TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

WHY ALL AMERICANS NEED TO KNOW MORE

ABOUT TECHNOLOGY

Committee on Technological Literacy

National Academy of Engineering

National Research Council

Greg Pearson and A. Thomas Young, Editors

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS

Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS • 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Grant No. ESI-9814135 between the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Science Foundation. Additional support for the project was provided by Battelle
Memorial Institute. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or
agencies that provided support for the project.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Technically speaking : why all Americans need to know more about

technology / Greg Pearson and A. Thomas Young, editors.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-309-08262-5
1. Technology—Study and teaching—United States. I. Pearson, Greg.
II. Young, A. Thomas. III. National Research Council (U.S.)
T73 .T37 2002
607.1’073—dc21
2001008623

Copies of this report are available from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington
metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society

of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to
the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and
technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of
Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of
the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers.
It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with
the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal govern-
ment. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes
the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of

Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the
examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congres-
sional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is
president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences
in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s
purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning
in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has
become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the
public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and
Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National
Research Council.
 Committee on Technological Literacy

A. THOMAS YOUNG, Chair, Lockheed Martin Corporation

(retired), North Potomac, Maryland
PAUL ALLAN, Pacific Science Center, Seattle, Washington
WILLIAM ANDERS, General Dynamics Co. (retired), Deer Harbor,
Washington
TAFT H. BROOME, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C.
JONATHAN R. COLE, Columbia University, New York, New York
RODNEY L. CUSTER, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois
GOÉRY DELACÔTE, The Exploratorium, San Francisco, California
DENICE DENTON, University of Washington, Seattle
PAUL DE VORE, PWD Associates, Morgantown, West Virginia
KAREN FALKENBERG, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
SHELAGH A. GALLAGHER, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte
JOYCE GARDELLA, Gardella & Associates, Watertown,
Massachusetts
DAVID T. HARRISON, Seminole Community College, Sanford,
Florida
PAUL HOFFMAN, Writer and Consultant, Woodstock, New York
JONDEL (J.D.) HOYE, Keep the Change, Inc., Aptos, California
THOMAS P. HUGHES, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
MAE JEMISON, Jemison Group, Inc., Houston, Texas
F. JAMES RUTHERFORD, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
ROBERT TINKER, Concord Consortium, Concord, Massachusetts

Project Staff

GREG PEARSON, Study Director and Program Officer, National

Academy of Engineering (NAE)
JAY LABOV, Deputy Director, Center for Education, National
Research Council
KATHARINE GRAMLING, Research Assistant, NAE (September
2000 to project end)
MATTHEW CAIA, Senior Project Assistant, NAE (June 2001 to
project end)

iv
MARK LORIE, Project Assistant, NAE (April 1999 to August 2000)
CAROL R. ARENBERG, Managing Editor, NAE
ROBERT POOL, Freelance Writer

v
 Preface

his report and a companion website (www.nae.edu/

T techlit) are the final products of a two-year study by the

Committee on Technological Literacy, a group of ex-
perts on diverse subjects under the auspices of the National Academy of
Engineering (NAE) and the Center for Education, part of the National
Research Council (NRC). The committee’s charge was to begin to
develop among relevant communities a common understanding of what
technological literacy is, how important it is to the nation, and how it can
be achieved. The charge reflects the interests and goals of the two project
sponsors, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Battelle Memorial
Institute, as well as the priorities of the National Academies.
NAE President Bill Wulf, who has championed the cause of
technological literacy throughout his tenure at the Academies, contrib-
uted greatly to the success of the project. The idea for the study arose
from his strong interests in improving both K-12 education and the public
understanding of engineering and technology. In the mid-1990s, Dr.
Wulf initiated discussions among staff at the NAE, NRC, NSF, and
other groups on this issue. The discussions revealed that the concept of
technological literacy is poorly understood and significantly undervalued.
The committee adopted a broad definition of technology that
encompasses both the tangible artifacts of the human-designed world
(e.g., bridges, automobiles, computers, satellites, medical imaging devices,
drugs, genetically engineered plants) and the systems of which these
artifacts are a part (e.g., transportation, communications, health care, food
production), as well as the people, infrastructure, and processes required
to design, manufacture, operate, and repair the artifacts. This compre-

