. One is simple inertia. To keep doing what one is doing is always easier than to learn to do something new. A bigger reason, though, lies with the pressures on the educational system today. The back-to-basics push has emphasized competency in such traditional courses as English, mathematics, science, and history, but technology has never been a basic part of education for most students. Furthermore, the growing emphasis on standardized competency tests has encouraged schools to teach to those tests, which generally contain few questions gauging technological literacy. So, squeezed for time and resources, relatively few schools have opted for what they see as the luxury of technology education.

Compounding all this is the fact that technology education is a mystery to many teachers and administrators. It is a new field of study, having evolved over the past fifteen to twenty years from industrial arts programs, and it has yet to establish a new identity for itself that people outside the field recognize and understand. Also, there is widespread confusion about the differences between technology education and education technology, which uses technology as a tool to enhance the teaching and learning process.

The set of standards and enabling benchmarks in this book have been developed to clear up this confusion and to build the case for technology education by setting forth precisely what the outcomes of technology education should be. Technology teachers and education specialists from around the country collaborated to spell out, idea by idea and capability by capability, what students in kindergarten through twelfth grade should be learning about technology. Other experts, including engineers, curriculum specialists, and staff members from the National Science Foundation, reviewed Technology Content Standards and suggested changes and additions. The result is a document that both defines technology education as a discipline and provides an explicit road map for individual teachers, schools, school districts, and states that want to teach about technology but do not know the best way to go about it.

The standards presented here do far more than provide a checklist for the facts, concepts, and capabilities that students in technology classes should master at each level. Along the way they explain how and why technology education fits in naturally with the broad mission of schools, and they demonstrate what the benefits of technology education are for students. In short, they make the case for why—despite inertia, despite the back-to-basics movement, despite the growing emphasis on standardized competency exams, and despite the various other pressures on educators—technology education should be an integral part of the curriculum of our schools.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Learning About Technology

Students in technology education classes learn about the technological world that inventors, engineers, and other innovators have created. They study how energy is generated from coal, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, and wind, and how it is transmitted and distributed. They examine communications systems: telephone, radio and television, satellite communications, fiber optics, the Internet. They delve into the various manufacturing and materials-processing industries, from steel and petrochemicals to computer chips and household appliances. They investigate transportation, information processing, and medical technology. They even look into emerging technologies, such as genetic engineering, fusion power, or cloning, that are still years or decades away.

But the study of these various technologies, as important as they are, is not as large a part of the technology education curriculum as one might expect. The reason is simple: technology is constantly changing. Although certain products may change little over the years—the pencils that students use in class, for instance, are made in much the same way now that they were a hundred years ago—most technological fields evolve rapidly, with large segments becoming obsolete every few decades or even every few years. Magnetic-storage tapes, for instance, were once ubiquitous in computers but are now found only on a few old dinosaurs.

Because technology is so fluid, technology classes tend to spend less time on specific details and more on principles and practices. The goal is to produce students with a more conceptual understanding of technology and its place in society, who can thus grasp and evaluate new bits of technology that they might never have seen before.

To this end, Technology Content Standards emphasizes comprehension of the basic elements that go into any technology. One of these elements, for example, is the design process, the main approach that engineers and others in technology use to create solutions to problems. Another is development and production, whereby the design is transformed into a finished product and a system is created to produce it. A third element is the use and maintenance of the product, which can determine the product’s success or failure. Each of these steps in the technological process demands its own set of skills and mental tools.

Besides understanding how particular technologies are developed and used, students should be able to evaluate their effects on other technologies, on the environment, and on society itself. The benefits of a technology are usually obvious—if they were not, it would likely never be developed—but the disadvantages and dangers are often hidden. When DDT was introduced, for example, it took years to understand that the pesticide was making its way up the food chain to weaken the eggshells of birds, threatening to wipe out many species. Today, the Internet is having profound effects on society—on how people interact and communicate with each other, on how they do business, on how they get their entertainment and recreation—but no one knows exactly what to expect in the long run, and no one is so optimistic as to believe the Internet will have no drawbacks.

One of the basic lessons of technology education classes is that technologies not only solve problems, but they may also create new ones. Many of these new problems can be solved

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

or ameliorated by yet more technology, but this may in turn beget other problems, and so on. Technologies inevitably involve trade-offs between benefits and costs, and intelligent decisions about a technology need to take both into account. Technology education students should come to see each technology as a tool—neither good nor bad in itself, but one whose costs and benefits should be weighed to decide if it is worth developing.

Learning to Do Technology

One of the great strengths of technology education classes is that students not only learn about technology, but they also learn to do technology, that is, they carry out in the classroom or laboratory many of the processes that underlie technology in the real world. Recent research on learning finds that many students learn best in experiential ways—by doing, as well as seeing and hearing— technology education classes emphasize hands-on learning and active questioning.

For instance, students in technology education classes are taught practical problem-solving skills and are asked to put them to work on a variety of types of real-world problems. Engineers and others involved in technology use a number of different approaches to problem solving, including troubleshooting, invention and innovation, and research and development, and students will become familiar with these and learn which situations they are appropriate for. However, the main problem-solving approach in technology is design or, as it is sometimes called, technological design. In learning about design-thinking, , students master a set of cognitive skills that will serve them well in many parts of their lives.

The design process generally begins with identifying and defining a problem: there is some need to be met or some want to be fulfilled, and the designer must understand exactly what it is. After investigating and researching the problem, the designer generates a number of ideas for a solution. At this stage it’s particularly helpful for several people to brainstorm ideas, and technology education students will generally work in groups here. Then, by taking the original design criteria into account, along with various constraints, one design—or, in some cases, more than one—is chosen as the most promising. This design is modeled and tested, and then is reevaluated. If necessary, the original design is dropped and another is tried. Eventually, through a series of iterations, repeating the various steps of the process as necessary, the inventors select a workable design given time and resource constraints. The real designer in us will continue to explore the alternatives, hoping for a chance to improve on what had to be done at the moment. This pattern is the reality for most commercially available products. Technology education must help students understand the concept of trade-off-analysis (things that are neither right or wrong, just what we’ll do until something better comes along, OR, the next product cycle (next year’s model).

This design process can be applied to almost any sort of creation. In one elementary school classroom, for instance, the students were asked to create a poster illustrating the various regions of the United States. In high school technology classes, one assignment might be to design a water-purification system for a catfish farm.

One of the first lessons that students learn from exercises like these is that there are many possible solutions, and that while some answers are clearly wrong—they don’t work, or they work poorly—there is no such thing as “the” correct answer.

Such design projects are inevitably more than just mental exercises. The students generally build models of their design proposals, and, depending on the device, may build working prototypes as well. This hands-on learning engages the students in a way that lectures,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

problem-solving on paper, or lab exercises that follow a preset series of steps cannot. In other words, design exercises encourage active learning. Unlike many classes, where the answers are known ahead of time—to the teacher, if not to the students—and rote learning is often enough to get by, technology education methodology rewards students who come up with innovative solutions.

In addition to problem-solving skills, students in technology education classes are taught to use and maintain technological products correctly, again with an emphasis on learning how to learn. It would be impossible to instruct students on every product they might come in contact with, so students are given experience with some common tools and systems to gain familiarity with the basic principles of using and maintaining technological products. They are also taught how to learn about products on their own—by reading instructions, for instance, or searching for information on the Internet. This, along with the confidence and familiarity with technology that they acquire, prepares them to deal comfortably with almost any technological product, even those invented after they have left school.

The Great Integrator

Perhaps the most surprising message to emerge from Technology Content Standards— surprising, at least, to those who have not themselves taught technology education classes —is the role technology education can play in students’ learning of other subjects. When taught effectively, technology education is not simply one more field of study seeking admission to an already crowded curriculum, pushing others out of the way. Instead, it reinforces and applies the material that students learn in other classes.

As envisioned by the standards in the following chapters, technology education should be a way to apply and integrate knowledge from many other subjects—not just mathematics, science, and computer classes, but also social studies, English and other languages, even music and art. Consider, for instance, a field trip taken by a class of fourth-graders in Michigan to Greenfield Village, a historical site with restored houses and shops. The class had just finished a history unit on America at the turn of the century, which prepared them for what they would find. While there, each class member chose an artifact of a particular technology used at the time —a hay thresher, for instance, or a light bulb, or a car—and acted as a reporter, quizzing the docents for details about that device. Later, each student prepared a report on the device, including such information as its purpose, how it was made, how it was used, its role in the economic and social life of the village, and a description of how it worked. Afterward, the class worked together to create a video that would describe the technology of Greenfield Village to the next year’s fourth-grade classes.

The assignment taught the students a good deal about the technology of the era, but it also reinforced lessons from other parts of the curriculum. It brought turn-of-the-century America to life, it exercised composition skills from English class, and it allowed the students to apply what they had learned in a simple-machines unit in science class. As teachers all know, having students apply material in a way that captures their interest and imagination is the best way to make sure they retain it. And when students can bring together lessons from several classes or content areas, they truly make the material their own.

Such integration among subjects is easiest in elementary schools where the same teacher handles most or all of a student’s classes during the school day and does not have to work with

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

several other teachers to coordinate lesson plans. At the elementary level, the standards are designed to be implemented in the regular classroom by teachers with appropriate inservice training. In middle and high schools, by contrast, licensed technology education teachers should be entirely responsible for technology education; in the middle grades, much of the teaching about technology can be done in units taught by interdisciplinary teams, while in high school technology will most often be taught in stand-alone courses.

Because of this increasing specialization, the practical difficulties to integrating technology education with other subjects become greater, but the payoffs are proportionately higher. As subjects become more compartmentalized, students find it more difficult to see how they intersect with each other or to understand the place of each in the world outside. Technology classes provide a neutral ground for the different subjects to come together, often in the guise of devising a solution to some practical problem.

A typical assignment might be to design a car with certain characteristics— crashworthiness, high levels of energy efficiency, or using fuels other than gasoline. In developing their design, students would have to be able to operate various computer programs and perhaps retrieve information from the Internet, would need to apply lessons from physics or chemistry class, and would probably use skills from their mathematics classes as well. In researching the background to their problem they might delve into the history of the car and how it has shaped American society in the twentieth century. They might use statistics to analyze automobile fatality rates at different speeds and in cars of various sizes. They could study the chemistry or the health effects of the ozone smog afflicting cities like Los Angeles, or they could analyze the economics of gasoline prices. In an attempt to understand the world’s petroleum reserves, they might study geology and explore how petroleum is formed. When it was time to report on their final product, they would need to do so in clear prose, probably with a bibliography. They might even be asked to translate it into a second language or put it in ‘HTML’ format for access on the Internet.

Many technology teachers have found that this sort of real-world problem-solving helps students with their other courses by making the subject matter meaningful to them. The best way to learn something—to truly master and retain it, not just to learn it well enough to pass a test— is to apply it. This, of course, is the rationale for lab sessions in chemistry class, word problems in math, and conversational periods in French, but technology education takes this logic one step further. Technology students are expected to synthesize and apply information from other subjects as well as from the technology laboratory. In this way they learn to make connections between different fields of knowledge and begin to understand how all knowledge is interconnected.

People who are unfamiliar with technology tend to think of it purely in terms of its artifacts: computers and cars, televisions and toasters, pesticides, flu shots, solar cells, genetically engineered tomatoes, and all the rest. But to its practitioners and to the people who study it, technology is more accurately thought of in terms of the knowledge and the processes that create these artifacts, and these processes are intimately dependent upon many factors in the outside world.

Technology is the modification of the natural environment in order to satisfy perceived human needs and wants. To determine what those needs and wants are and to figure out how to satisfy them, one must consider a wide range of factors simultaneously. For this reason, technology has been called “the great integrator.” And for this reason, although technology

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

education may sometimes be a separate subject, it can never be an isolated subject, cut off from the rest of the curriculum.

Technological Literacy

Technology Content Standards is designed to serve as a guide for educating students to become “technologically literate” citizens. A technologically literate person understands what technology is, how it is created, and how it shapes society and in turn is shaped by society. He or she will be able to hear a story about technology on television or read it in the newspaper and evaluate the information in the story intelligently, put that information in context, and form an opinion based on that information. A technologically literate person will be comfortable with and objective about technology, neither scared of it nor too infatuated with it. The technology literate citizen will hold realistic expectations.

Such technological literacy benefits students in a number of ways. For the future engineers, the aspiring architects, the students who will have jobs in one area of technology or another, it means they will leave high school with a head start on their careers. They will already understand the basics of such things as the design process, and they will have a big picture of the field they are entering, allowing them to put the specialized knowledge they learn later into a broader context.

But technological literacy is important for all students, even those who will not go into technological careers. Because technology is such an important force in our economy, almost anyone can benefit by being familiar with it. Corporate executives and others in the business world, brokers and investment analysts, journalists, teachers, doctors and others health professionals, farmers and ranchers, soldiers, sailors, and airmen all will be able to perform their jobs better if they are comfortable with and knowledgeable about technology.

In the long run, the entire country’s economic well-being may well be affected by how technologically literate its citizens are. Because the world economy is increasingly competitive and because technology is responsible for almost all the economy’s new products and goods, those countries whose citizens are best-versed in technology should have a competitive advantage.

On the individual level, technological literacy helps consumers better assess products and make more intelligent buying decisions: How do I weigh all the factors in evaluating the latest computer or electronic device? Should I avoid genetically engineered food? Should I put my children in cloth or disposable diapers? Or—a few years from now—do I buy a solar-powered car or one that runs on hydrogen? Among people who have no familiarity with or basis for evaluating technological products, such decisions tend to be based on guesswork, gut feelings, or emotional responses.

On the societal level, technological literacy should also help citizens make better decisions. As the twenty-first century dawns, new technologies will open up possibilities for humankind that have never existed before. This power will bring with it hard choices. Do we place limits on the flow of information? How much heed do we pay to the worries that genetic engineering could lead to the inadvertent creation of unwelcome new species? Where do we draw the line on cloning? At the same time, older, established technologies will also demand that choices be made: Should we, for instance, cut back sharply on carbon dioxide emissions in an attempt to slow down global warming?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

In the United States, such decisions will be greatly influenced by individual citizens. In some countries, average citizens have little input into technological decision making, which is left up to a technological elite or the country’s rulers. But the political structure of the United States is very open, and regular citizens can—and generally do—shape technological issues through their legislators, through public hearings, and through court cases. Having a technologically literate citizenry may not guarantee that the best decisions are made on these knotty, contentious issues, but it certainly improves the odds.

Our world will be very different ten or twenty years from now. We have no choice about that. We do, however, have a choice whether we march into that world with our eyes open, deciding for ourselves how we want it to be, or whether we let it push us along, ignorant and helpless to understand where we’re going or why. Technology education will make a difference.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Chapter 3

Comments on the Standards for Technology Education, Chapter 3

Marie Hoepfl

August 20, 1999

Some brief comments on Chapters 1 and 2:

Chapter 1 provides a good introduction, with some minor exceptions (I don’t like the phrase “to do technology,” and would rather not see economic competitiveness used as a rationale for the study of technology). I have many suggestions for improving Chapter 2, including shortening it considerably and making it more user-friendly in general; removing the negative tone of the “what technology content standards is not” section; and deleting some of the taller claims (“designed to offer complete coverage”-p. 10; “all standards must be met in order for a student to develop technological literacy”-p. 16).

