Index
A
AAAS. See American Association for the Advancement of Science
Abilities for a technological world, standards related to, 239–243
Abilities of technological design, 207–209
benchmarks for grades 5–8, 208–209
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 209
benchmarks for grades K–4, 207–208
Accommodating disabilities, 50
ACT. See American College Testing
Adaptive assessments, computer-based, 162–164
Adult Literacy and Lifeskills (ALL) Survey, 10, 185–186
Agricultural and related biotechnologies, 31, 244–245
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 244
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 244–245
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 245
benchmarks for grades K–2, 244
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 218–219
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 219
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 220
benchmarks for grades K–2, 218
ALL. See Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1, 20, 29, 66, 131
American College Testing (ACT), 106, 340
American Federation of Teachers, 24
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), 113, 284
Applied Technology Assessment, 341
Applying the design process, 239–241
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 240
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 240
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 240–241
benchmarks for grades K–2, 239–240
APU. See Assessment Performance Unit
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), 97, 103, 163, 267–268
background, 267
committee observations, 268
sample items, 268
ASEE. See American Society for Engineering Education
Assessing technological literacy, 2–7, 38–39
developing a conceptual framework, 5–6
general principles, 6, 175–176
matrix for, 5
recommendations by category and target population, 7
Assessing the impact of products and systems, 242–243
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 242
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 242
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 242–243
benchmarks for grades K–2, 242
Assessment
defined, 64
focus-group-style, 153
possible purposes for, 49
Assessment as a design challenge, 41–61
imperfect design, 59
inherent uncertainties, 60
Assessment for broad populations, 146–152
administration and logistics, 149–150
description and rationale, 146
obstacles to implementation, 150
performance levels, 149
sample assessment items, 150–152
Assessment matrix
for technological literacy, 5, 53, 118–123
Assessment methods, computer-based, 161–174
Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, 95, 107, 268–272
committee observations, 271–272
Assessment Performance Unit (APU), 269
research on technological learning, 80–86
testing and measurement, 64–72
Assessments for visitors to museums and other informal learning institutions, 153–157
administration and logistics, 155–156
content, 155
description and rationale, 153
obstacles to implementation, 156–157
performance levels, 155
sample test items, 157
ASVAB. See Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
Attentive publics, 147
Attitudes, and the assessment of technological literacy, 36
Attitudes toward technology, 36–37, 113–115
Pupils Attitudes Toward Technology, 115
survey of teachers’ attitudes toward engineering, 114
views on science, technology, and society, 115
Awareness Survey on Genetically Modified Foods, 97, 272–274
background, 272
committee observations, 274
sample items, 273
B
Being Fluent with Information Technology, 35–36
Benchmarks for science literacy, 212–228
standards related to “the designed world,” 218–228
standards related to “the nature of technology,” 212–218
Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 29, 131, 137, 142
Benefits, of assessing technological literacy, 22–24
Bias, avoiding, 50
Bloch, Erich, 19
Bookmark standards-setting, 72
Boston Museum of Science, 114
C
Capabilities, of a technologically literate person, 34
Challenges and opportunities for assessing technological literacy in the United States (workshop agenda), 251–254
Cognitive dimensions of assessment frameworks, 55
Cognitive research, 75
Cognitive science, insights about how people learn, 49–50
Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy, 2, 25
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 224
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 224
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 225
benchmarks for grades K–2, 224
Computer-based assessment methods, 161–174
computer-based adaptive assessments, 162–164
computer-based and web-based games, 168–169
electronic portfolios, 170–171
electronic questionnaires, 171–172
Computer literacy, 169
Concept inventories, 85
Conceptual ecology, 79
Conceptual framework for identifying design criteria, 51–56
assessment matrix for technological literacy, 53
cognitive dimensions of assessment frameworks, 55