vii
 hensive view of technology differs considerably from the more common,
narrower public conception, which associates technology almost exclu-
sively with computers and other electronics.
The report is intended for a very broad audience, including
schools of education, schools of engineering, K-12 teachers and teacher
organizations, developers of curriculum and instructional materials, fed-
eral and state policy makers, industry and nonindustry supporters of
education reform, and science and technology centers and museums.
Most of the committee’s recommendations are directed toward these
groups, which are particularly well positioned to have a positive influence
on the development of technological literacy.
The committee met six times and sponsored two workshops. At
the first workshop, in September 1999, a framework was developed based
on the issues of education, the workforce, and democracy to guide the
committee’s thinking in subsequent stages. At the second workshop, in
March 2000, the program was focused on national and international
activities that have contributed to the development of technological lit-
eracy. The committee’s deliberations were based on the results of these
workshops and a survey of the relevant literature by project staff. The final
document also reflects the personal and professional experience and judg-
ment of committee members. The report was released publicly at a
symposium held at the National Academies in January 2002.
The idea that all Americans should be better prepared to navigate
our highly technological world has been advocated by many individuals
and groups for years. Nevertheless, the issue of technological literacy is
virtually invisible on the national agenda. This is especially disturbing in a
time when technology is a dominant force in society. By presenting the
topic in a straightforward and compelling manner, the committee hopes
technological literacy will be put “on the map” and the way will be cleared
for a meaningful movement toward technological literacy in the United
States.

A. Thomas Young
Chair
Committee on Technological Literacy

viii PREFACE
 Acknowledgments

T
his report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical ex-
pertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the
NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the
institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to
ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi-
dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and
draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the delib-
erative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their
review of this report:

Alice M. Agogino, University of California, Berkeley

Arden L. Bement, Purdue University
Daniel M. Hull, Center for Occupational Research and
Development
Patricia Hutchinson, The College of New Jersey
Peter Joyce, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Shirley M. McBay, Quality Education for Minorities Network
Henry Petroski, Duke University
Robert Semper, San Francisco Exploratorium
Kendall Starkweather, International Technology Education
Association
Robert Yager, University of Iowa Science Education Center

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many con-

ix
 structive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the
conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by
Mildred S. Dresselhaus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Elsa
M. Garmire, Dartmouth College. Appointed by the National Research
Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent
examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional
procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Re-
sponsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the
authoring committee and the institution.
In addition to the reviewers, many individuals and organizations
assisted in the development of this report. Rodger Bybee played a central
role in the conception of this project during the time he headed NRC
activities related to science and mathematics education, and he contrib-
uted to its success after he left the institution. Kendall Starkweather, Bill
Dugger, and Pam Newberry, all at the International Technology Educa-
tion Association, provided information and support throughout the project.
Dennis Cheek, at the Rhode Island Department of Education, conducted
extensive research on behalf of the committee. John Staudenmaier, at
Boston College, prepared a key background paper that helped put the
committee’s charge in context. Writer Robert Pool, who crafted several
key sections of the report, successfully captured the essence of the
committee’s sometimes wide-ranging discussions. The project’s outside
evaluators, Jill Russell and Neal Grandgenett, provided useful and timely
suggestions, which improved the quality of the final product. The partici-
pants in the committee’s two workshops provided an invaluable stimulus
to the committee’s deliberations.
Finally, no project of this scope is possible without the support of
staff. The committee was fortunate to have the assistance of a very
capable group. Our thanks go to Mark Lorie and Matthew Caia, who
performed countless tasks, from conducting research to handling the
logistics of committee meetings and workshops. Katharine Gramling
served in a variety of capacities, including designing and overseeing the
construction of the project website. Thanks are also due to NAE editor
Carol R. Arenberg, who substantially improved the report’s readability.
Special recognition goes to the staff leaders of the project, Jay Labov at the
NRC Center for Education, and, especially, Greg Pearson at the NAE,
whose patience and behind-the-scenes work made the committee’s work
not only possible but pleasurable.