Comments on Chapter 3:

The standards and benchmarks would be easier to review, and probably easier to use, if they were numbered. I think they are fairly well articulated across the different grade levels, with some exceptions that will be noted below.

p. 23: Building shelters and assuring food supplies are not necessarily simple tasks! Conversely, constructing web sites is not necessarily complex. The paragraph beginning with “Technology” neither defines nor distinguishes the term. I would prefer an introduction that simply lists what will be described or addressed in this chapter.

p. 24: Many non-engineers are involved with the design of technologies.

p. 27: I questions whether 6–8 graders will have the long view needed to understand “the specific ways in which technology is dynamic.” The last three benchmarks are wordy and difficult to follow. And where did the last benchmark spring from??

p. 28: This is a nice story, but I’m not sure it supports the benchmarks in standard 1.

p. 29: Some questionable claims made in the narrative at top. Benchmark 2 should be reworded and a different example used. And where did benchmark 3 spring from??

p. 30: I would delete this benchmark. Also, without looking at it carefully, I wonder how much overlap there is between the benchmarks for standard 1 and those found in chapter 4?

p. 31: The selection of “themes” is very curious. Some of them begin to make sense as choices only after reading the benchmarks and examples that follow. If what you are attempting is to provide a foundation upon which the study of any technology can be based, then some should be

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

deleted. My suggestion: get rid of health and safety, transportation, and management, and change the name of the communications theme to “standards” or “conventions” or a similar term.

pp. 32–33: Here, as in some other sections, I perceive a disconnect between what is stated in the narrative at top and the benchmarks listed below. I question the age-appropriateness of the claims made in the narrative, and wonder how they would be translated into practice?

pp. 34–36: With further examples, the themes take shape and become more understandable (with the exception of the three mentioned earlier). I like the vignette.

p. 38: Under “Processes,” benchmarks 2 and 3 don’t seem to fit in the broad sense—they are too specific.

p. 41: Some good examples at the top. Again under processes, the last two benchmarks are too specific and seem out of place. Under “Structures,” clarify benchmark 1. Also, don’t developed countries rely on infrastructures as well?

pp. 42–43: Suggest deleting last benchmark in communications section. To reiterate, I suggest deleting all reference to the themes health and safety, transportation, and management.

p. 44: Delete the last part of standard 3 “in order to recognize…act synergistically.” This complicates the concept being addressed, and is not discussed in the benchmarks.

p. 45: I would use a different example than the Charlotte’s Web one provided. You talk about the concepts of properties of materials, construction techniques, etc. Unless these are part of the K–2 curriculum, this example may have little meaning for teachers. I do not like the wording of benchmark one at the bottom.

p. 47: The whole idea of the relationships “among” technologies in this standard is a little hard to follow at times. The example in benchmark 1 here does not help to clarify. Here as in level 6–8 and 9–12 there is redundancy in pulling science and math out separate (benchmark 3) from the “other fields of study” referred to in benchmark 2. I suggest deleting #3.

p. 48: Here and on page 51, I challenge the statement about sharing of processes and techniques. The patent process very specifically requires disclosure of such information.

p. 49: The last two benchmarks in this section are redundant—they are covered in the previous benchmark. Why not simply provide expanded examples, to address science and math, in that benchmark, and delete the last two?

p. 50: Here, more so than in the other narratives, the “within, among and between” business gets tedious. Can the concept of interrelated knowledge bases be communicated in a simpler way? Also, the bias toward the economic benefits of technological development is once again evident here. Why not emphasize the social or environmental outcomes, or none at all? Finally, the benchmark at the bottom of this page is difficult to follow—perhaps a different example would help?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

p. 51: Benchmark 2 on this page suffers from the “within, between” wording problem. How about: “Technological innovation results when ideas, knowledge and skills are shared” and leave it at that (with an appropriate example, of course)? Benchmark 3 should either be deleted, or revised to note that patents involve the deliberate sharing of information, and for a very specific reason (i.e., benchmark 2 on this page!). Finally, the last two benchmarks are redundant. Limit to one benchmark that looks at the connections with other fields, and highlight science and math if that is desirable.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Comments from Dennis W.Cheek with assigned focus on Chapter 3

General Comment: The total number of standards (21) is commendable and manageable. The 610 benchmarks are way too many and will automatically put many school systems and teachers off by their sheer number. (See my attached companion chart comparing technology in three national standards documents.) Keep in mind there are only 855 Benchmarks for Science Literacy. They span many key fields of human endeavor and could serve as the basis for an entire K–12 integrated curriculum for virtually all school subject areas. We all recognize that getting more attention to technology in the school curriculum will be an uphill battle. Let’s not make it impossible by putting forward entirely too many “fundamental understandings” that all students should know and be able to do. My recommendation is that you reduce the benchmarks by half—a difficult task but a politically important one.

Comments Specific to Chapter Three

The introduction to Chapter 3 and throughout the rest of the standards focuses constantly on technology as a response to human needs and wants. An individual or group also sometimes creates technology. Then they create desire on the part of others for the technology (market push in marketing terms rather than market pull). The examples in paragraph two strike me as not terribly distinct in terms of their elaborateness since cultivating a garden successfully over the course of a year is a complex activity and constructing a website is actually easier by comparison. Building a house is also quite an elaborate activity so maybe pitching a tent and planting a flower are better examples of simple technological activities.

I noted in this chapter and elsewhere that many benchmarks lack examples. I assume that is purposeful at this point. In a few cases the example is also in bold type but I assume your editors will catch these items.

The narrative for Standard One at the end of the last paragraph creates the impression that it is chiefly engineers who are innovators and designers. You need to also make the point that even consumers (i.e., everyone) also create simple technologies and technological systems to meet varied needs and purposes. To be human is to be technological so in that sense encouraging formal study of technology in schools already comports with who we are as humans. The example for the last 9–12 benchmark on page 30 strikes me as conceptually closer than indicated and your narrative needs to reflect both that they have things in common and that they also differ.

The suggested themes of technology (Standard 2) need further attention. Communication and transportation should be removed from here and woven into the appropriate parts of Standards 18 & 19. (Many of these benchmarks are repeated in analogous language in those later standards already. You also miss the point that spoken and written languages are also forms of technology when you talk about symbols.) It seems that several other crosscutting technology themes belong here such as Evolution and Adaptation, Models and Modeling, History, and Globalization.

Throughout the benchmarks a lot of language about creating, designing, and making is used. Only rarely is language about improving, changing, and adapting technology employed. There are hundreds of examples of the evolution of tools, systems, and processes over time.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Different cultures have adapted technologies in ways compatible with their beliefs and ways of life. These lessons should not be lost on students and I favor the insertion of a new theme on Evolution and Adaptation.

While there is one or two benchmarks in the entire set of 610 that use the word “model” or “prototype” the use of scale models and computer assisted modeling is underrepresented. It seems to me to be a crosscutting theme.

The history of technology is dealt with in standard 7 but I noted that it jumps from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution and then jumps again to the Information Age. Attention to technology in the Renaissance and Reformation periods (including one of the most significant inventions of all time—Gutenberg’s press—and Renaissance architecture) and the rise of systematization (see the text of Marcus and Segal on Technology in America) in the nineteenth and early twentieth century gets skipped. On the other hand, what is not brought across there but is certainly another cross-cutting theme suitable here is that every tool, structure, and system has a history in terms of its development but more so in terms of its uses and effects upon humans and the natural world. It may not be worthy of sustained attention but it should appear somewhere.

By Globalization, I mean the theme that technologies now pervade the world and serve as one of the major forces in cultural homogenization. Coke, cellular phones, fax machines, the Internet, automobiles, trucks, radio, TV, etc., can be found even in some of the remotest parts of the globe and result in human cultures being more alike than different. Whole traditions and customs have disappeared due to the marked influence of technology on culture and we are now “in touch” with other parts of the world in ways that prior generations could not even imagine.

The Vignette on page 36, third sentence misses the crucial point that bikes also consume scarce resources and pollute the environment. The difference is one of degree and the relative costs/benefits of different modes of transportation.

Standard 3 introduction misses the point; later made on p.47 that mathematics is a science that studies patterns and relationships. The second sentence of paragraph 2 can be disputed since it remains true that many technologies are developed with little or no explicit reference to scientific concepts and principles. Trial and error is still a big part of design work and scientific theories and formulas are sometimes of little help. I would use “many” in lieu of “most.” The economy (including the stock market) and economics are key sectors where computer databases have dramatically altered transactions and our understanding of the meanings to be attached to human exchanges of goods and services. I would add this idea to the very last sentence.

The first benchmark on page 47 doesn’t seem to fit here. It likely was a composing error when text was moved from the third draft? The last benchmark on page 51 does not include examples—either provide them or drop the useless language currently there as a descriptor.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Comparison of Key Points about Technology in National Science Education Standards, Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and Fourth Draft of Standards for Technology Education (ITEA)—compiled by Dennis W.Cheek, August 1999 (revised from earlier chart using the third ITEA draft presented in workshop at NSTA National Convention, Boston, 1999)

ITEA Content Standards and Benchmarks (K–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12)

Project 2061 Benchmarks (Chapters 3, 8 and parts of 10, 11 & 12) (K–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–12)

National Science Education Standards (K–4, 5–8, 9–12)

Nature of Technology: 3 standards; (15 K– 2; 22 Gr. 3–5; 31 Gr. 6–8; 33 Gr. 9–12; Total=3+101)

Technology and Science (Nature of Tech) (2 K–2; 4 Gr. 3–5; 3 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total=12)

Science and Technology (3 K–4; 2 Gr. 5–8; 2 Gr. 9–12; Total=7)

Technology and Society; 4 standards; (5 K–2; 7 Gr. 3–5; 22 Gr. 6–8; 29 Gr. 9–12; Total-4+63)

Design and Systems (Nature of Tech) (2 K–2; 3 Gr. 3–5; 4 Gr. 6–8; 6 Gr. 9–12; Total=15)

Science in Personal and Social perspectives (only count when mentioning “technology”) (1 K–4; 1 Gr. 5–8; 2 Gr. 9–12; Total=4)

Abilities for a Technological World: 3 standards (14 K–2; 24 Gr. 3–4; 24 Gr. 6–8; 30 Gr. 9–12; Total=3+60)

Issues in Technology (Nature of Tech) (2 K–2; 6 Gr. 3–5; 7 Gr. 6–8; % Gr. 9–12; Total=20)

History and Nature of Science (only count when mentioning “technology”) (1 K–4; 0 Gr. 6–8; 0 Gr. 9–12; Total=1)

The Designed World: 8 standards (58 K–2; 57 Gr. 3–5; 86 Gr. 6–8; 93 Gr. 9–12; Total =8+294)

Agriculture (Designed World) (4 K–2; 4 Gr. 3–5; 4 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total=16)

Grand Total=12

Grand Total=21 standards and 610 benchmarks

Materials and Manufacturing (Designed World) 4 K–2; 4 Gr. 3–5; 4 Gr. 6–8; 4 Gr. 9–12; Total=16)

 

 

Energy Sources and Use (Designed World) (2 K–2; 4 Gr. 3–5; 6 Gr. 6–8; 5 Gr. 9–12; Total=17)

 

 

Communication (Designed World) (2 K–2; 4 Gr. 3–5; 2 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total=11)

 

 

Health Technology (Designed World) (1 K–2; 2 Gr. 3–5p 3 Gr. 6–8; 7 Gr. 9–12; Total=13)

 

 

Information Processing (Designed World)

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

 

2 K–2; 3 Gr. 3–5; 4 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total=12)

 

 

Splitting the Atom (Historical Perspectives) (2 gr. 9–12; Total=2)

 

 

Harnessing Power (Historical Perspectives) (2 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total =5)

 

 

Systems (Common Themes) (3 K–3; 2 Gr. 3–5; 3 Gr. 6–8; 4 Gr. 9–12; Total-12)

 

 

Models (Common Themes) (3 K–2; 2 gr. 3–5; 3 gr. 6–8; 3 gr. 9–12; Total=11)

 

 

Constancy and Change (Common Themes) (4 Gr. 6–8; 5 Gr. 9–12; Total -9)

 

 

Scale (Common Themes) (1 K–2; 2 Gr. 3–5; 2 Gr. 6–8; 3 Gr. 9–12; Total=8)

 

 

Values and Attitudes (Habits of Mind) (1 Gr. 9–12; Total=1)

 

 

Manipulation and Observation (Habits of Mind) (4 K–2; 5 Gr. 3–5; 5 Gr. 6–8; 4 Gr. 9–12; Total=18)

 

 

Critical Response Skills (Habits of Mind) (1 K–2; 3 Gr. 3–5; 5 Gr. 6–8; 6 Gr. 9–12; Total=15

 

 

Grand Total=213

 

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Chapter 3 Comments from Thomas T.Liao

General Comments:

  1. The grain size and importance of benchmarks are very uneven. Some are simply factual statements, sometimes almost trivial as stated, while others are important ideas or concepts. [see page 35]

  2. All benchmarks do not have good illustrative examples. Some benchmarks do not have any examples while others have examples that inappropriate or misleading, [see page 27]

  3. I agree with Dennis Cheek, that there are too many benchmarks. There are many statements such as, “all people use technology”, that seems to be stating the obvious. So reducing the number of benchmarks in half as suggested by Dennis may not as hard as it seems.

  4. In my opinion Standard 2 is in need of major revision. The themes that were chosen represent different types of themes as well as an arbitrary collection of themes. For examples Systems is a conceptual theme while Transportation is a type technological system. Why leave out conceptual themes such as modeling or technological systems such as agricultural technologies. This standard needs to be redesigned. I suggest focusing on conceptual themes such as:

Conceptual themes could include the following:

  • Systems Thinking

  • Design Process

  • Modeling Techniques

  • Optimization Techniques

  • Communication Process

  • Management Process

Discussion of technological systems such as transportation technologies can dealt with in chapter 7: “Designed World”

The Structures theme is confusing. Are we focusing on physical structures or management structures. In some of the benchmarks there is overlap with the systems theme.

The Health and Safety Considerations theme can be two of the considerations for Chapre5: Design which should also include other Ergonomic design considerations.

The Resources theme can be part of the above Design Process and Management Process themes

  1. The benchmarks should be written more as performance indicators so that curriculum designers and class room teachers can use them as design criteria for developing lessons and assessment tools.

Specific Comments:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Page 23- Building a shelter can be more complex than constructing a WWW Website.

Page 26- Examples are not good illustrations of the three benchmarks.

Page 27- Again the examples need to be improved.

Page 28- In the first paragraph of the Vignette, a statement about use of recycled materials is made. In subsequent paragraphs much of the recommended materials have to be purchased.

Page 30- Need an example for “common ideas used in different technological activities”.

Page 35- “Transportation is the movement of passengers and goods” as a benchmark is merely a definition.

Page 39- Transportation should include a benchmark that relates to comparison of alternative modes of transport instead of “passengers and goods may be transported via land, sea, air or space”.

Page 40- The example for the second benchmark need to be revised to include discussion of how feedback relates to stability.

Page 41- A benchmark such as “Health and Safety considerations should accompany the use of any technology” does not say anything substantive.

Page 44- Saying that the relationship of Technology to Math is “more distant” than that of Technology to Science is not the case. If anything, in many technological activities applied mathematics is the central discipline.

Page 51- The example for illustrating how the interaction of technology with math and science is in both directions only shows how the application of math and science concepts lead to improved technology.

Page 52- The vignette should state the criteria and constraints separately. It should be made clear that the criteria are the design objectives and the constraints are the design limitations.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standards for Technology Education

A review of Chapter 4, “Technology and Society”

Franzie L.Loepp

General Comments: Although the current draft of the Standards is referred to as the “Fourth Draft,” in many ways it should be considered a first draft. The basic outline for the document has changed (for the better), the format has changed (for the better), and the vision for the document has expanded. Because of the many changes and the short timeline to produce the document, the group responsible for generating this edition should be commended. There are, however, areas of general concern.