Conceptual understanding, 84
Constraints, identifying, 45–48
Constructed-response formats, 70
Construction technologies, 31, 250
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 250
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 250
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 250
benchmarks for grades K–2, 250
Content knowledge, 100
Content standards, reflecting appropriate, 50
Core concepts of technology, 230–231
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 230
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 230–231
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 231
benchmarks for grades K–2, 230
Criterion-referenced interpretations, 72
Critical thinking, 112
and the decision-making dimension, 111–112
by a technologically literate person, 34
Cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology, 232–233
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 232
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 233
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 233
benchmarks for grades K–2, 232
Currency, reviewing items for, 50
D
Data from the NAEP long-term science assessment, 101
DBS. See Design-Based Science
Decision making, 112
by a technologically literate person, 34
Defining technological literacy, 29–40
assessing technological literacy, 38–39
attitudes and the assessment of technological literacy, 36
attitudes toward technology, 36–37
dimensions of technological literacy, 37–38
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 214
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 214–215
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 215
benchmarks for grades K–2, 214
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 237
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 237
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 237
benchmarks for grades K–2, 236
Design-Based Science (DBS), 95, 274–277
background, 274
committee observations, 276–277
scope, 275
avoiding bias and accommodating disabilities, 50
encouraging higher-order thinking, 50, 280, 335
gathering data useful to the purpose, 49
meeting a specific purpose, 48–49
possible purposes for assessments, 49
reflecting appropriate content standards, 50
reviewing items for currency, 50
using insights from cognitive science about how people learn, 49–50
interative, 43
and technology, 271
Design Team Assessments for Engineering Students, 95, 277–280
background, 277
committee observations, 280
Design Team Knowledge Assessment, 104
Design Technology, 95, 111, 280–284
committee observations, 283–284
agriculture and related biotechnologies, 31
construction technologies, 31
energy and power technologies, 31
information and communication technologies, 31
manufacturing technologies, 31
medical technologies, 31
taxonomy for, 31
technology through the lens of Hurricane Katrina, 32
transportation technologies, 31
Dewey, John, 33n
DIAG tools, 166
Digital “immigrants,” 169
Disabilities, accommodating, 50
E
ECD. See Evidence-centered design
Educational Testing Service (ETS), 104, 163, 179, 182, 185, 296, 320
Effective formats, 70
Electronic portfolios, 170–171
Electronic questionnaires, 171–172
Energy and power technologies, 31, 245–246
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 245
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 245–246
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 246
benchmarks for grades K–2, 245
Energy sources and use, 222–223
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 222
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 222–223
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 223
benchmarks for grades K–2, 222
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 238
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 238
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 238
benchmarks for grades K–2, 237
Engineering design process, 277–278
Engineering K–12 Center Teacher Survey, 94, 97, 284–286
background, 284
committee observations, 286
sample items, 285
Engineering Our Digital Future, 304
Engineers Week Committee, 291
Environmental effects of technology, 233–234
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 233
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 234
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 234
benchmarks for grades K–2, 233
Errors of measurement, defined, 65
ETS. See Educational Testing Service
Eurobarometer—Europeans, science, and technology, 97, 113, 286–288
background, 286
committee observations, 288
scope, 287
European Commission Candidate Countries Eurobarometer—science and technology, 97, 288–290
committee observations, 290
scope, 289
Evidence-centered design (ECD), 167
mapping to the dimensions of technological literacy, 98–112
F
Feedback, 59
Filling the assessment matrix, 115–123
Findings and recommendations, 8–15, 175–196
by category and target population, 7
definition of technology, 192–193