x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
The Report, 2
What Is Technology?, 2
What Is Technological Literacy?, 3
Benefits of Technological Literacy, 3
Context for Technological Literacy, 5
Foundation for Technological Literacy, 6
Recommendations, 8
A Final Word, 10

1 MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 11

What Is Technology?, 13
Technological Literacy, 14
A Technologically Literate Person, 17
Technical Competency, 21
Conclusion, 23
References, 23

2 BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 25

Improving Decision Making, 25
Increasing Citizen Participation, 36
Supporting a Modern Workforce, 40
Narrowing the Digital Divide, 42
Enhancing Social Well-being, 44
Conclusion, 45
References, 46

xi
 3 CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 47
The Human Connection to Technology, 47
Misconceptions About the Nature of Technology, 50
Technological Studies in K-12, 53
Overemphasis on Computers and Information Technology, 58
A Policy Blind Spot, 59
Uncertainties About What We Know, 63
Conclusion, 70
References, 72

4 FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 77

K-12 Schools, 77
Postsecondary Education, 84
Informal Education, 88
Participation in Technological Decision Making, 94
Conclusions, 98
References, 99

5 RECOMMENDATIONS 103
Strengthening the Presence of Technology in Formal and
Informal Education, 104
Developing a Research Base, 108
Enhancing Informed Decision Making, 110
Rewarding Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, 113
A Final Word, 114

Appendixes

A TOOLKIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 115

Nature and History of Technology, 115
Resources for the K-12 Classroom, 121
Standards and Related Publications, 126
Organizations of Interest, 127
Contests and Awards, 131

B COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 137

INDEX 147

xii CONTENTS
TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 Executive Summary

t the heart of our modern technological society lies an

A unacknowledged paradox. Although the United States

is increasingly defined by and dependent on technology
and is adopting new technologies at a breathtaking pace, its citizens are
not equipped to make well-considered decisions or to think critically
about technology. As a society, we are not even fully aware of or conver-
sant with the technologies we use every day. In short, we are not “techno-
logically literate.”
Technology has become so user friendly it is largely “invisible.”
Americans use technology with a minimal comprehension of how or why
it works or the implications of its use or even where it comes from. We
drive high-tech cars but know little more than how to operate the steering
wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal. We fill shopping carts with highly
processed foods but are largely ignorant of their content, or how they are
developed, grown, packaged, or delivered. We click on a mouse and
transmit data over thousands of miles without understanding how this is
possible or who might have access to the information.
Available evidence shows that American adults and children have
a poor understanding of the essential characteristics of technology, how it
influences society, and how people can and do affect its development.
Neither the educational system nor the policy-making apparatus in the
United States has recognized the importance of technological literacy.
Thus the paradox: Even as technology has become increasingly
important in our lives, it has receded from view. Americans are poorly
equipped to recognize, let alone ponder or address, the challenges tech-

1
 nology poses or the problems it could solve. And the mismatch is
growing. Although our use of technology is increasing apace, there is no
sign of a corresponding improvement in our ability to deal with issues
relating to technology.
To take full advantage of the benefits and to recognize, address,
or even avoid some of the pitfalls of technology, we must become better
stewards of technological change. Unfortunately, we are ill prepared to
meet this goal. This report represents a mandate—an urgent call—for
technological literacy in the United States.

The Report

This report and a companion website (<www.nae.edu/techlit>)

are the final products of a two-year study by the Committee on Techno-
logical Literacy, a group of experts from diverse fields operating under the
auspices of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the Na-
tional Research Council (NRC) Center for Education. The committee
was charged with developing a vision for technological literacy in the
United States and recommending ways for achieving that vision. The
project was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Battelle
Memorial Institute.
The report is directed at groups that are well positioned to
influence the development of technological literacy, including schools of
education, schools of engineering, K-12 teachers and teacher organiza-
tions, developers of curriculum and instructional materials, federal and
state policy makers, industry and nonindustry supporters of educational
reform, and science and technology centers and museums.