The general format of the document organized around 21 Standards placed in 5 categories provides an elegant framework, but the Standards are unnecessarily wordy. For example, Standard 4 currently reads, “Students realize that technology causes social, economic, and political changes in society, affecting individuals, families, communities, and nations.” It is recommended this Standard be simplified to read, “Technology causes social, economic, and political changes.” Reference to students is not necessary because the Benchmarks related to the Standard collectively describe what a student should understand or be able to do. The phrases that follow the major idea presented in the Standard can be included in one or more of the Benchmarks. If this recommendation is accepted, then all Standards would need to be revised—a task easily accomplished.

The second general concern relates to Benchmarks. There is often redundancy, even within a given grade level, which unnecessarily inflates the number of Benchmarks. Also, some of the Benchmarks are not developmentally appropriate and others appear to be beyond what might be considered a level of “technological literacy.”

And third, the first two chapters of the document make it appear as though the entire burden of preparing a technologically literate society lies with the discipline of technology education. This notion is not congruent with the theme of chapter 8, “Call to Action.” This chapter implores many groups to collaborate to accomplish this goal.

Comments related to Chapter 4

The category “Technology and Society” is conceptually rich enough to merit category status. The overview of the chapter (p.54) does seek to convey the symbiotic nature of technology and society. However, it would perhaps be more powerful to more fully develop the steam engine theme to not only illustrate the influence of technology on the environment but also the subsequent societal need for transportation which put steam engines to use in trains, ships and even cars. By following through with the evolution of a technological development the history Standard (#7) would automatically be introduced.

The four Standards in this category do adequately describe four major themes related to technology and society. The narratives that introduce each Standard do attempt to introduce the benchmarks but to often technology is personified when it would be much more accurate to attach desirable or undesirable consequences to the decisions humans make as they apply a particular technology.

The narratives for each set of Benchmarks do attempt to illustrate ways students might achieve the Benchmarks but they seem to be a lot alike. In one case an entire paragraph (second

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

paragraph, page 58) is misplaced. Since it refers to the impact the use of technology can have on the natural world, the ideas in the paragraph are more related to Standard 5, which is related to the environment.

The Benchmarks will clearly have the greatest impact on future curricula so it is most important for them to convey developmentally appropriate concepts and/or abilities that fit into the “technological literacy” frame of reference. Further, concepts should build across levels and redundancy within a level should be eliminated. A strategy should be implemented to review and improve the Benchmarks in this chapter.

If vignettes are used they should be written in such a way that it is very clear how they help students meet specific Benchmarks. Some of the vignettes do relate, but only tangentially. One of the vignettes (p. 66) seems to have more of an assessment theme that means it will likely relate better to Standard 13.

Summary

Compared to the first three drafts of the Standards for Technology Education, this fourth draft has great potential, but much work still needs to be done. Hopefully the stamina, persistence, resources, expertise, and time will be available so the published document can have a significant influence on the development of strategies to rear technologically literate citizens.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standards for Technology Education: Content for the study of Technology

A review of Chapter Four

Fredrick M.Stein

First of all, I believe this is an excellent document which will be a valuable guide for teachers, both inservice and preservice. I will mention a few of its strengths, but I will focus my remarks on my perception of needed improvements.

As I began reading, I became more and more convinced that there is a serious omission in Chapter Four. If I were to do a word search for “science” I doubt I would get many hits. How can a teacher cover the material as outlined in this chapter without explaining the vital connections with the sciences? Interestingly, one of the vignette does show how the participation of biology students contributed to the overall study of the effects on developing a new airport. However, the need for technology to be linked to science understanding goes deeper.

For example, for grades 6–8, I read, “Many people wonder whether it is a good use to use some of the technologies that have been developed, such as cloning and nuclear power. How many adults today understand the basic scientific principles of cloning. It has been my direct experience to hear otherwise bright people worry about cloning a Hitler, fully grown! How many adults (including teachers worry that their electricity from a nuclear reactor is radioactive? Most do not understand that the heat from reactors is used to turn water to steam.

I have reviewed technology programs at both community colleges and high schools through the examination of Students’ work, mostly projects. Each time, I have found glaring errors and misconceptions in the scientific explanations of their project. It is clear to me that the lack of making constant connections between the particular technology discussed and the science fundamentals which underlie it, has produced generations of students who think they know much more than is actually the case.

The first twenty pages seem to be quite repetitive, and the content of the repeated phrases are often negative. Almost every one of the first twenty pages contains a reference to the undesirable effects or damage caused by technology. While it is important to give a balanced view of the impact of technology on society, it seems to this reader, that the over all impression left is a negative one.

There is no doubt in this reader’s mind that the most well-written, comprehensive, and engaging section of this chapter is the last one, Standard 7: The History of Technology. I believe this section should be read first! Through real-life examples it introduces all the previous Standards. It can be used to generate activities in which students can construct their own ideas about the dichotomy of good and bad impacts of technology on society. It nicely covers all the major strands of this chapter though the study of the different Ages. Finally, it permits the instructor to weave the history of science through the technological Ages, allowing the important connections between science and technology to develop naturally.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

International Technology Education Association (ITEA) Standards Review Committee

A Review of Chapter 4: Technology and Society for the National Research Council, Washington, DC

Kenneth Welty

August 19, 1999

The International Technology Education Association (ITEA) is to be commended for its efforts to orchestrate another review of the proposed standard for the study of technology. Soliciting collegial feedback can be very unsettling, especially for those who have invested a lot of time, effort, and personal pride in developing a vision for what the next generation should know and be able to do in the context of technology. The following narrative will strive to provide the ITEA constructive feedback that might inspire refinements that will strengthen the Standards for Technology Education.

Developmental Appropriateness

This reviewer encountered numerous benchmarks that generated concerns about the developmental appropriateness of the proposed standards. For example, the first benchmark under K-2 (p. 56) states students should understand “Everyone uses technology.” In this context, the word technology is very abstract and does not have an intrinsic meaning. For students to understand the notion that everyone uses technology, they would need to possess a concept of technology that they can recognize in everyday life. The benchmarks regarding the nature of technology (p. 25) suggest the student would understand “technology is the way that people change the natural world.” This definition for technology emphasizes technology as technique (…the way that…), and is clearly more abstract than equating technology within the tangible objects people have created for themselves. The research on child development clearly shows children at this grade level are very concrete and egocentric thinkers. The notion that students would understand everyone uses techniques to modify the natural world appears problematic to this reviewer. Therefore, in this case, this reviewer would like to recommend equating technology with tools and everyone uses tools in their work and play. This reviewer would like to suggest asking experts in child development to review the standards to ensure the espoused expectations are attentive to children’s cognitive development.

Technical Consistency

It is reasonable to assume that the benchmarks need to be written in a manner that portrays a progression of salient ideas that ultimately culminate in a profound understanding about technology. Therefore, this reviewer looked for continuity from one grade level to the next among the benchmarks that addressed common themes. For example, the following benchmarks seem to address the positive and negative aspect of technology.

K–2

“Technology can help or harm” (p. 56)

3–5

“When using technology, the results can be good or bad” (p. 57)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

6–8

“Technology by itself, is neither positive or negative, but its impacts and consequences can be desired or undesired; planned or unplanned; and intended or unintended.” (p. 58)

9–12

Assessment involves determining trade-off and anticipating the effects of technology in order to make certain that the desired positive outcomes outweigh the negative consequences, (p. 59)

Clearly, this list illustrates a logical progression of important ideas. However, upon careful examination, the notion that “technology can help or harm” is inconsistent with the concept that “technology…is neither positive or negative.” Another inconsistency is the subliminal personification of technology in the K–2 benchmark compared to how technology is represented in the other three benchmarks. It is very clear in the 3–5 and 6–8 benchmarks that the positive and negative attributes of technology come from how people use technology in contrast to coming from the technology itself. Unfortunately, the K–2 benchmark presents the opposing perspective by overlooking this important qualification. It would be easy for a conscientious elementary teacher to read the K–2 benchmark, and its accompanying example, and introduce a potential misconception to his or her students. Once a misconception has been integrated into a student’s cognitive construction of the world, it will be extremely difficult to change it even with exemplary instruction.

Once again, the example described above is not an isolated incident. This reviewer detected other instances where the flow of ideas was broken, diffused, or contradicted from one section of the standards to another and from one grade level to the next. Therefore, it might behoove the authors to make similar strings of ideas with the current standards and then address the following questions:

  • Do the key ideas in each benchmark build upon each other in a logical sequence that flows from concrete to abstract and from simple to complex?

  • Is the first kernel idea in the string of benchmarks introduced at an appropriate point in the students’ development?

  • Do the key ideas culminate in a profound understanding about technology at an equally appropriate time in the students’ development?

  • Does the string of benchmarks include other key ideas that require prerequisite understandings and are these understandings captured in other benchmarks?

  • Does the profession need the benchmarks that have weak linkages to other ideas?

Redundancy

The TFAA Project has made commendable progress toward reducing the overall number of standards for the study of technology. From this reviewer’s perspective an analogous effort needs to be made to reduce the total number of benchmarks. One way to reduce the number of recommended benchmarks is to eliminate the redundancy among the benchmarks. This reviewer uncovered numerous instances where the benchmarks addressed the same theme using different words. For example, the only difference between the following benchmarks, other than the introduction of the notion of selecting a technology, is semantics.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • The development and use of technology sometimes poses ethical issues, (p. 58)

  • The selection, development and use of technology has important ethical implications, (p. 59)

Another inefficiency within the standards are the benchmarks that address the same theme in different contexts. For example, several benchmarks under the history of technology targeted the evolutionary development of technology in the contexts of constructing shelter, producing food, manufacturing clothing, and communicating ideas. The central idea embedded in all these benchmarks is presented in the benchmark that states “Most technological development has been evolutionary as a result of refinements to basic inventions (innovations) occurring over a long period of time” (p. 80). Clearly, students would need to study the development of a wide range of technologies to formulate this important generalization. However, this reviewer does not believe benchmarks should be written to ensure students study an adequate number of examples to formulate important generalizations about technology. The same generalization could be constructed by studying how humankind’s utilization of energy resources has evolved from burning wood to splitting atoms and how humankind’s modes of transportation have evolved from round stones and logs to supersonic flight. Ironically, these ideas, and many others, were not included among the benchmarks. Therefore, instead of including discrete benchmarks that describe the evolution of selected technologies, it might be more appropriate to write one benchmark that captures the pattern intrinsic to the development of all prominent technologies. For example, the evolution of technology has taken humankind from depending on nature and manual labor to fulfill its basic needs to utilizing human ingenuity and sophisticated labor-saving tools to meet those same needs and much more.

Another strategy that should be employed to reduce the overall number of benchmarks is simply to delete all the benchmarks that target ideas that most students seem to develop on their own without the benefit of formal instruction. For example, most of the 6–8 benchmarks under “The History of Technology” are redundant and could be dropped or replaced with fewer benchmarks that address more important ideas in the history of technology. Although the following statements need work and may prove to be inappropriate, they are being forwarded to illustrate the fact that there are provocative understandings rooted in the history of technology.

  • The development of new technology is always dependent on existing technologies.

  • Many of the technologies that we currently enjoy were unanticipated spin-offs from other technological initiatives.

  • Many technologies were invented and put to use in everyday life without the benefit of truly understanding how they work (e.g., radio, aspirin, photovoltaic cells).

  • The ingenuity of women has been traditionally under-valued because they were not allowed to register patents in their own names and their work tended to focus on domestic problems and needs.

Factual Accuracy

Some of the benchmarks are very questionable in terms of their factual accuracy due to the use of imprecise language and over simplification. For example the notion that “Historically, a few technologies have had a dramatic impact on society” (6–8, p. 78) seem to be a gross

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

understatement. Furthermore, this benchmark is inconsistent with the one that states “technology is one of the most powerful forces shaping individual, familial, social, economic, and political concerns” (9–12, p. 59).

Another dubious benchmark states “decisions to develop technology are often made by a relatively small number of people who may have a limited perspective” (p. 59). The current wording could be interpreted to mean the people who hold decision-making positions in business, industry, and government have a narrow understanding of the technologies they control. It would be more precise to promote the idea that in absence of strong public opinion, the decision to develop a given technology is often disproportionately influenced by a relatively small group of people who will personally benefit from the technology’s development.

Intellectual Substance

Reading the standards left this reviewer wanting more intellectual substance and less rhetoric. This reviewer’s initial response to many of the benchmarks was “so what.” Some of the statements seem to be missing the mark in terms of capturing the essence of technology and, occasionally, they border on the trivial. This seemed to be especially prominent when reading the benchmarks for the elementary grades. In fairness to the authors, the benchmarks for the early grades should have a relative simplicity in light of the nature of the target population. However, the kernel ideas embedded in these benchmarks should clearly be essential to the development of more sophisticated ideas about technology. Most of the history benchmarks read like captions from an abbreviated timeline in contrast to reading like Melvin Kranzberg’s six laws about the history of technology (Technology and Culture, July 1986, pages 544 to 560).

Editorial

On a lighter note, reading the standards inspired a few ideas about the format of the document and the style of the writing. First, the header above each set of bullets appears to be a bit verbose. This reviewer thinks it would be more efficient if they simply read: “By the end of grade 2, student should understand…” A modest header would draw more attention to bullets and the ideas expressed in the benchmarks.

Second, this reviewer has mixed feelings about the vignettes. Many of them seem very contrived and it is not clear how they add value to the document. It might be more useful to include abstracts from the literature that support the ideas expressed in the benchmarks. After all, the project has made claims that the benchmarks are “…based on professional research…” Unfortunately, the current document does not provide a lot of evidence that this is indeed the case. Abstracts from the professional literature could underpin the benchmarks, inspire new benchmarks, inform the revisions of the current benchmarks, educate future readers, and ultimately boost confidence in the standards as a whole. For example, please consider the role that the following modest statement might play in presenting the relationship between technology and society.

The successful implementation of policies regarding science and technology ultimately depends on public acceptance. In an analysis of case studies involving public debate, Nelkin (1979) concluded that controversy over science and technology can arise

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

when citizens of a community discover they must bear the cost of a project that will benefit a larger population; when people fear potential health and environmental hazards; when government regulations involve questions regarding freedom of choice; and when science and technology are perceived to be infringing on traditional values and cherished beliefs.

Lastly, most of the examples following each benchmark are redundant and in some cases, they shed a negative light on the benchmark itself. For example, the notion that the availability of air conditioning has dramatically reduced the number of new homes with open-air porches fails to account for the overwhelming popularity of decks (p. 71). Incidentally, the facsimile machine can be traced back to the telegraph era (p. 72). In short, if a benchmark required an explanation there is a good chance that the benchmark itself needs work. If the benchmark is truly elegant in its depiction of an important technological idea, it should not require further explanation.

Observations

From this reviewer’s perspective, building consensus has been one of the primary considerations driving the development of the standards to-date. The latest version of the standards provides lots of evidence that this quest for consensus has lead the TFAA Project to amass a medley of input regarding what students should know and be able to do under the auspices of technological literacy. Furthermore, the narrative clearly reflects the fact that project leaders have respected the diverse perspectives that they have gathered about the knowledge base that will serve the technological literacy needs of young people. This reviewer believes it is time for project leaders to take the consensus building process to the next level by striving for synthesis. This new thrust needs to put scholarship ahead of politics to ensure the quality of the final product. Furthermore, at this stage of the process, generating elegant prose needs to take priority over preserving discrete bits of narrative. It is time for the project leaders to blend, edit, supplement, and refine the potpourri of ideas that they have assembled into a manageable set of articulated understandings that capture the essence of technology.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standards for Technology Education

Chapter 5—Design

Rodney L.Custer

Illinois State University

August 20, 1999

This fourth draft of the Standards represents a significant improvement over previous versions. The overall structure has been simplified, it reads much better, and many of the conceptual problems that existed in previous versions have been corrected. The incorporation of specific benchmarks detailing a reduced set of standards will provide an accessible and elegant structure for curriculum developers. In my judgment, the structural and conceptual problems that existed in previous versions have, with some minor exceptions, been solved.