for K–12 students, 8–9, 95–96, 178–181
for K–12 teachers, 9, 97, 181–184
opportunities for assessment, 176–186
for out-of-school adults, 10, 97, 184–186
summary table, 194
Force Concept Inventory, 85
Framework development, 13–14, 190–191
Future City Competition—Judges Manual, 95, 111, 291–293
background, 291
committee observations, 292–293
sample items, 292
G
Gallup Poll on What Americans Think About Technology, 14, 29, 97, 105, 148, 184, 288, 293–295
background, 293
committee observations, 295
scope, 294
General Social Survey (GSS), 10, 185–186
Goldsmiths College, 171
GSS. See General Social Survey
H
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 227
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 227
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 227–228
benchmarks for grades K–2, 227
Higher-order thinking, 50, 280, 335
complex, 50
involving nuanced judgment, 50
involving self-regulation, 50
involving the imposition of meaning, 50
involving uncertainty, 50
nonalgorithmic, 50
requiring effort, 50
requiring multiple criteria, 50
yielding multiple solutions, 50
History, influence of technology on, 235–236
How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, 27
technology through the lens of, 32
I
IALS. See International Adult Literacy Surveys
IBO. See International Baccalaureate Organization
ICT. See Information and Communication Technology Literacy Assessment
Illinois Science Assessment Framework, 51
Illinois Standards Achievement Test—Science, 95, 299–301
background, 299
committee observations, 301
scope, 299
Illinois State Board of Education, 100
Impact of products and systems, assessing, 242–243
Impairments, 134
Industrial Technology Literacy Test, 95, 301–303
committee observations, 303
scope, 302
Infinity Project Pretest and Final Test, 95, 304–307
background, 304
committee observations, 307
Information and communication technologies, 31, 246–247
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 246
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 246–247
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 247
benchmarks for grades K–2, 246
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy Assessment, 95, 179, 296–298
background, 296
committee observations, 298
scope, 297
Information in a Global Society, 112
Information processing, 225–226
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 225
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 226
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 226
benchmarks for grades K–2, 225
Information Technology in a Global Society, 95, 307–310
committee observations, 310
Innovative measurement techniques, 188–190
assessment matrix for technological literacy, 118–123
attitudes toward technology, 113–115
filling the assessment matrix, 115–123
mapping existing instruments to the dimensions of technological literacy, 98–112
technology-literacy-related assessment instruments, 95–97
Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, 97, 103, 163, 267–268
Assessment of Performance in Design and Technology, 95, 107, 268–272
Awareness Survey on Genetically Modified Foods, 97, 272–274
Design-Based Science, 95, 274–277
Design Team Assessments for Engineering Students, 95, 277–280
Design Technology, 95, 111, 280–284
Engineering K–12 Center Teacher Survey, 94, 97, 284–286
Eurobarometer—Europeans, Science, and Technology, 97, 113, 286–288
European Commission Candidate Countries Eurobarometer—Science and Technology, 97, 288–290
Future City Competition—Judges Manual, 95, 111, 291–293
Gallup Poll on What Americans Think About Technology, 97, 293–295
ICT Literacy Assessment, 95, 179, 296–298
Illinois Standards Achievement Test—Science, 95, 299–301
Industrial Technology Literacy Test, 95, 301–303
Infinity Project Pretest and Final Test, 95, 304–307
Information Technology in a Global Society, 95, 307–310
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System—Science and Technology/Engineering, 95–96, 98–99, 311–313
Multiple-Choice Instrument for Monitoring Views on Science-Technology-Society Topics, 96, 313–317
New York State Intermediate Assessment in Technology, 96, 317–319
Praxis Specialty Area Test for Technology Education, 94, 97, 104, 182, 320–322
Provincial Learning Assessment in Technology Literacy, 96, 101–102, 110, 112, 322–325
Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology, 96, 103, 115, 325–327
Science and Technology—Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, 97, 327–330
Student Individualized Performance Inventory, 96, 106, 330–332
Survey of Technological Literacy of Elementary and Junior High School Students, 96, 333–335
Test of Technological Literacy, 96, 336–337
TL50—Technological Literacy Instrument, 96, 337–339
WorkKeys—Applied Technology, 96, 106, 111, 340–345
Interative processes, design as, 43
International Adult Literacy Surveys (IALS), 185
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 8, 180