What Is Technology?

In its broadest sense, technology is the process by which humans

modify nature to meet their needs and wants. However, most people
think of technology only in terms of its artifacts: computers and software,
aircraft, pesticides, water-treatment plants, birth-control pills, and micro-
wave ovens, to name a few. But technology is more than its tangible
products. An equally important aspect of technology is the knowledge
and processes necessary to create and operate those products, such as
engineering know-how and design, manufacturing expertise, various tech-
nical skills, and so on. Technology also includes all of the infrastructure

2 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 Technology comprises the entire system of people and
organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that
go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as
well as the artifacts themselves.

necessary for the design, manufacture, operation, and repair of techno-

logical artifacts, from corporate headquarters and engineering schools to
manufacturing plants and maintenance facilities.

What Is Technological Literacy?

Technological literacy encompasses three interdependent dimen-

sions—knowledge, ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities (Box ES-
1). Like literacy in reading, mathematics, science, or history, the goal of
technological literacy is to provide people with the tools to participate
intelligently and thoughtfully in the world around them. The kinds of
things a technologically literate person must know can vary from society to
society and from era to era.

Benefits of Technological Literacy

Individuals and the country as a whole would benefit greatly from

a higher level of technological literacy. For one thing, people at all levels
of society would be better prepared to make well-informed decisions on
matters that affect, or are affected by, technology. For example, consum-
ers must routinely decide whether or not to use particular products and
how to use them. Technologically literate consumers would be able to
make more critical assessments of technologies and, therefore, more in-
formed decisions.
As citizens in a democratic society, individuals are also asked to
help make technological choices for the country as a whole or for some
part of it. Should drilling for oil be allowed in an environmentally
sensitive area? Should the local government be allowed to install surveil-
lance cameras in high-crime areas? Technological literacy would not
determine an individual’s opinion but would ensure that it would be well
informed.
Technological literacy is especially important for leaders in busi-
ness, government, and the media, who make or influence decisions that

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
 BOX ES-1 Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Citizen

Knowledge
• Recognizes the pervasiveness of technology in everyday life.
• Understands basic engineering concepts and terms, such as systems, constraints, and trade-offs.
• Is familiar with the nature and limitations of the engineering design process.
• Knows some of the ways technology shapes human history and people shape technology.
• Knows that all technologies entail risk, some that can be anticipated and some that cannot.
• Appreciates that the development and use of technology involve trade-offs and a balance of costs and
benefits.
• Understands that technology reflects the values and culture of society.
Ways of Thinking and Acting
• Asks pertinent questions, of self and others, regarding the benefits and risks of technologies.
• Seeks information about new technologies.
• Participates, when appropriate, in decisions about the development and use of technology.
Capabilities
• Has a range of hands-on skills, such as using a computer for word processing and surfing the Internet
and operating a variety of home and office appliances.
• Can identify and fix simple mechanical or technological problems at home or work.
• Can apply basic mathematical concepts related to probability, scale, and estimation to make informed
judgments about technological risks and benefits.

affect many others, sometimes the entire nation. These leaders would
benefit from a comprehensive understanding of the nature of technol-
ogy—a recognition, for example, that all technology involves trade-offs
and can result in unintended consequences.
Democratic From a philosophical point of view, democratic principles imply
principles imply that decisions affecting many people or the entire society should be made
that decisions with as much public involvement as possible. As people gain confidence
affecting many in their ability to ask questions and think critically about technological
people or the developments, they are likely to participate more in making decisions.
entire society Increased citizen participation would add legitimacy to decisions about
should be made technology and make it more likely that the public would accept those
with as much decisions. Citizen participation would also give policy makers and techni-
public cal experts a better understanding of citizens’ hopes and fears about
involvement as technology.
possible. Because our economy is increasingly being driven by technologi-
cal innovation and because an increasing percentage of jobs require tech-
nological skills, a rise in technological literacy would have economic
impacts. For example, a technologically literate public would generate a

4 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
more abundant supply of technologically savvy workers who would be
more likely to have the knowledge and abilities—and find it easier to learn
the skills they need—for jobs in today’s technology-oriented workplaces.
To the extent the study of technology encourages students to pursue
scientific or technical careers, then improving our technological literacy
would also lessen our dependence on foreign workers to fill jobs in many
sectors.