Given this overall positive assessment, I have some suggestions and concerns directly related to Chapter 5—Design.

  1. The introductory sections (to the entire chapter, p. 83, and the sections introducing each of the standards, pp. 84, 92, & 100) would benefit from somewhat more emphasis on why design is an important element in technological literacy for all students. Those involved with technology understand the benefits, but a more compelling case will need to be made for a broader audience. The initial sentence in paragraph 5 on p. 83 represents an attempt to address this concern. Language referring to design experiences as a means of promoting the development of higher order thinking skills such as analytical thinking, synthesis of ideas, ingenuity, creativity thinking, etc. would help to make the case more compelling. I do not see this as a major rewrite of these sections, but rather some well placed and powerfully phrased sentences designed specifically to make the case for design more compelling.

  2. I have some concern about a relative lack of distinction between Standards 8 and 9. A careful reader will likely be able to make a distinction between “attributes” (8) and “engineering process” (9), which is apparently the intent. However, there is considerable overlap and some redundancy between the two, which will likely result in some confusion. These two standards and associated benchmarks would benefit from one more revision that is guided by a clearly delineated distinction between the two standards. As with point #1, this problem should be relatively easy to address by (a) drawing a clear distinction and (b) carefully articulating this difference in the introductory narratives.

  3. Two of the most central concepts of design are constraints and criteria. Since the standards will be read and hopefully used by those outside of technology, it is important that these be carefully defined and illustrated as different from one another. This section (particularly standards 8 & 9) could benefit from a revision that carefully tends to this important distinction. At several points, I had the sense that the two were almost being used interchangeably while, at other points, one appeared to be receiving more emphasis than the other. This is an important point of refinement.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  1. This version of the Standards is by far the best that I have reviewed in terms of developmental appropriateness, particularly at the elementary levels. The project leadership has made major progress in this area, both in terms of language and conceptual load. There were, however, a number of points where I found myself wanting some additional illustrations and examples. Part of this is because some excellent ones have already been injected, particularly at the benchmark level. These exemplars make it more apparent when they are missing at other locations. I assume that some additional work is underway to fill in what appears to be missing illustrative and explanatory material (i.e., benchmarks on pp. 93–94).

  2. Standard 10 is a very strong and important component of this entire section. It provides a central role for design while at the same time making the correct distinctions between other types of technological problem solving. The section is consistent with the research on design and problem solving, it should be readily understandable among technology educators, and it draws some helpful and important distinctions between science and technology. This Standard brings a multidimensional and rich perspective to the entire Design chapter. This is an excellent standard.

I hope these comments are useful and look forward to the perspectives of and discussion with my colleagues next week.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

TO:

Technology for All Americans Project

FROM:

Denny C.Davis, PhD, PE

Professor, Biological Systems Engineering Department

SUBJECT:

Review of Design Standards, International Technology Education Association

I have reviewed the standards developed for Design, as presented in Chapter 5 and part of Chapter 6 of the Fourth Draft of Standards for Technology Education: Content for the Study of Technology. In general, I find these standards to be ambitious and to support strong preparation of elementary and secondary students for effective contribution in a technology-based society. I have made a number of editorial suggestions in the copy (#17) of the standards that I reviewed. My more substantive comments and suggestions for revision are presented below.

Design Process

Standards 9 and 11 rely heavily on a clear definition of the engineering design process. Figure 5.1 is the definition presented for the engineering design process, but it needs some refinement.

  • Item 2 (brainstorm) should follow item 4 (identify criteria and specify constraints). Students commonly begin brainstorming too soon; they need to establish the criteria (design requirements) and constraints before unleashing their creativity,

  • Item 3 (research and generate ideas) could better be stated as “research to gain understanding.” The focus of this step is to gain understanding of the problem so that suitable criteria and constraints can be defined.

  • Idea and concept generation should follow item 4. This includes brainstorming and learning from existing technologies, possibly applied elsewhere.

  • Item 11 may better be labeled “Make or construct it.” The word “create” may mislead students.

I suggest that other graphical models be considered for the design process. The circular model and the spiral model likely will confuse students and teachers. At the elementary and secondary levels, students need to focus on understanding the primary elements of the design process and to realize that iteration (or repeating steps) improves solutions. The primary goal of design is to move toward the solution.

Note that there is not full consistency in the standards when discussing design criteria and constraints. Page 90, paragraph 1—“Criteria are decisions that help identify the parameters of the design” is not correct. Criteria are the requirements that must be satisfied to produce a functional and successful solution. These criteria, are used when judging the relative merits of design ideas being considered. Constraints limit solutions beyond what may be desired. Design solutions must satisfy both design criteria and constraints.

A simple model of the engineering design process is shown below. This graphic shows the primary order one follows through the steps, as well as paths to return and repeat steps. This model also combines some of the 12 steps listed in the draft standards; for beginners, the smaller number of steps is the better approach.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Figure 4. Elements of the Engineering Design Process

Near the bottom of page 95, the statement is made that “It is necessary to communicate the processes involved in making the design by telling others about the results.” This is not true. The processes should be described to tell others about the processes used. If processes are important (which they are), describe and evaluate the processes. If emphasis is on the quality of the product, then describe and evaluate the product. The process and product need to be considered separately for evaluation purposes. Their inter-relationships also are important, and interrelationships need to be understood at the more advanced levels.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standards for Technology Education (4thDraft)

Review of Chapter 5, “Design”

George Toye

Chapter 5 comments: Overall, this chapter infers a model of technical design and engineering that reminds me of the prototypical engineer from the 1950s and 60s. Unfortunately, that image does not convey the excitement or direct relevance to most people, young—old, and the world around them in a way that students and teachers can appreciate.

This section shows clear evidence of thoughtful consideration and is definitely a good start. However, I would like to promote the notion that technical design, while it has its roots in traditional engineering and complex technology products, is applicable and relevant to everyday consumer objects/products. This link is very important.

Design is about synthesizing a solution to meet a perceived need. I prefer a broader definition for design than just “problem-solving”. Problem solving alone assumes that the need and its associated problem have already been defined. Many times, the need is ill-defined. Innovations in design come often from clarifications and redefinitions of the need in a way that permits designers to explore an expanded solution space.

I think some of the refinements in concepts that will help improve this section fall in the category of being more contextually inclusive:

  1. The best designers and engineers today are those who have diverse technical backgrounds and work best in small multidisciplinary teams. Integration of ideas from multiple fields and domains (not just technical ones) is often the inspiration and seed for innovations. This will allow more people to consider design as something they can do and do—do.

  2. Design is not only about function; good design integrates concerns about both form and function. On the first page, paragraph 4 laboriously disassociates art design from technical design. I think the distinction is important, but this comes off as divisive. One way to make the point is to put everything in its place: there is a place for art, ergonomics, market appeal and usability in the design of a computer pointing device or a passenger transport vehicle. Design should be a broad ranging activity and viewed as an integrative process that transcends simple functional requirements.

  3. Design is about self-directed learning and information gathering. It is about coordinating tasks among team members. It is about communicating ideas—which often require drawing and art skills, as well as writing skills. Design can be a never ending activity—one can search forever for a better solution. It is about interaction and time management.

While there are some mentions of design processes being iterative, there are no examples or prescribed learning experiences that reveals how cycles of design and learning are a natural part of finding and implementing the best design solution. One way of approaching this is to allow

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

students to see how to incorporate new knowledge over time in the evolutionary iterations of design processes.

Use of illustrative vignettes are excellent. I think a separate vignette should be created for each of the grade levels. Extrapolating a single vignette for each standard, to contextualize it for the individual teacher and his/her students would be a difficult task. Showing the broad range of possibilities would reveal applicability and relevance to everyday activities outside the classroom.

Chapter 5 edits:

The overview on the first page of the chapter uses design with technology interchangeably and does not make distinction. Because of the “but” in Paragraph 2, sentence 2, one can read the last sentence in Paragraph 2 to indicate “troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation” are not parts of design.

Summary Comments:

Most of the critical issues and concepts associated with design are there. However, the elements are not well integrated and consistent—suggesting and appearing as if they are written by multiple authors. So if an instructor was to readjust the specific section for their grade levels, the text selection will likely fail to communicate an accurate image of design and engineering.

Other things to include in this chapter on design: students should learn to recognize and understand the technology in everyday objects—products. They should be able to reflect on their own projects in a way that helps them appreciation the design decisions and trade-offs that make one product better than the next. Empowering students to ask analytic questions about how and why things work is an important pre-requisite skill. Design adds components of synthesis and incremental improvement. The ability to build models (mathematical, analytical, virtual, physical), know when to build them, how to use them is also an important skill to master as a designer.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Design

Larry Leifer received the document electronically, so he embedded his comments in the original text. References to his comments appear as “[LL#]” and are highlighted in gray in the text of the respective chapters.

Chapter 5

Design

Design is seen by many as the core problem-solving process in technology. It is as fundamental to technology as inquiry is to science and reading is to language arts. To be competent in the design process, one must have the cognitive and procedural knowledge needed to create a set of plans and also be familiar with the processes by which those plans will be carried out to make a product or system.

More broadly speaking, problem solving is basic to technology. Design is one type of problem solving, but not all technological problems are design problems. There are many other sorts of problems and many different approaches to solving them. These include troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation.

The development of a technology begins as a desire to meet a human need or want. This need could be shared by millions of people, or it could be a desire belonging to only a single inventor. Once the need or want has been identified, the designers must figure out how to satisfy or solve it. Modern engineers have a number of well-developed methods available to them for finding such solutions. All these methods have several things in common. First, the designers set out to meet certain design criteria, in essence, what the invention is supposed to do. Second, the designers must work under certain constraints, such as time, money, and available resources. Finally, the procedures or steps of the design process are iterative, and they can be completed in any order. The designer can come up with a solution, test it to discover its shortcomings, and then redesign it, over and over again. This is the rule, not the exception.

Designing in technology differs significantly from designing in art. Technological designers work within constraints in order to satisfy human needs and wants, while artists use drawings, paintings, and other visual representations to display their mental images and ideas. As a result, efficiency is a major consideration in technological design, while the beauty or appearance of the product is often of lesser importance. In artistic design, by contrast, aesthetics and beauty are major factors while efficiency is not so important. For those who know how to appreciate technological designs, however, many of them can be works of art that showcase creativity just as well as a well-crafted poem or an inspired painting.

Because technological design is a practical, real-world problem-solving method, it teaches valuable skills that students can apply in everyday life, and it is an essential tool for preparing citizens to live in a technological environment. In the last three decades, many countries of the world have moved the teaching of design in technology from the periphery of the school curriculum towards its center. Knowing how problem-solving methods work gives students a better appreciation and understanding of technology. In addition, by practicing these problem-solving methods, students gain a number of other valuable skills, such as performing measurements, making estimates and doing calculations, using a variety of tools, presenting complex ideas clearly, and coming up with workable solutions to problems that at first may seem unsolvable.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standard 8: Attributes of Design

Standard 8: Students know the attributes of design in order to apply them to the design process.

Design is the first step in the making of a product or system, and without design, the product or system cannot be made. Technological design is a distinctive type of design, with a number of defining characteristics, including: it is purposeful; it is constrained; it is systematic; and it is creative. These attributes are fundamental, and they can be seen in the design and development of any products and systems, from flint knives to computer chips.

Technological design is purposeful because in devising a new technology, a designer must have a goal: some function or list of functions that the technology should perform. Without such a purpose, design is no more than doodling.

Technological design is constrained because nothing in this world is limitless, and a designer or engineer is always working with criteria and constraints. The criteria set the parameters for the design by identifying the key elements and features of what the product or system is and what it is supposed to do. Efficiency, for example, is an important criterion in most designs. Constraints are limits on a design. Some constraints are absolute—no one can build a perpetual-motion machine, for instance. But most of the constraints that a designer works with are relative things—funding, space, materials, human capabilities, time, or the environment—that must be balanced against each other and against how well the design satisfies its criteria. In order to make solutions as good as possible, the design must go through a process of optimization, with a series of adjustments being made to the design in order to improve its effectiveness within the given criteria and constraints.

Technological design is systematic because so many different possible designs and approaches exist to solving a problem, and a designer must be systematic or else face the prospect of wandering endlessly in search of a solution. Over time, the engineering profession has developed well-tested sets of rules and design principles that provide them with a systematic approach to design. However, design is not a linear, step-by-step process. The design process should instead be an iterative, or back-and-forth, process, one that allows the designer to explore different options in a pragmatic way, become independent decision makers, and learn to come up with multiple solutions to a problem.

Finally, technological design inevitably involves a certain amount—sometimes a great deal—of human creativity. No matter how tight the constraints or how definitive the design principles, there are always choices to be made and there is always room for a fresh idea or a new approach. As they are looking for the best solution, engineers and other designers will depend on their intuition, feelings, and impressions gained from prior experience to decide which directions to try.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES K–2

For many children, the K–2 classroom will provide their first structured encounter with design and technology. Working individually or brainstorming in teams, discussing their ideas, manipulating materials, and investigating how the materials can be changed, the students will begin to understand the attributes of design.

Research suggests that, in the early years, children’s imaginations are far richer when they have the opportunity to work with materials. Students should be introduced gradually to the importance of design and to visualizing an object and translating their ideas into sketches.

At this age, students need to understand that there can be several solutions to a given problem, and that some of the solutions are better for a particular situation than another. Children at this age are creative, often demonstrating an uncanny ability to generate original solutions. Students need to be encouraged to use this creativity as they formulate their own solutions.

In order to comprehend the attributes of design, students in grades K–2 should understand that

  • Everyone can design solutions to problems. At an early age, children should be given the opportunity to develop their ability to solve problems through design.

  • A sketch can describe the appearance of a product. Sketches can help put ideas into a form that can be used to communicate with others. Sketches are more efficient than words when it comes to conveying the size, shape, and function of an object.

  • Many possible solutions can be designed for a given problem. All ideas should be considered instead of just looking for one right solution to the design problem.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 3–5

Building on the foundation laid in grades K–2, students should come to have a basic understanding of how a product or system is designed, developed, made, and used. At this level, students should be encouraged to consider all the stages that a product goes through— designing, making, using, and assessing—when creating their design.

In grades 3–5, students are formally introduced to the concept of criteria and constraints. At this age, it is easy to engage students in the identification of problems and opportunities that they might pursue. The challenge is to focus their ideas so they work within reasonable constraints and achieve specified criteria. Learning to work with constraints and criteria is a challenge that students will face throughout life and is an important concept to understand at an early age. Some of the criteria could be “Will it work correctly?” “Will it be effective for what it is designed for?” and “Does the size appear to be appropriate?” The constraints, which specify the limitations on the design, can be such considerations as, “Are the proper materials available?” “How much will this item cost?” “How much space is needed to build (or use) this product or system?” and “What are the important human capabilities needed to use it?”

The processes of design provide effective ways to solve problems and meet needs or wants. Recognizing that there is not one best design is an important idea that should continually be reinforced. Positive and negative side effects are commonplace in designing. As in life, sometimes coming up with a solution to one problem may create additional problems. All designs can be improved. Students should have the freedom to design and redesign products. They should be encouraged to ask questions and be given opportunities to attempt more than one solution to the same problem. These experiences will build and enhance many life skills, such as decision making, critical thinking, and problem solving.

In order to realize the attributes of design, students in grades 3–5 should understand that

  • The design process helps people solve technological problems.

  • Criteria identify the desired elements and features of a product or system. Technological designs typically have to meet criteria to be successful. Criteria usually relate to the purpose or function of the product or system.