International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), 111–112, 281, 307
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), 192
International Technology Education Association (ITEA), 1, 10, 14–15, 20, 22, 36, 42, 51, 54–56, 66, 131, 155, 186, 192–193, 293–295
Standards for Technological Literacy, 30, 176, 295, 320, 322, 332, 345
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 216
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 216–217
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 217–218
benchmarks for grades K–2, 215
ISTE. See International Society for Technology in Education
ITEA. See International Technology Education Association
K
Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment, 27, 38, 72
Knowledge
ability to transfer, 76
benchmarks, 131
prior, 77
students’ use of, 110
of a technologically literate person, 34
content knowledge, 100
data from the NAEP long-term science assessment, 101
process knowledge, 100
productive thinking scale, 100
Knowledge transfer, 75–77, 276
L
Learning
lifelong, 154
Level of technological literacy, 20–22
M
Maintaining technological products and systems, 241–242
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 241
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 241
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 241–242
benchmarks for grades K–2, 241
Manufacturing technologies, 31, 248–249
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 249
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 249
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 249
benchmarks for grades K–2, 248
Mapping existing instruments
critical-thinking and decision-making dimension, 111–112
dimensions of technological literacy, 98–112
Maryland State Department of Education, 134
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)—Science and Technology/Engineering, 95–96, 98–99, 311–313
background, 311
committee observations, 313
Massive, multiplayer, on-line games (MMOGs), 168
Materials and manufacturing, 220–222
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 220–221
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 221
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 221–222
benchmarks for grades K–2, 220
Mathematical literacy, 33
Matrix-sample assessment of 7th graders, 136–140
administration and logistics, 138
content specifications, 137–138
description and rationale, 136–137
obstacles to implementation, 138–139
performance levels, 138
purpose, 137
sample assessment item, 139–140
MCAS. See Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
MCREL. See Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning
Measurement, defined, 64
constructed-response formats, 70
effective, practical formats, 70
performance-assessment formats, 70
selected-response formats, 69
Medical technologies, 31, 243–244
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 243
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 243
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 244
benchmarks for grades K–2, 243
Mental models, assessing, 84
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL), 142
MMOGs. See Massive, multiplayer, on-line games
Modified Angoff standards-setting, 72
“Monkey Wrench Conspiracy,” 168
Multiple-Choice Instrument for Monitoring Views on Science-Technology-Society Topics, 96, 313–317
committee observations, 316–317
scope, 314
N
NAEP. See National Assessment of Educational Progress
NAGB. See National Assessment Governing Board
National Academies Press (NAP), 17
National Academy of Engineering, 15, 25, 192–193
National Adult Literacy Survey, 185
National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), 8, 13–14, 51, 180–181, 183, 191
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 5, 8, 20, 51–54, 71, 101, 136–138, 178–181
National Center for Education Statistics, 146n, 185
National Center for Technological Literacy, 114
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 112
National Education Association, 24
National Household Education Survey (NHES), 10, 185–186
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 13, 189
National Institutes of Health, 10, 186
National Opinion Research Center, 185
National Research Council (NRC), 15, 25, 38, 66, 131, 192–193
National-sample assessment of teachers, 140–145
administration and logistics, 143
description and rationale, 140–141
obstacles to implementation, 144
performance levels, 143
performance rubric for sample task, 141
purpose, 142
sample assessment items, 144–145
National Science Board (NSB), 105, 148, 327–328
National Science Education Standards, 30, 131, 137, 142, 207–212
abilities to distinguish between natural objects and objects made by humans, 212
standards related to “science and technology,” 207–209
understanding about science and technology, 210–211
National Science Foundation (NSF), 1, 8–14, 19, 25, 41, 180–181, 184–188, 191
“The nature of technology,” standards related to, 212–218
NCLB. See No Child Left Behind Act
New York Hall of Science, 156
New York State Intermediate Assessment in Technology, 96, 317–319
background, 317
committee observations, 319
NHES. See National Household Education Survey
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), 9, 14, 24, 45, 60, 72, 129, 133–134, 143, 179, 183
Norm-referenced interpretations, 71
North Carolina State University, 105, 273
NRC. See National Research Council
NSB. See National Science Board
NSF. See National Science Foundation
Numeracy, 33
O
Obstacles to assessing technological literacy, 24–25
Online surveys, 171
Opportunities for assessment, 7–10, 176–186
findings and recommendations for K–12 students, 8–9, 95–96, 178–181
findings and recommendations for K–12 teachers, 9, 97, 181–184
findings and recommendations for out-of-school adults, 10, 97, 184–186
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 8, 180
P
PATT-USA. See Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology
Performance-assessment formats, 70
Pilot testing, 68
PISA. See Programme for International Student Assessment
Policy-attentive citizens, 147, 151–152
Potential solutions, refining, 58–59
Practical formats, 70
Praxis Specialty Area Test for Technology Education, 94, 97, 104, 182, 320–322
background, 320
committee observations, 322
Problem solvers, unskilled, 74
Problem solving—troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation, 238–239
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 239
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 239
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 239
benchmarks for grades K–2, 238–239
Process knowledge, 100
Productive Thinking Scale (PTS), 100
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), 8, 127, 180
Provincial Learning Assessment in Technology Literacy, 96, 101–102, 110, 112, 322–325
committee observations, 325
sample items, 324
scope, 323
PTS. See Productive Thinking Scale
Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology (PATT-USA), 96, 103, 115, 325–327
background, 325
committee observations, 327
scope, 326
Purpose
gathering data useful to, 49
Purposes for assessments, 49
accountability, 49
improving curriculum and instruction, 49
informing informal-education programs, 49
informing legislation and public policy, 49
informing product design and marketing, 49
meeting graduation/matriculation requirements, 49
meeting professional licensing requirements, 49
program evaluation, 49
as a research tool, 49
screening for hiring/employment, 49
Q
Qualitative methodologies, 83
Questionnaires
open-ended, 83
very short, 171
R
Reading literacy, 32
Recommendations, 8–15, 95–97, 175–196
Relationships among technologies and the connections with other fields of study, 231–232
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 232
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 232
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 232
benchmarks for grades K–2, 231
Renaissance Learning Star Reading Test, 164
criterion-referenced interpretations, 72
norm-referenced interpretations, 71
standards-based interpretation, 72
Research
conducting relevant, 56
Research on technological learning, 80–86
concept inventories, 85
learning related to engineering, 83–86
learning related to technology, 80–83
Resource constraints, 144
Review, of instruments, 93–126
S
Sample cases, from theory to practice, 127–160
Science and Engineering Indicators, 20, 105, 113, 184
“Science and technology”
Science and Technology—Public Attitudes and Public Understanding, 97, 327–330
committee observations, 329–330
scope, 328
Science for All Americans, 35, 190
Science/technology/society (STS) topics, 314
Scientific literacy, 33
Scope of technology, 229
benchmark for grades 3–5, 229
benchmark for grades 6–8, 229
benchmark for grades 9–12, 229
benchmark for grades K–2, 229
Selected-response formats, 69
Shen, Benjamin, 147
SIPI. See Student Individualized Performance Inventory
Society, technology-dependent, 195
Society’s role in the development and use of technology, 234–235
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 234
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 235
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 235
benchmarks for grades K–2, 234
Software piracy, 83
Solutions, identifying potential, 57–58
Stakeholders, input from, 47
Stand-alone testing, 60
Standards-based interpretation, 72
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 162
Standards for technological literacy, 229–250
Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, 22, 26, 29, 36, 42, 51, 54, 65, 93, 104, 106, 131, 137, 142, 185, 193
Standards related to abilities for a technological world, 239–243
applying the design process, 239–241
assessing the impact of products and systems, 242–243
using and maintaining technological products and systems, 241–242
Standards related to design, 236–239