  • Constraints, such as size and cost, describe the limits on a design. For educational purposes, the time allocated to a specific problem, the cost of materials and tools that can be used have to be specified in advance. These specifications then become the constraints that students have to work within.

  • All designs can be improved. Designers are challenged to make their designs more functional, more efficient, easier to make, more beautiful, less costly, or a combination of these factors. This continuous improvement process is one of the key concepts in modern technological progress.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 6–8

All humans have the ability to design and solve problems—it is a fundamental human activity. Building upon the foundation laid in grades K–5, middle-level students will better understand what design is and how it relates to basic human activities in everyday life.

In the real world, there is no such thing as a perfect design. This concept should be constantly reinforced, and students should be given ample opportunities to develop different and divergent ideas. They should be taught how to analyze various ideas to determine which would best meet the design criteria within the given constraints. Typically, students view constraints as a limit to their creativity, but, in fact, the opposite is true. Consider the Apollo space program. The design of a vehicle capable of going to the moon was a project with obvious constraints, such as cost, size, the need to withstand extreme temperatures, and a requirement for life-sustaining devices for the vehicle’s human occupants. These constraints forced engineers to be creative in order to put an astronaut on the moon.

In technology, most problems are “ill defined,” that is, they have multiple solutions. This causes technological problem solving to be somewhat different than problem solving in science, mathematics, or some other fields of study where absolute, or “right,” answers are sought.

Two other concepts that are important in technological design are optimization and redundancy. Improving a design within given criteria and constraints by evaluating the various factors in the design is referred to as optimization. Redundancy refers to the practice of providing duplicate components and subsystems in a device or system in order to guard against failure. Redundant systems are found in many airplanes and spacecraft so that if one component fails, another is available as a back up.

In order to comprehend the attributes of design, students in grades 6–8 should understand that

  • Design is a planning process designed to create useful products and systems. The design process typically occurs in teams where members contribute different kinds of ideas and expertise. Sometimes the results are physical, like houses, bridges, and appliances. At other times, designs yield non-physical things, like computer software.

  • The design process is directed towards a goal or purpose and is guided by a set of constraints. Typical constraints include cost, appearance, use, safety, and market appeal.

  • There is no perfect design, one that maximizes all criteria, such as safest, most reliable, most financially feasible, and most efficient. The best design will balance the various desired qualities within constraints. To achieve this balance, designers must decide which of the constraints are most important.

  • Many different solutions can be used to solve design problems. Successful designs must meet established criteria and adhere to established design principles. For example, a set of general design rules has been established for the height and width of stairs inside of homes. A number of ergonomic principles have been set to guide the design of everything, from automobile instrument panels to tool handles and lounge furniture.

  • Optimization involves making adjustments to a design in order to improve its effectiveness within the given criteria and constraints. The overall goal of optimization is to make a design as fully functional or effective as possible. Optimization helps in determining the best possible solution to a problem.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • Redundancy is the practice of providing a system design with duplicate subsystems to provide alternatives in the case that one subsystem fails. Redundant systems, which are often viewed as costly and unnecessary, are vital in cases where human life is at stake. NASA includes many redundant systems in the design of spacecraft.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

VIGNETTE Designing a Gift of Appreciation

After learning about the basics of materials and the design process, students were presented with the task of designing an appreciation gift for all the teachers in their middle school. The students outlined the design constraints, which included: the cost for each item must be less than $1.50; the students must design and make the gifts in the technology education lab; and the gift should not be ordinary.

The class began by brainstorming possible design ideas as a group. They came up with note centers, pen holders, marker racks, computer disk bins, and other gift ideas. After selecting the computer disk bins, they discussed different materials to use. Next, each student worked individually researching different materials, sketching ideas, and developing a model. To estimate the cost of the various ideas, students used recent catalogs with material prices, called local dealers, and accessed information on the World Wide Web. They developed spreadsheets to calculate various combinations of costs depending on the idea.

Each student presented her or his model to the class. Class members evaluated the models according to the design constraints. After discussing each one, the class selected the model that would suit their design constraints.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 9–12

As high school students develop a greater comprehension of the design process, they will have the opportunity to explore the attributes of design in greater depth. One of the main attributes of design is that all designs must take into account criteria and constraints.

Criteria are decisions that help identify the parameters of the design. They include such factors as economic, political, and societal issues that could create problems and conflicting solutions. Sometimes these constraints compete with one another and accommodating one constraint often results in conflicts with others. For example, the demand for high quality frequently competes with a desire for low cost. Because of these conflicting demands, there is no such thing as a perfect design. To find the best design, students should learn to focus on many possible solutions rather than just one.

In general, efficiency is one of the criteria for nearly every technological design. Efficiency specifies how well a given product or system runs or operates and how close it is performing to its optimum operating condition. Optimization can help make a product or system as efficient as possible. Optimization processes include experimentation, trial and error, and development.

Ergonomics is another significant concept that is incorporated into many designs. Ergonomics is concerned with how a design can modify tools, machines, and the environment to better fit human needs. Economically designed chairs are easier to sit in and provide positive support to the human body through its use.

Redundant systems are another important attribute to incorporate into designs of products and systems that deal with security, defense, and safety. Redundancy provides back-ups to existing systems.

In order to recognize the attributes of design, students in grades 9–12 should understand that

  • The design process involves considering how the designs will be developed, produced, maintained, managed, used, and assessed. As a result, multiple solutions are possible.

  • Design problems are seldom presented in a clearly defined form. Design goals must be established and constraints must be identified and prioritized before designs can be developed.

  • Design decisions typically involve individual, familial, economic, social, and political issues. Often, this leads to conflicting solutions, since what may be politically popular may not make good economic or social sense. Based on these issues and depending on the impact of the design, not all possible design solutions should be developed.

  • Efficiency is a criterion used to define and measure technological improvements. Efficiency is an important consideration in the production, marketing, and operation of technological devices and systems. For example, efficient use of space is important when designing homes and offices.

  • Optimization helps to conserve resources, manage waste, and reduce the negative effects that technology has on the natural world. Optimization occurs when the greatest number of design criteria are met to the greatest possible extent. A bicycle design could be said to be optimized when it is attractive, lightweight, strong, durable, fast, and efficient.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • Ergonomics is the study of how to adapt such things as machines or workspace to human needs. Ergonomics considers the size and movement of the human body, mental attitudes and abilities, and senses, such as hearing, sight, taste, and touch. It also considers the type of surroundings that are the most pleasing and help people to become more productive.

  • Redundant systems are intentionally included in the design of many products and systems to increase security, reliability, and safety. Examples of redundant systems include back-up electrical systems and emergency lighting in buildings.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standard 9: Engineering Design

Standard 9: Students recognize that engineering design is a problem-solving method that is commonly used to solve technological problems.

Engineers who are developing a technology use a particular approach called the design process. The design process is fundamental to technology and to engineering. Also referred to as technological design, it is to technology what the scientific process is to science. It demands critical thinking, the application of technical knowledge, and an appreciation of the effects of a design on society and the environment. Engineering design has a number of steps, and these steps do not necessarily have to be performed in any fixed order. It is an iterative process, with various steps being repeated as many times as necessary. The components of an engineering design process are presented in Figure 5.1a.

Figure 5.1 Iterative process to engineering design

Linear (a)

Circular (b)1

Spiral (c)1

1.

Define a problem.

 

2.

Brainstorm.

3.

Research and generate ideas.

4.

Identify criteria and specify constraints.

5.

Explore possibilities.

6.

Select an approach.

7.

Develop a design proposal.

8.

Make a prototype or model.

9.

Test and evaluate the design using specifications.

10.

Refine the design.

11.

Make or create it.

12.

Communicate processes and results.

Figure 5.1 shows a linear model (a), a circular model (b), and a spiral model (c) for engineering design. Note that the dotted lines indicate that a person involved in the design process can move from one step to another in any order. A person might, for example, go from Test and Evaluate the Design (#9) to Research and Generate Ideas (#3) in order to gather additional information before continuing to work on the design.

1  

From Marc deVries, University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Permission being sought from the author.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES K–2

Children at this age enjoy doodling, sketching, and building simple things. In grades K–2, they will learn about and be able to apply these skills, and others, as they are introduced to the design process. Students will understand that the design process is a method of planning used to solve problems. All the products and systems they see around them had to have been designed and made, from the fork they eat their lunch with, to the toys they play with, to the clothes they wear.

The engineering design process helps give structure to creative and innovative thinking and includes a number of steps, which are appropriate for young children to learn. In a very simple form, the steps of the design process include identifying the problem, looking for ideas, developing solutions, and sharing them with others. Because students at this age are focused on their immediate environments, they should be given problems that relate to their everyday lives. Looking for ideas, or researching, can take many forms, including reading books and talking to others. Another method for generating new ideas is for students to improve things they currently use. This process can help them develop several solutions.

As they design, students should communicate their ideas to classmates, teachers, family members, and community members using sketches and verbal descriptions. Through this communication process, they will be able to reflect on their progress, as well as solicit ideas from others.

In order to comprehend engineering design, students in grades K–2 should understand that

  • The design process is a method of planning practical solutions to problems.

  • The design process includes identifying a problem, looking for ideas, developing solutions, and sharing solutions with others.

  • Expressing ideas to others through sketches and verbal means is an important part of the design process.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 3–5

Students in grades 3–5 should build upon what they have learned in K–2 about the engineering design process by adding several additional steps to the process. They should realize, for example, the purpose of the engineering design process is used to convert ideas into finished products and systems. Sometimes a design results in physical products (e.g., a bridge or a car), and at other times, a design may result in processes (e.g., a computer program).

The design process as understood by students in grades 3–5 includes defining the problem, generating ideas, selecting a solution, making it, and presenting the results. As the students at this grade level learn additional steps in the design process, it is important that they realize these steps do not have to be completed in a set order. Rather, they take the steps in whatever order will produce the best results.

Each step involves certain knowledge and skills that students must accumulate. In generating ideas about how to solve a problem, for instance, students should be encouraged to be creative and to consider thoughtfully all their ideas. In identifying criteria, students look to such things as how much will it cost, what size will it be, and what will it look like. They must also recognize constraints on the design, such as availability of materials, costs, tools, human skills, and energy, as well as safety and health considerations. Once they select a solution, students may make sketches and drawings of what it will look like. Then, using available resources, they create or make their solutions and evaluate it. The evaluation is a back-and-forth process of seeing how the solutions perform and using that information to fine-tune and improve them. Once the students have finalized their solutions, they must be able to present what they have learned to others in the class, to the teacher, and to other members of the school and community. In this communication process, students should describe not only what went well, but also some of the obstacles that they encountered in their design process.

In order to comprehend engineering design, students in grades 3–5 should understand that

  • The design process involves defining a problem, generating ideas, selecting a solution, making it, and presenting the results.

  • When designing something, it is important to be creative and consider all ideas.

  • Drawings and sketches are used to communicate design ideas and processes.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 6–8

In middle school, students will study the engineering design process in further depth and should understand that designs are humans’ creative responses to their goal of solving problems. The design process can result in an invention or innovation. Inventions are new products or systems that are created, while innovations are the alteration or modification of a current product or system. The iterative nature of the design process also should continue to be reinforced at this grade level.

Brainstorming is an important problem-solving technique that allows creative input from a number of people. The purpose of brainstorming is to generate as many ideas as possible, so everyone is encouraged to speak without fear of their ideas being judged or belittled. The more ideas an individual can draw on, the better the chances that an optimum solution can be found. After the initial brainstorming session is completed, the group should come back and determine which of the possible ideas suggested are the most appropriate. These ideas can then be researched in more depth. The designer also needs to specify constraints and identify criteria in order to establish the boundaries of the design. Throughout the process, alternative solutions should be considered.

At this point, an approach for solving the problem should be selected, and the design proposal should be developed. The design proposal is a written plan that specifies what the design will look like and what resources are needed to develop it. It can be communicated through various forms, such as a sketch, a drawing, a model, or written instructions. Models allow a designer to make a smaller version of the larger solution without having to go through all the time and expense of making the larger item. Physical, mathematical, and graphic models can be used.

After the idea has been developed, it is important to test and evaluate the design based on the specifications. This testing and evaluating process is important for refining the design in order to improve it. Next, the refined design is developed and produced. This may involve making only one item or it could involve making many items. Quality control, the planned process of ensuring that a product or system is fit for use, is an important consideration when producing a product or system. It determines how well a product or system conforms to the way it was suppose to be built by judging it according to the specifications or tolerances specified in the design.

It is necessary to communicate the processes involved in making the design by telling others about the results. Failures that occurred in the design process should be communicated so that future designs could be improved.

In order to comprehend the attributes of design, students in grades 6–8 should understand that

  • The design process can result in an invention or innovation. An invention is a new product or system, while an innovation is an improvement of an existing product or system. There are primarily two types of innovation: Design innovations involve changes in appearance, whereas utility innovations involve a change in function.

  • The design process typically involves progressing through a set of steps or stages. These include defining a problem, brainstorming, researching and generating ideas, identifying criteria and specifying constraints, exploring possibilities, selecting an approach, developing a design proposal, making a model, testing and evaluating the design using specifications, refining the design, making or creating it, and communicating processes and results.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • The steps of the design process need not be completed in any particular order. Some design problems require different procedures. Also, engineers and designers have different preferences and problem-solving styles.

  • Brainstorming is a group problem-solving process where each person in the group presents his or her ideas in an open forum. No person is allowed to criticize anyone else’s ideas regardless of how silly they may seem. After all of the ideas are recorded, the group goes back and selects the best ideas. The best ideas then are developed further for use.

  • Modeling, testing, and modifying are used to transform ideas into practical solutions. Historically, this process has centered on creating and testing physical models. With the growth of computer technology, much of today’s modeling and testing processes are being done through computer modeling and simulation. Models are especially important for the design of large items, such as cars, spacecraft, and airports, where it is cheaper to closely analyze a model before the final products and systems are made.

  • Evaluation is the process used to determine how well the designs meet the established criteria and to provide direction for refinement. Evaluation procedures range from visual inspection to actually operating and testing products and systems.

  • Quality control is a planned process to ensure whether or not a product, service, or system is fit to use. It is concerned with how well a product, service, or system conforms to the specifications and tolerances required by the design.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 9–12

An engineer is, in essence, a problem solver who uses the engineering design process to solve problems. The task of an engineer is more than simply designing a product that works. He or she must consider many other factors, such as safety, environmental concerns, ethical considerations, risk and benefits. In the design process, it is vital that people with different interests work together when coming up with solutions to a problem. Because of their different backgrounds and interests, such people bring various perspectives to the solution of a problem.

In educating students about engineering design, a teacher must stimulate the curiosity of the students so that they become interested in the design process and motivated to learn more about it. The teacher must also allow the students to have many opportunities to design so that they will have an in-depth understanding of this important process.

Students in grades 9–12 are taught one more step in the design process: making prototypes. A prototype is a working model that is conceived in the design concept. Prototypes provide a means for testing and evaluating the design by making actual observations and necessary adjustments. Computer prototypes allow design solutions to be tested out in virtual settings. Students are also introduced to the concept of design principles, which are used to evaluate existing designs, collect data, and guide the design process. Finally, students will learn that trade-offs must be considered in this process. Trade-offs provide an exchange of one quality or thing for another. One typical trade-off is when quality is reduced to make an item more affordable.

In order to comprehend engineering design, students in grades 9–12 should understand that

  • The design process is a systematic approach to problem solving that promotes innovation and yields design solutions. Engineers and other design professionals use experience, education, established design principles, and creative imagination to systematically seek design solutions.

  • The design process is iterative (not linear). The design process includes defining a problem, brainstorming, researching and generating ideas, identifying criteria and specifying constraints, exploring possibilities, selecting an approach, developing a design proposal, making a model or prototype, testing and evaluating the design using specifications, refining the design, creating or making it, and communicating processes and results. The approach depends on such factors as a designer’s problem-solving style, experience, and the type of design problem.

  • Invention and innovation are influenced by psychological characteristics, such as creativity, resourcefulness, and the ability to visualize and think abstractly. Individuals and groups of people who possess combinations of these characteristics tend to be good at generating numerous alternative solutions to problems.

  • The design process often involves collaboration among individuals with unique experiences, backgrounds, and interests. Collaboration tends to enhance creativity, expand the range of possibilities, and increase the level of expertise directed toward design problems.

  • A prototype is a working model used to test a design concept by making actual observations and necessary adjustments. Working models are vital to testing and refinement of a product or system that has complicated operations (e.g., passenger planes, computer programs, and household appliances).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • Computers are used to simulate processes and objects in order to test technological designs. Computer models can save considerable time, money, and resources. As computer technology becomes increasingly more sophisticated, the quality and usefulness of these models have increased dramatically.

  • Prototyping, scaling, and developing a functioning model help to determine the effectiveness of a design. These techniques allow a design to be tested before being built, which improves the overall design.

  • Established design principles (e.g., flexibility, balance, function, and proportion) are used to evaluate existing designs, to collect data, and to guide the design process. These principles can be applied in many types of design.

  • Engineering designs involve trade-offs between competing or conflicting criteria and constraints. Trade-offs are necessary since it is rare that all design constraints can be optimized within a single design. One typical trade-off is when quality is reduced to make an item more affordable.

  • Quality control is a planned process to ensure whether or not a product, service, or system meets established criteria. It is concerned with how well a product, service, or system conforms to specifications and tolerances required by the design. A set of rigorous international standards (ISO 9000) have been established to help companies systematically increase the quality of their products and operations.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

VIGNETTE Let’s Give for a Kid

Hampton, New York, like so many other cities across the nation, was faced with industrial closings and lay-offs that left many families without extra money for gifts during the holiday season. To address this need, the mayor’s office organized a community service project called “Let’s Give for a Kid.” This project asked the citizens of the community to donate gifts for needy children. The graphic communications class at the local high school recognized that they had the knowledge and ability to help out by creating gifts that the children of their community would enjoy.

The class began by brainstorming different ideas, such as bookmarks, pads, coloring books, and puzzles, that they could create. After discussing the pros and cons of each idea, the class decided upon printing pads with words and graphics on them and coloring books. The students then divided into teams and created prototypes of their items on the computer. They then evaluated and refined their design.

Using the offset printing skills (e.g., making negatives, stripping, plate making, and operating a press) that they had learned earlier in the semester, the class produced various pads and coloring packets. The students then used their organizational and management skills to package their finished products and then to ship them to the mayor’s office.

At the end of the project, the students discussed their experiences and made group presentations to showcase their finished products and to explain how they were produced. The teacher evaluated the students based on their technical merit throughout the production process and on their presentations and group discussion.

The exercise taught the students that they were capable of perceiving a need and designing a solution to address it. It empowered them as individuals and helped them feel a connection with the city in which they lived. Finally, the students learned to apply their printing skills and to work together to produce a usable product within a deadline.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Standard 10: Other Problem-Solving Approaches

Standard 10: Students comprehend troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation as a means to solve technological problems.

Engineering design is a major type of problem-solving process, but it is not the only one. There are many other approaches that are used in solving either formal (well-defined) or informal (ill-defined) problems.

Troubleshooting is a form of problem solving that tends to be very specific and focused. The goal of this type of problem solving is to identify the cause of a malfunctioning system. Often it is due to a single fault, like a broken wire, a burned-out fuse, or a bad switch. Good troubleshooters systematically eliminate possible faults in order to hone in on the source of the problem.

Research & Development (R&D) is much broader. After something has been invented, it can take many years for teams of people to refine and work the bugs out before it becomes a product ready for market. Unlike troubleshooting, R&D tends to address a wide range of issues at the same time. The product must work. It must be reliable, safe, and have market appeal. Sometimes, questions about its value to society or potential harm to the environment must be researched and addressed.

Invention & Innovation are among the most open-ended and creative of problem-solving situations. Unlike other forms of problem solving that deal with things that already exist, invention launches into the unknown and untried. It involves creativity and an ability to think outside of the box and imagine new possibilities. Everything that we see around us first existed in the human imagination.

Experimentation is the form of technological problem solving that comes closest to what scientists do. Similar to the scientific method, problem solvers hypothesize, select and test options, and observe and document results. The difference between these methods is that technologists and scientists have different goals. Scientific experiments are designed to gain a better understanding of the natural world. Technologists, on the other hand, use the process to understand and modify the human-made world.

It is important to remember that these different kinds of problem solving are not always easy to distinguish from one another. Sometimes they are going on at the same time as teams focus on very large problems. In addition, the problems may require the expertise of both science and technology in order to find solutions.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES K–2

In the early grades, students will learn the basic process of problem solving. Using the design process to solve problems was discussed in the previous two standards. Other approaches to problem solving can also be introduced at this level. For example, when a product or system quits working, troubleshooting can be used to isolate and correct the problem. Students should be introduced to troubleshooting by learning how to correct problems with simple systems. For example, they could determine and correct a problem with a flashlight that does not produce light. Using a systematic process, they can determine whether the bulb, batteries, or the switch was the problem.

Young students also can be inventive. Students at this level enjoy the challenge of inventing something new for a given purpose. Teachers should create a non-threatening working environment that encourages students to come up with ideas. Students may think that their ideas are unusual at first, but ultimately many of these ideas will lead them to new solutions.

In order to be able to comprehend other problem solving approaches, students in grades K–2 should understand that

  • Knowing how to ask questions and make observations helps a person in figuring out how things work.

  • All products and systems eventually stop working. Some stop working because they are old, and others because a part wears out. Products and systems need to be maintained and kept in good operating order.

  • Many products and systems can be fixed. Troubleshooting helps people find what is wrong with the product or system so that it can then be fixed.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

VIGNETTE Can You Help Mike Mulligan?

“What is red, runs on steam, and can dig as much in one day as a hundred men could dig in a week? It’s Mike Mulligan’s steam shovel, Mary Anne. Once, Mike Mulligan had to prove Mary Anne could dig a cellar in one day. When the cellar was complete, Mike Mulligan looked around and said, ‘We’ve dug so fast, and we’ve dug so well that we’ve quite forgotten to leave a way out!”

Virginia Lee Burton’s book, Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel, provided a problem-solving challenge for Mr. Elden Carter’s second grade class. After reading this story up to the point where Mike Mulligan realizes that he didn’t leave a way out of the cellar hole, Mr. Carter asks his students to identify the problem. The students recognized that Mike Mulligan and the steam shovel were stuck in the hole. Mr. Carter then engaged the class in a brainstorming session to come up with various methods that Mike Mulligan could use to get the steam shovel out of the hole.

After compiling a list of their ideas on the board, Mr. Carter divided the class into teams of three to four students. Each group was given a tub of wet sand with a hole dug in it and a miniature steam shovel in the bottom of the hole. They were also given a box of materials that included such items as spools, straws, string, wire, Popsicle sticks, yarn, paper clips, clay, glue, tape, and rubber bands. He challenged them to use the problem-solving skills that they had been learning in class to find a method to get the steam shovel out of the hole without touching it.

The students then went to work as a group designing various methods that would allow them to solve the problem. For most of the groups, their first solutions didn’t work. After evaluating why it didn’t work, some groups decided to redesign their solution while others came up with new solutions. Mr. Carter offered the students resource books that had suggestions for various solutions in it.

Once the students had come up with a solution and built a model of it, they sketched a picture of it and labeled the simple machines that were involved in the method. Each group then wrote a new ending to the story based on the machine that their group developed.

The entire class gathered for the group presentations. The groups demonstrated the method and the machine they had created and read their story to the class. After the presentations were finished, Mr. Carter read the end of the story to the class.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 3–5

In grades 3–5, students should build upon their problem-solving abilities that were developed in earlier grades. They should be challenged to confront more complex systems that do not work. For example, if the brakes on a bicycle do not work, they should be able to diagnose the problem, obtain new parts if necessary, and correct the situation.

Invention and innovation can be exciting for students at this level. For example, students could be challenged to invent a toy for preschool children. To learn about innovation, students could be challenged to modify an existing toy in order to improve it.

During the fourth and fifth grades, students will be introduced to experimentation in their science lessons. Experimentation is also an important part of technology. One example of using experimentation in technology is in the search for solutions to a technological problem. For example, the problem is identified, a hypothesis is generated, tests are conducted, and data is gathered. These data often reveal the nature of the problem and can help in knowing the proper course of action to take in order to solve the problem.

In order to be able to comprehend other problem solving approaches, students in grades 3–5 should understand that

  • Troubleshooting is a systematic way to solve problems.

  • Invention and innovation are creative ways to solve problems.

  • The process of experimentation, which is common in science, can also be used to solve technological problems.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

VIGNETTE Navigational Technology

Using historical examples of how individuals used problem-solving skills to solve technological problems can provide opportunities for students to learn a variety of concepts of principles from several fields of study. During a unit on exploration, Ms. Su Ho assigned her class to read Pedro’s Journal, a novel by Pam Conrad. This book provided the backdrop to investigate different examples of navigational technology.

Students discovered how, with relative ease, sailors could determine their longitude by measuring the angle of elevation of the North Star (Polaris). Ms. Ho then introduced the concepts of angles and a global-grid coordinate system. In the classroom, students used protractors and measuring angles to construct working astrolabs. Using multimedia software, the apparent motion of the stars was simulated. It became clear to the students that the only star in the Northern Hemisphere that could be relied upon to remain in a constant position relative to the observer was Polaris.

An accurate star chart of the circumpolar constellations was posted on the ceiling of the classroom. Students then navigated their way around the room, determining the “latitude” of their desk or whether the pencil sharpener was at more northern or more southern latitude than the teacher’s desk. In a discussion, the class came to the conclusion that the astrolabs were only able to specify the latitude and that several points around the room seemed to share the same latitude. It was clear that the early mariners needed to develop additional technology to position them precisely while at sea.

The students then were assigned teams to develop navigational equipment that could have solved this problem and allowed the mariners to precisely position themselves on the open seas. The groups brainstormed different ideas and conducted research in the library and on the Internet, and each then selected its best idea to further. With the help of their teacher, each made a model of its equipment and tested it to see how well it worked. The groups later presented their findings to their classmates and demonstrated their equipment.

In the novel, the students read about sailors measuring speed by putting a rope over the stern and counting the knots as the rope ran over the gunwale. The class talked about how inaccuracies in this method gave Columbus the opportunity to easily deceive his crew into believing that they were closer to home and further east than they really were.

Through studying the development of navigational technology, the class learned about various methods of problem solving, measurement, angles, grid coordinate systems, and precision versus accuracy; astronomy; speed, time, and distance calculations; researching, designing, developing, and testing; Western history; and reading comprehension.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

GRADES 6–8

At the middle school level, students will work with and look for solutions to more complicated and demanding technological problems. By the time students enter the middle level, they should be able to distinguish between different kinds of problems. For example, they should realize that designing something using a set of constraints and criteria requires a different problem-solving process than they would use in determining why a device does not work. In addition to design, students at this level should expand their knowledge about problem solving to include troubleshooting, invention and innovation, and experimentation.

Students will also begin to realize that some people are better at solving some kinds of problems than others. Inventors tend to be creative and have excellent imaginations. They have the ability to see possibilities that others seem to miss. By contrast, troubleshooting almost always requires some specific knowledge. To figure out why an automobile does not start requires specific knowledge about automobile systems. Without the right kind of knowledge, many people resort to inefficient and ineffective practices like trial and error and still fail to find the cause of the problem. Experimentation is the most formal type of problem solving, requiring students to follow an established set of procedures.

Because people are unique, with different personalities, abilities, and knowledge, they differ in their ability to solve various types of problems. Sometimes success with problem solving comes down to self-confidence and trusting one’s ability and instincts. As a result, teamwork becomes important in solving technological problems. Teamwork enables people to combine their different talents in order to solve a problem.

In order to be able to comprehend other problem solving approaches, students in grades 6–8 should understand that

  • There are different kinds of problem solving in addition to design. These types include troubleshooting, invention and innovation, and experimentation.

  • Troubleshooting is a problem-solving method used to identify the cause of a malfunction in a technological system. These kinds of problems typically require some kind of specialized knowledge. For example, knowledge about how a derailleur works is needed in order to find out why a bicycle does not shift properly. Once the cause of the problem has been identified, the next step is to repair and test it.

  • Invention is a process of turning ideas and imagination into devices and systems. As with other forms of problem solving, the goal of invention is to address human needs and wants. It is also important to recognize that sometimes inventions turn out to be used for a different purpose than what the original problem or goal that started the creative process asked for.

  • Innovation is the process of modifying an existing product or system to improve it. Much of technological refinement today occurs through the process of innovation.

  • Some technological problems are best solved through experimentation. This process closely resembles the scientific method. The difference between these methods is the goals that each pursue. The goal of science is to understand how nature works, while the goal of technology is to make and understand the human-made world. In both cases, the process is systematic involving hypothesizing, observing, testing, and documenting.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • Different kinds of problem solving require different abilities, knowledge, attitudes, and personalities. No one person will be good at solving every kind of problem. As a result, teamwork becomes important. Teamwork allows individuals to pool their strengths in order to arrive at better solutions to problems.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Grades 9–12

In addition to learning about troubleshooting, invention and innovation, and experimentation, students at this level will learn how to engage in research and development (R&D). R&D is a complex and often time-consuming, goal-oriented process where designs, inventions, and innovations are refined to address a range of objectives and concerns. These concerns can be functional (e.g., making it work better), economic (e.g., giving it market appeal), and ethical (e.g., making it safer). Whenever products and systems are being prepared for the marketplace, they almost always go through an extensive period of R&D involving teams of people with wide-ranging expertise.

At this level, students will develop a more in-depth understanding of the similarities and differences between technological problem solving and scientific inquiry. These two methods share many similar procedures, such as testing, observing, analyzing data, and documenting. The primary difference is the goals of each method. In science, one attempts to understand the natural world, whereas in technology, the goal is to make tools, objects, and systems to address human wants and needs.

Students should also realize knowledge from many fields of study is required to solve technological problems. It is not enough to just know about technology in order to solve a technological problem. For example, it is impossible to imagine the various types of knowledge that will not be needed to build and put people in the international space station. Psychologists and physiologists, for instance, will help design the proper ergonomics of the space station. Dieticians will specify diets, medical doctors will focus on health issues, and economists will focus on costs. Frequently, solutions to difficult problems are found when someone with a very different kind of knowledge or perspective injects their thinking into the situation.

Students should also know that the different kinds of problem solving are applied in different situations, often at the same time. For example, sometimes troubleshooting is needed to get a prototype, which is typically thought to be a part of the design process, to work. Research and development is used to refine designs, a process that can trigger new and innovative ideas. Indeed, one of the most exciting aspects of living in a technological age is that there are so many different kinds of challenging and interesting problems to be solved.

In order to be able to comprehend other problem solving strategies, students in grades 9–12 should understand that

  • Research and development (R&D) is a specific problem-solving approach that is used intensively in business and industry to prepare devices and systems for the marketplace. R&D is involved in conducting in-depth research on specific topics of interest to the government or business and industry in order to provide more information on the subject, and in many cases, to provide the knowledge to create an invention and innovation. Product development of this type frequently requires sustained effort from teams of people with diverse backgrounds.