the attributes of design, 236–237
role of troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving, 238–239
Standards related to “science and technology,” 207–209
abilities of technological design, 207–209
Standards related to technology and society, 232–236
the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology, 232–233
the effects of technology on the environment, 233–234
influence of technology on history, 235–236
the role of society in the development and use of technology, 234–235
Standards related to the design world, 243–250
agricultural and related biotechnologies, 244–245
construction technologies, 250
energy and power technologies, 245–246
information and communication technologies, 246–247
Standards related to “the designed world,” 218–228
energy sources and use, 222–223
information processing, 225–226
materials and manufacturing, 220–222
Standards related to “the nature of technology,” 212–218, 229–232
characteristics and scope of technology, 229
core concepts of technology, 230–231
the relationships among technologies and the connections with other fields of study, 231–232
technology and science, 212–213
Statewide grade-level assessment, 129–136
administration and logistics, 133
content, 131
description and rationale, 129–130
obstacles to implementation, 133–135
purpose, 130
sample assessment items, 135–136
weighting for items assessing knowledge, capability, and critical thinking and decision making, 132
Stereotyping, 135
Strategy selection, 74
STS. See Science/technology/society topics
Student Individualized Performance Inventory (SIPI), 96, 106, 330–332
background, 330
committee observations, 332
scope, 331
Survey of Teachers’ Attitudes About Engineering, 113–114
Survey of Technological Literacy of Elementary and Junior High School Students, 96, 333–335
background, 333
committee observations, 335
Survey Research Center, 185–186
T
Technical competence, 35
Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology, 1, 4–5, 15, 20, 22, 26, 30, 33, 36–37, 42, 46, 54, 57, 93, 98, 105, 111, 128, 155, 192
Technological design process
conducting relevant research, 56
identifying constraints, 45–48
identifying design criteria, 48–56
identifying potential solutions, 57–58
input from stakeholders, 47
refining potential solutions, 58–59
characteristics of a technologically literate person, 34
distinguishing from technical competence, 35
Technological products and systems, using and maintaining, 241–242
Technologically literate people, 34
capabilities, 34
critical thinking and decision making, 34
knowledge, 34
Technology
design and, 271
standards related to the nature of, 229–232
through the lens of Hurricane Katrina, 32
Technology and science, 212–213
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 212–213
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 213
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 213
benchmarks for grades K–2, 212
Technology and society, standards related to, 232–236
Technology consumers, 147, 150–151
Technology for All Americans, 35
Technology-literacy-related assessment instruments, 95–97
National Science Education Standards, 207–212
standards for technological literacy, 229–250
Test of Technological Literacy, 96, 336–337
background, 336
committee observations, 337
scope, 336
Test-taking skills, 69
Testing, defined, 64
Testing and measurement, 64–72
avoiding bias, 68
selecting content, 67
Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy, 54
TIDEE. See Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education Consortium
TIMSS. See Trends in Mathematics and Science Study
TL50—Technological Literacy Instrument, 96, 337–339
committee observations, 339
scope, 338
Training, in administering tests, 135
Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education (TIDEE) Consortium, 103, 277
Transportation technologies, 31, 247–248
benchmarks for grades 3–5, 247–248
benchmarks for grades 6–8, 248
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 248
benchmarks for grades K–2, 247
Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 8, 71, 179–180
U
Understanding about science and technology, 210–211
benchmarks for grades 5–8, 210–211
benchmarks for grades 9–12, 211
benchmarks for grades K–4, 210
University of Michigan, 185–186
University of Southern California, 166
U.S. Census Bureau, 146n
U.S. Department of Defense, 10, 163, 186
U.S. Department of Education, 8–15, 72, 180, 183–188, 191–193
V
Validity, defined, 65
Verbal protocol analysis, 83
Views on Science, Technology, and Society (VOSTS), 114–115
Visualization, development of, 82
Vocabulary of testing and measurement, 64–65
assessment defined, 64
errors of measurement defined, 65
measurement defined, 64
testing defined, 64
validity defined, 65
VOSTS. See Views on Science, Technology, and Society
W
WorkKeys—Applied Technology, 96, 106, 111, 340–345
background, 340
committee observations, 345
scope, 341