  • All problems are not technological, and not every problem can be addressed or solved using technology. Technology cannot always be used to provide successful solutions to all problems or fulfill every human need or want. For example, recycling is a change in behavior that reduces pollution and conserves resources. This represents a behavioral solution to a

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

technological problem. Another example is in the area of health care. Healthy living practices, such as good nutrition and regular exercise, can often prevent and solve problems that surgery and medications cannot.

  • Knowledge from many subjects is needed to solve technological problems. Engineers and technologists use a wide range of scientific and mathematical knowledge to solve technological problems. Depending on the nature of a problem, a much wider range of knowledge may be required. For example, the research and development of a new video game could benefit from knowledge of physiology (e.g., reaction times and hand-eye coordination) and psychology (e.g., attention span and memory).

  • Scientific inquiry is a set of interrelated processes used to acquire knowledge about the natural world, whereas technological problem solving focuses on the human-made world. Scientific inquiry includes asking questions, making observations, researching information sources, planning investigations, gathering and analyzing data, proposing answers and predictions, and communicating results. When engineers and technologists engage in similar patterns of behavior, the process is typically referred to as experimentation.

  • Problems must be identified and clarified before they can be addressed and solved. Initial clarification is needed to classify the type of problem-solving process needed (e.g., design, invention and innovation, troubleshooting, R&D, or experimentation), as well as the kinds of knowledge that will need to be used to arrive at a successful and appropriate solution.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Comments on fourth draft of ITEA Standards Chapter 6

by

James Rutherford

August 23, 1999

(Note: The following is based on a review of Chapter 6 after examining the Preface and Chapters 1, 2, & 3.)

  1. The general organization of the chapter is easy to follow.

  2. The narrative that begins Chapter 6 needs considerable work—not surprising, since this is really the first draft of this material. It is somewhat disjointed, uses imprecise language, contains some questionable claims, and repeats some of the prose in earlier chapters. More seriously, it fails to make a cogent the case for skills. In fact the strongest statement in the narrative has to do with understanding (see last sentence of paragraph 2). The following paragraph does deal with skills, but is a hodgepodge—a definition, an ambiguous list of skills, and a claim about teaching and application—that at best asserts the importance of acquiring technological skills, but does not make a credible case.

  3. The narratives that begin each of the three standards in this chapter (pp.111, 121, & 129) are similarly flawed. These should rewritten to improve the prose and link more closely to the chapter introduction narrative, adding more detail and telling a single story.

  4. The narratives heading each of the grade-span entries (K–2, 3–5, etc.) are generally more satisfactory than those referred to above. The four making up a standard do, however, sound much alike in many cases. That is to say, it is difficult to see the progression. Also, they seem to imply, at least at the 9–12 level, that the activities suggested will occur in a technology education class as such (see p. 118). Whether or not such courses ever become a part of the core curriculum for all students, it is important to highlight the responsibility of other subjects (science, math, social studies, and history) to contribute to technological literacy. All the technological eggs should not be placed in one basket.

  5. The benchmarks for each of the three standards have several weaknesses. Some are vague or lacking in specificity—“Identify patterns based on collected evidence.” Many are unreasonable—“Evaluate trends and monitor potential consequences of technological development.” Many sound more like student activities than like skills students should have acquired—“Forecast the life expectancy of selected products and systems.”

  6. The topic of tools and their use receives less attention that it should, I believe, even in Standard 12.

  7. The vignettes seem to me to be of little help. It is hard to see just what solid learning they are leading toward. Moreover, they are too obviously politically correct (is it really necessary to have teacher names?) and they mostly seem too ingratiating—not like real kids and real

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

teachers. And they often end up with claims about the marvelous and lasting effects on the students that would be hard to validate, and so the claims are hard to take seriously. (In all fairness, I must point out that I have a long-standing and seemingly permanent aversion toward vignettes in education reports, even though I know that they are hugely popular. I guess what bothers me most is that instead of being labeled as fiction, they are given the appearance of true stories.)

  1. Terms are used throughout that are not made clear. Among them are troubleshooting, symbols, problem solving, and critical thinking.

  2. There is frequent reference, mostly in Standard 11, to the “best” solution, even though it is pointed out that there are only alternate designs, not best ones. And that is an enormously important attribute of engineering design that should be widely understood. (Optimal solutions are not dealt with.) In competing designs, one may be superior in terms of durability, another aesthetically, another in terms of cost or political acceptability, and so forth. And anyway, good enough is good enough, all things considered, perfection not being the aim.

  3. The literary character of this chapter can be fixed. It means working for clarity, eliminating or defending what are now questionable claims, and the like. But fixing the conceptual one is harder, for it involves a basic educational issue. This chapter is advocating that all students acquire sophisticated design skills, including some that are difficult even for professionals. If that is intended, a persuasive argument has not been given in this chapter or in Chapters 1 & 2. But I suspect it is the result of an ends-means confusion. Having students carry out hands-on design activities is probably helpful, maybe even essential, for them to acquire an understanding of the design process, but it is understanding, for the most part, that they most need in life, not the ability to create, evaluate, test, and manage technological designs. Technological literacy is not about being able to do what engineers or architects do, any more than art literacy is being able to compose music or choreograph a ballet.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Review: Standards for Technology Education (Chapter 6 particularly)

A.Frank Mayadas, Sloan Foundation

August 23, 1999

This draft is the work product of the International Technology Education Association, a group I am unfamiliar with. It is quite clear that this group has a strong advocacy posture and believes that distinct identifiable courses in “Technology Education” should be added to the pre-college curriculum. They do not however really make the case in this draft, preferring instead to refer to a “chorus of voices” and a “consensus view of educators, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, parents…” about technology education classes. Frankly, I am not persuaded by this kind of shrewdness. While technology education in a broad sense is desirable, it is not at all clear that the approach advocated here is the right one. Other approaches might be to include the development of technology as an integral part of history courses (a new history textbook with this kind of emphasis is due to be published shortly); discussion of technology and products could also become an integral part of science courses. I have no idea whether these or other alternatives were rationally evaluated. Since insufficient analysis and references are presented, I cannot say that I support (or oppose) the particular being advocated here. I also do not know the position of the academies or the NRC in this matter. My remarks below then should be read in the context of whether the proposed standards properly support the advocated approach (technology education classes).

I think this document is quite good, if one accepts the need for technology courses. Much of it incorporates thoughtful ideas, generally well-written, with interesting and useful suggestions for how to incorporate into the classroom.

I am puzzled how totally incorrect some statements are. For example, on page 4 the draft assents that magnetic tape is only found on a few old dinosaur computers. In fact, virtually all enterprises of any scale use magnetic tape to back-up their mainframes (Fortune 1000 certainly) and these enterprises plus many, many others use magnetic tape to back-up their Internet servers. Why put such obviously incorrect information?

The other concern I have is in the somewhat narrowness of the approach taken..

Finally, I think the approach taken is somewhat narrow in that it simply omits large elements of the technology landscape. In chapter 6, the part that I read with the most care, I was unable to find a single reference to manufacturing, or to design for manufacturability or to the necessity of viewing product development in the light of market requirements (how do we know a product is needed) or of any mention of business analysis (how do we know that enough people want this product to make the necessary investment in technology). Leaving out any mention of economics encourages the student to think of technology in terms of government projects where cost is of no concern (e.g. the development of radar in WWII or the 1060’s and 70’s , man-on-the-moon project), and not in terms of everyday technologies which must have market forecasts and efficient production (e.g. automobiles, microwaves ovens, television sets etc.) Some mention of technology in services would also be good i.e. the cable TV network and how it works.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

To Summarize:

The Association does not make a case for the necessity of separate technology education classes. Inaccuracies need to be cleaned up.

The standards are quite well written but take a narrow view of technology. Lack of any mention of manufacturing and technology for efficient manufacturing in particularly conspicuous.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Preliminary Review of the Technology Content Standards (4thDraft)

Mark Sanders, Technology Education Program, Virginia Tech

(with apologies for the third page…) 8/20/99

The Big Picture: It warms my heart to see the TCS taking shape; this document, when completed, will undoubtedly take us a giant leap forward with technology education.

Content Articulation: I think careful articulation of content from K-12 is critical to the success of the TCS. In Chapter 6 and in many cases throughout, I saw the same benchmarks repeated at two or more levels without differentiating the content for that benchmark at the various levels. For example, if students actually “get” the idea in grades K–2 that you should “identify problems” as a first step in the design process (p 112), it may not be necessary to repeat that benchmark in each of the next 3 levels (as is currently the case).

Along similar lines, I think additional detail is necessary in many of the benchmarks to: 1) ensure developmentally appropriate content; 2) avoid content redundancy and omissions; and 3) assure purposeful articulation of content from K–12. For example, the 5th benchmark on page 119 reads “Assess previously ignored solutions, perhaps with modifications, as possible choices.” What tools and procedures are developmentally appropriate for students at this level to assess their solutions/ideas? The 4th benchmark on page 122 reads “Use tools correctly and safely…” Which tools are developmentally appropriate at this level?

By comparison, the NCTM Standards and the NSES provide considerably more detail throughout. See, for example, the five “abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry” (NSES page 122). The third “benchmark” in that list—“Employ simple setup/tools to gather data”—includes this explanation:

“In the early years students develop simple skills such as how to observe, measure, cut, connect, switch, turn on and off, pour, hold, tie, and hook. Beginning with simple instruments, students can use rules to measure length, height, and depth; thermometers to measure temperature; watches to measure time; beam balances and spring scales to measure weight and force; magnifiers to observe objects and organisms; and microscopes to observe the finer details of plants, animals, rocks, and other materials. Children also develop skills in the use of computers and calculators for conducting investigations.”

I think this sort of specificity of content is both helpful and necessary in the TCS to guide future curriculum development.

Language: Most of the TCS benchmarks use language such as “…students in grades x–x should understand that…” I think this language encourages lecture, rather than a hands-on problem solving approach. Much of what students need to know about technology should be learned by doing. Even cognitive processes such as ideation, assessment, and reflection are best learned by engagement in those processes. Thus, I suggest language throughout that encourages the doing of technology, e.g. “students will…” rather than…“students should understand that…” As a case in point, I would prefer the 2nd benchmark on page 176 read: “Students will encode information using symbols, graphics and bits” etc., rather than “students should understand that information can be encoded using symbols, graphics, and bits.” The former encourages good pedagogy, while the latter all too often results in lecture (resulting in memorization rather than “understanding”).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Research: While I am well aware of the scarcity of research conducted on the phenomenon of technology education, there is a considerable body of research on cognition and learning that supports the good pedagogy of technology education. Historically, technology educators have intuitively and routinely used methods that are now lauded as “constructivist” in nature. It would be nice to see a section in which contemporary research on cognition is correlated with the pedagogy of technological problem-solving—in a sense, validating the good pedagogy generally practiced in the profession. Along similar lines, I found myself wondering throughout how the standards, benchmarks, themes, abilities, the “taxonomy for Chapter 7, etc. were “derived.”

Introduction: I think the TCS should reference TFAA:ARSST in the Introduction. Chapter 2 indicates that the TCS “structure and content” was presented in TFAA:ARSST, and TCS is an “extension and elaboration” of that “foundation.” The latter is certainly so, but the TCS now seems to draw more of its “structure and content” from the BFSL (which derives from SFAA). For example, the six sections of the “Designed World” (BFSL, page 181–208) were: agriculture, materials and manufacturing, energy sources and use, communication, information processing, health technology.

There aren’t enough standards/benchmarks that encourage the integration of technology education with other school subjects. There is monstrous potential along these lines, and the narrative (somewhere) addresses this…but this notion doesn’t seem to be prevalent in the standards/benchmarks. The TCS could play a very significant role in encouraging collaboration between science and technology teachers, for example.

A number of the explanations of the standard statements seem unnecessarily brief. I had to look very carefully sometimes to find what I thought were the key points being made in these explanations. Perhaps key points should be highlighted in some fashion in the final layout.

Chapter 5, Standard 8: “Attributes of Design”: A number of the benchmarks in this section did not seem to address the 4 attributes of design (“technological design is purposeful, constrained, systematic, and creative”) stated in the opening narrative. I think this is an issue with other standards/benchmarks as well.

Chapter 6 (the one on which I was to focus) Standard 11: “Apply Design Processes”: Why is Standard 11 (Apply Design Processes) in a separate Chapter from Standards 8 (Attributes of Design) and 9 (Engineering Design)? Is it the intent of Standard 8 and 9 to study about design without doing design, thereby saving the actual process of designing for Standard 11? If so, I take issue with this approach; I think it’s a mistake to talk about design without doing design. I would favor combining these two standards and bringing them together into the same chapter.

I think it would be helpful to differentiate among various stages/methods of ideation in Standard 11, such as “preliminary sketches,” “working drawings,” storyboards, models, thumbnail, rough, schematic, computer, 3D Model as “sketch”—used the way sculptors use small models—etc.).

The somewhat ambiguous language in Standard 11’s benchmarks is illustrative of a general concern I have with the language in other standards/benchmarks. For example, I would prefer the 4th benchmark on page 115 read “Consider criteria and constraints when designing solutions.” In the 5th benchmark on this page (“Use common tools safely while separating, forming, and combining materials to make a design”), if the product being designed is a video, students wouldn’t be “separating, forming, and combining materials to make a design” (and here again, I’d prefer

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

“design a solution” to “make a design”). Should the 6th benchmark really be “Test the design” (and if so, how should students go about doing that)? Or rather, should it be “Test the solution” (and if so, what tools, processes, procedures should students use at this level to do so)? I couldn’t be sure which you intended. I suggest a careful editing of all standards and benchmark statements throughout for absolute clarity.

Almost all references to tools and the design process (and most of the vignettes) throughout presume the design of “hardware” products. Technologists design products that are not always “nuts and bolts” in nature (e.g. communication technologists design and “build” animations, video productions, logos, etc.). Thus the tools used are different than those most often implied in the standards/benchmarks. Even CAD may be slighted in this regard.

Chapter 6, Standard 12: “Use and Maintain Products and Systems.” Neither the standard nor the introduction mention “tools,” but “tools” appear in the benchmarks…which leads me to think the standard should read “Use and maintain tools, products, and systems? Isn’t there overlap here with Chapter 7 standards, which read “select, use, and understand” technologies? Or, is it really the intent of Standard 12 to ignore tools entirely and focus only on the products and systems created? Either way, I think the standard or the benchmarks need to be edited to clarify this.

The forth benchmark on page 123 reads “Select and safely use tools, products, and systems for specific tasks.” As noted earlier, I’d prefer more detail here and wherever necessary throughout all benchmarks to clarify which tools, etc. are appropriate for the various levels indicated.

Chapter 6, Standard 13: “Assess the Impacts of Products and Systems.” The key assessment processes identified in the initial explanation of this standard are “gather, analyze, synthesize, and conclude.” The benchmarks in this section seem to be action oriented (unlike those in Chapter 7, they begin with verbs) and seem to follow pretty well the key processes of assessment introduced in the initial narrative. The benchmarks for the 6–8 and 9–12 levels seem to provide more/sufficient detail than many elsewhere.

Chapter 7: “The Designed World”: I would like to see the introduction include an explanation of why this “taxonomy” was selected for TCS (home, medical, agriculture, energy/power, information/communication, transportation, manufacturing, and construction). For example, why not biotechnology instead of agriculture? Why not military technology? And so forth.

That said, I think the “clustering” of “technology” under the eight different “organizers” is a practical way of addressing the problem of the vastness of “technology.” The implication of this chapter is that students would study three more content clusters than has conventionally been the case in Technology Education (agriculture, medical, and the home technologies are new to the mix). Dennis Cheek counted 294 benchmarks in this chapter…about 74/year. That does seem ambitious. But of even greater concern to me is that almost all of the Chapter 7 benchmarks across all 8 “clusters” seemed to encourage a lecture/discussion approach to instruction. This seems particularly inappropriate for these eight standards (294 benchmarks), and it worries me greatly. While many of the benchmarks elsewhere in the TCS begin with action verbs, these do not. I think Chapter 7 standards/enchmarks should be written so as to encourage students to be engaged in the processes (both manipulative and cognitive) of technology. Any study of “the designed world” that focuses primarily on lecture/discussion methodology is off the mark.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Reviewer Comments

Standards for Technology Education

D.Bruce Montgomery

August 20, 1999

[Reviewer disclaimer: My background is as a technologist with an interest, but no expertise, in K-12 education. I am a founder and board member of a for-profit company that sells hands-on equipment for teaching science at middle and high school level. My comments are based on a reading of the narrative for the standards in each chapter, all the vignettes, and the text of chapters 1, 2 and 7.]

General Comments

It is difficult and probably not very useful to offer top-level advice on a document already read by 4000 people. By the very nature of the wide circulation, however, I will assume that it represents a consensus view of age-appropriate technology standards.

My main critical comment would be that the standards as written, will not be as useful as they could be in promoting the next steps in the process—the development of curricula and its introduction into the school systems. While there is apparently wide support of the desirability of including technology content in schools, there are many impediments to its introduction. I believe that these impediments will be all the more difficult if “Technology Education” is treated as a discipline, and furthermore, somewhat arrogantly proclaimed as the great integrator. I believe that the long term interests of technology education would be best served if it was introduced as sub-units within existing traditional subjects. I would therefore tailor fit the technology standards to match the standards already developed in those subject. Quite literally, by quoting an appropriate existing math or science standard, and adding, technology narrative to show how it could be met.

In my experience, to get something new introduced into the schools you need to first attract and cultivate an activist set of teachers and team leaders, and given their limited time, make their life as easy as possible. These vanguard teachers are likely to be currently teaching the traditional disciplines (math, science, biology, physics, chemistry, etc.) If the technology standards document could show how technology can meet their existing standards (and if curriculum sub-units were available) these teachers would adopt them. The process would then spread from the inside, growing toward an appropriate future time to introduce technology education as a stand alone discipline.

One technique which might be helpful to carrying out this standards integration process would be to wear the other shoe and ask, if I were teaching biology, or physics what material from the technology education portfolio would I find particularly useful.

The matching of technology standards with other subject standards could be done in an appendix to the current document. I believe, however, that Chapter 7 itself could provide such an opportunity.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Chapter 7 Comments

I would re-format chapter 7 to reflect the concept of sub-units for introduction into traditional subjects. I would increase the number of vignettes, which I found to be a useful and thought provoking technique and I would bring forward into the chapter additional examples of the articulated curriculum vignette in the appendix.

I would put a major effort into developing specific ties to existing standards in the traditional disciplines for which the sub-units are being proposed.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

For my review, I did read and critique the entire Standards Document but limited most of my comments to Chapter 7, The Designed World.

John Ritz

Chapter 7, The Designed World

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to review and comment on the Fourth Draft of Standards for Technology Education: Content for the Study of Technology. I had the opportunity to read and comment on the previous three editions.

In the Fourth Edition, I particularly liked the improved layout and presentation of the 21 Standards. This edition allows for a “quick read” and ease of assessing and comprehending the material. The 21 Standards, with their accompanying Benchmarks, provide an excellent scope and sequence of what our nation’s children and adolescents should know and be able to do related to the discipline of technology.

Although I have made comments throughout the document for the writing team to consider, I will respond to your request regarding the Standards for the chapter on The Designed World. In my opinion Standards 14–21 provide an acceptable structure for studying the major systems of technology. However, within these standards are found the common phrase of “select, use, and understand”. Since many educators have been schooled in behavioral psychology, I would suggest replacing the verb “understand” with another term. “Understand” is an illusive term to evaluate or assess. Since education is currently in an assessment driven mode, I would suggest that a more measurable term, from a higher domain of learning, be used such as “evaluate, comprehend, or assess”. This then would be more acceptable by the educational community.

Also within The Designed World standards, I would question using the standard focusing on the home. Although acceptable from a social studies, early childhood perspective, the present description of the narrative supporting this standard is not convincing. The supporting narrative describes the technological system of construction. The writing team bases their support of this standard with examples which almost totally fall within the context of construction technology. Other examples fall within the confines of manufacturing technology. Therefore, I would support eliminating the home technologies standard and move its content to the standards focusing on construction and manufacturing technologies.

Two significant areas of technology that receive little attention throughout Standards 14–21 were recreational technologies and military technologies. After reading the document and current literature, I feel that a standard on recreational technologies could be developed. Also, I feel that military technologies need to be brought into the document in standards focusing on transportation, energy and power, health, medical, and safety, and informational and communication technologies.

In Standard 15, health, medical, and safety technologies, much writing is focused on health and safety, and little is conveyed on medical technologies. Also there is scant information on genetic engineering. This could be added under this standard and again with the standard on agricultural technologies. In addition, emergency medical technologies are very important to today’s society.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Many were developed as a result of war, and these technologies are saving many lives whether they are found in ambulances, helicopters, or airplanes.

In the standard on agricultural technologies, little reference is made of forestry and fisheries. The oceans are our new gardens. Not much information is conveyed on fish, shell fish, or timber. Also, agricultural engineering has led to hybrids. Should Benchmarks be written on these knowledge and processes? Also needed is a discussion of the “processes used to transform fiber and food into consumer products”.

Under Standard 17, energy and power technologies, there is a need to present the various processes used to transform energy resources into usable states, i.e., gas/coal/nuclear to steam and hydro- and solar to electricity.

Within Standard 18, information and communication technologies, a need exists to bring out the importance of the senses in communicating for the elementary level. This is how we communicate. At the high school level, students need to know that through communication technologies, distances between people and societies are reduced.

Under Standard 19, transportation technologies, there is a need to bring to light that transportation is essential in moving products from producers to consumers, grades 3–5.

In manufacturing technologies, Standard 20, some clarification needs to be made about producing standard stocks. They are not manufactured, which involves assembling, but processed, i.e., fiber, food, chemicals, lumber, etc.

In Standard 21, construction technologies, the K–2 child should know that the environments created by buildings are controlled by technologies for our well-being, i.e., heating and cooling. Also 6–8 graders should understand the importance of a building’s foundation. High school learners should also learn about design and architectural styles.

Other content that I feel needs to be integrated into Standards 14–21 includes information on career interests or potentials. I only found information on this topic under construction technologies. Other areas that need some emphasis include technology assessment, futures projecting, and the development of a technological literate citizenry, i.e., quality attitudes, quality products or technologies, and effective citizenry.

Overall, I approve of the document including its Standards and Benchmarks. I suggest that the review committee endorse it with editorial changes such as the ones cited above.

John M.Ritz

Professor and Chair, Old Dominion University and President, Council on Technology Teacher Education

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Chapter 7: The Designed World

Scott Warner, Lawrenceburg High School

August 23, 1999

  • Standard 14 and standard 21 should not be separated out from each other. Any possible differences, and I would frankly be hard pressed to identify any, are so subtle that dividing these two standards from each other is bound to cause confusion.

  • The standard statements for #15, #16, and #14/#21 combined are, for the most part, well written and convey the overall concepts for those standards.

  • The standard statements for the others, #’s 17, 18, 19, and 20 are very shallow in depth and almost painful to read. The standards on Manufacturing and Communication really need to be developed further. These two areas are very important in the historical links of technology education to industrial arts. If they are not properly developed it may become even more difficult for this document to “lead the way” for many technology education teachers.

  • Overall, I think the organization of the chapter is much better with this draft.

  • There should be some mention of bio-related technologies in standard 15 as well as in standard 16.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Jane Wheeler

Principal

Monte Vista Elementary School

Here are my comments on Chapter 7, The Designed World:

Chapter 7 was added after the discussion at the May NRC meeting. I reviewed this chapter primarily looking at K–2 and 3–5 since that is the age groups I work with and curricular areas I know best. I also shared parts of the document with the 30 teachers I worked with this past week. They were developing thematic/interdisciplinary units for their various grade levels. These units are developed around themes that have over arching concepts such as systems, cycles, change, interdependence. We looked quickly at Standard 1, Scope, Standard 2, Themes, and Standard 11 .Apply the Design Process. So these comments have input from some teachers who have used the design process for several years as an instructional strategy.

  1. Standard 1 &2

    The teachers felt these definitions were helpful in providing rationale and explanation for concepts students could be learning in science and social studies (where most technology education is incorporated. The themes standard cited areas/issues they felt should be included in their instruction.

  2. Standard 11

    We have been using the design process as part of all projects we do in all grades. In K–2 the benchmarks for the design process should also include a benchmark on the evaluation of the constructed design. 3–5 teachers felt the benchmarks identified all the steps they regularly use.

  3. Chapter 7: The question I tried to answer as I reviewed these sections is what is most essential and helpful in including technology education in the curriculum.

Technologies in the Home—In both levels K–2 and 3–5 there are benchmarks that do not appear to be technology related as much as social studies. Some are written with assumptions that I don’t think we should make as each community has such unique attributes. I have sent my suggestions for changing the benchmarks to the writing team. But on further reflection, I think maybe the key technology ideas related to a home could be placed in other areas such as communication, energy, and construction.

  • Health, medical and safety—some of the benchmarks are too specific and could be rewritten to be more general resulting less benchmarks.

  • Agriculture—Concepts in the benchmarks are fine but some could be broadened to be more inclusive without losing the key concepts in grades K–2. Grades 3–5 is fine as is.

  • Energy and Power—Most of elementary study about power and energy in CA is in science and natural energy. These benchmarks help transfer what is learned to daily life. A couple of suggested changes in words.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
  • Information—only suggest minor edits in K–2 and 3–5

  • Transportation—suggest something be added in grades 3–5 about the relationship between transportation technologies and the environment

  • Manufacturing—ok

  • Construction—add something about the relationship between construction and the environment; there are issues in many communities about size, location, design, materials, etc. (grades 3–5) Some of the ideas from Home themes could be covered here including the

  • comparison of structures size, shape, etc.

In elementary school I don’t believe most schools/districts will be adding a new curriculum area but rather would incorporate the knowledge and processes with existing curricular areas. The document includes a great deal of information and having used it a little with teachers this week I think it would be used as a resource for planning. I’m sorry I am not able to attend the meeting as it is our staff development days with teachers. I look forward to the results from this meeting and next steps.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

Comments from Peggy Lemone

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

August 23, 1999

So that this review can be interpreted in context, I will describe my background. I am an atmospheric scientist. While primarily a researcher, I have also been actively involved in educational outreach, working of teachers of 4th through 8th graders for the last several years (and sometimes the students themselves).

I found the Standards document 4th draft to be a great improvement over the third draft—It was well-structured, so that information on standards and benchmarks could be looked up easily. I liked the vignettes, which for the most part seemed to make the main text more real. The teachers I work with say that it is important to reach students with different learning styles; I feel the vignettes fill that role for their older audience by presenting a different slant. The description of the design process, with its emphasis on nonlinearity rather than detailed description of the figure (as in the last version) was much improved.

Like some other reviewers, I worry about implementation of the standards, particularly at the secondary school level. The teachers I work with are already overwhelmed with standards coming from many directions. So implementation will require some thought—I could see integration of some of the standards into high-school science classes and (as one reviewer pointed out) art classes as well.

A second thing that the teachers I have worked with worry about is how to test to make sure the standards are being met. It would seem to me that a large part of the emphasis of technology education would be hands-on activities—not amenable to the usual standardized test. Indeed, some students might find it fun and satisfying to apply their skills to problems related to science, while others may develop techniques for sculpture. I note on p. 12 that assessment is not the goal of this document, but it will be an important milestone in implementation.

I have been impressed with types of people outside of the engineering profession who are involved in invention and innovation. For example, working in a fossil preparation laboratory, I have seen paleontologists adapt techniques developed in other fields to removing matrix from fossils so that they can be used for research. Thanks to innovations and inventions by mountaineering enthusiasts, equipment has evolved enormously over the last several decades—among the many innovations and inventions are fabrics that wick sweat away from the body, better boots, and Gamow bags (for effectively bringing sufferers of altitude sickness down to sea level). Some of course, involved engineers; most involved interested mountaineers.

Further, again drawing from experience with teachers, activities and examples seem to be most meaningful when tuned to the local area. Finally, I am happy to see that impacts of technology remains a part of the standards.

Below are comments related to specific parts of the document. There are some comments written on the manuscript as well.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

p. 38, top. Of course there are examples of feedback loops in nature as well (in climate change— cooling leads to more ice which raises albedo which leads to more cooling, etc.).

p. 86, brainstorming discussion. Allowing kids to let their minds run free but directed at a problem is wonderful.

p. 104. Two errors here. Sailors determine their LATITUDE by looking at the elevation of the north star; and the instruments are ‘astrolabes’ rather than ‘astrolabs’.

p. 106, top…to modify the human-made world?

p. 110. Right on. Kids need to ‘fiddle with’ and improve on what they deal with—good practice for dealing with more complex systems later on. At some point, people start hesitating to do this— possibly a challenge in secondary-school implementation.

p. 132. This vignette could also be a teaching opportunity to explain the reasons that oil tankers are used.

p. 135, second paragraph, should read ‘different models of climate change’ or better yet, ‘different climate models’—global warming is a RESULT of the models; they are not designed to give that result!

p. 146, second to last paragraph…seems a bit euphemistic to describe weapons as designed to ensure human safety….

p. 149…Along with vaccinations, medicines are also used to prevent illness Grades 3–5 is a good time to bring this point across, since drug awareness talks in school start around 4th grade. Juxtaposing this point with drug awareness programs would be helpful to avoid confusion of the ‘bad’ drugs discussed with the ‘good’ drugs their parents (or they) might be taking. Introducing this point in 6–8th grade (p. 152) is too late.

p. 149, bottom: for lower grades—many schools have (or could set up) weather stations.

p. 171, benchmark regarding sources of energy—does hydro power fall under ‘mechanical’? Shouldn’t it be mentioned explicitly?

p. 172. Regarding use of communications technologies. I am very surprised at the lack of emphasis on caution, particularly in use of the Web. First, safety issues—predators on the Internet have received lots of publicity; our school district actually denies kids computer privileges if they are caught using chat rooms. Second, it is hard to judge what Web sites are trustworthy and which are not. It’s much easier for a crackpot to design an attractive Web site than publish a slick book. Thus, some encyclopedias now provide references to Web sites to help students find good ones. Third, pornography. The Web today seems like a Reader’s Digest with random pornographic

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×

material thrown in. I have heard several reports that colleagues or students have accidentally ended up at pornographic Web sites just accessing sites identified in word searches.

It would also be interesting to research a topic using the Web and using print materials and comparing the type of information obtained.

p. 186. The benchmark at the bottom of the page seems to slightly miss the point. The benefits of transportation systems are that they get us or goods from one place to another safely an efficiently. All modes of transport impact the environment; some modes more than others. E.g., cars pollute the air and require an enormous system of roads; bicycles do not pollute, but they often use bikepaths (which impact the environment) or they damage trails. Also, the manufacturing process in making bicycles will pollute the environment. The ‘benefit’ is that the negative impacts of bicycles impact the environment less than cars.

Call to action. In the state of Colorado (and perhaps other states) there are ‘practical’ course required for graduation. A technology education course would be an excellent candidate, and allow students to take something of substance instead of what is currently offered.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E: Technical Reviewer Comments, Draft 4." National Research Council. 1999. Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9763.
×
Page 92
Next: Appendix F: Discussion Summary, May 21-22 Meeting of the NRC Standards Review Committee »
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards: October 28, 1999 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!