Context for Technological Literacy

Most people have very few direct, hands-on connections to tech-

nology, except as finished consumer goods. They do not build the devices
they use, tinker with them to improve their performance, or repair them
when they break. Because of this lack of engagement, people today learn
relatively little about technologies through direct experience. Thus they
rarely develop the kind of practical, intuitive feel for technology that
marked the relationships between earlier generations and their technolo-
gies.
The lack of familiarity with technology has given rise to a number
of misconceptions. For example, most people think that technology is
little more than the application of science to solve practical problems.
They are not aware that modern technology is the fruit of a complex
interplay between science, engineering, politics, ethics, law, and other
factors. People who operate under this misconception have a limited
ability to think critically about technology—to guide the development and
use of a technology to ensure that it provides the greatest benefit for the
greatest number of citizens. Another common misconception is that
technology is either all good or all bad rather than what people and society
make it. They misunderstand that the purpose for which we use a
technology may be good or bad, but not the technology itself. Realisti-
cally, every technology will be more advantageous for some people, ani-
mals, plants, generations, or purposes than for others.
Because few people today have direct, hands-on experience with
technology, technological literacy depends largely on what they learn in
the classroom, particularly in elementary and secondary school. Unfortu-
nately, only a small group of technology educators is involved in setting
standards and developing curricula to promote technological literacy. In
general, with the exception of the use of computers and the Internet,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
 which has been strongly promoted by federal and state governments,
technology is not treated seriously as a subject in grades K-12.
Even in this area, however, the focus has been on using these
technologies to improve education rather than on educating students
about technology. As a result, many K-12 educators identify technology
almost exclusively with computers and related devices and so believe,
erroneously, that their institutions already teach about technology.
With the exception We have almost no reliable data about the level of technological
of the use of literacy among American children. Given the relatively poor showing of
computers and the U.S. students on international tests in science and math, however, and
Internet, given that many other Western countries teach more about technology
technology is not than we do, it seems logical to assume that American students are not as
treated seriously technologically literate as their international counterparts. A recent Gallup
as a subject in poll and other data on the adult population reveal that adults are very
grades K-12. interested in but relatively poorly informed about technology.
For the most part, policy makers at the federal and state levels
have paid little or no attention to technology education or technological
literacy, despite the fact that Congress and state legislatures often find
themselves grappling with policy issues that require an understanding of
technology. There is no evidence to suggest that legislators or their staffs
are any more technologically literate than the general public.
For reasons that are at once historical, institutional, and reflective
of the nature of modern technology, Americans appear to be unprepared
to engage effectively and responsibly with technological change. In short,
as a nation we do not appreciate the value of technological literacy and,
hence, have not achieved it.

Foundation for Technological Literacy

A variety of efforts have been undertaken to increase technologi-

cal literacy in the United States. In general, however, these have been
small-scale projects, especially compared with efforts to boost scientific
literacy and math skills. Nevertheless, past initiatives represent a resource
upon which more ambitious efforts can draw.
The natural place to begin is in grades K-12, when all students
could be guaranteed a basic familiarity with technology and could be
encouraged to think critically about technological issues. The federal
government, mainly the NSF, has funded the development of a variety of

6 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
technology-related curricula and instructional materials. Teachers who
specialize in technology, still relatively few in number, will be essential to a
serious effort to boost technological literacy. Their professional organiza-
tion, the International Technology Education Association, recently pub-
lished Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technol-
ogy, a comprehensive statement of what students must learn in order to be
technologically literate.
Courses spanning K-12 and two-year community colleges in-
tended to prepare students for technical careers can also help develop
technological literacy. Although technical competency is not the same For the adult
as technological literacy, the development of skills in technology can lead population
to a better understanding of the underlying technology and could be used already out of
as the basis for teaching about the nature, history, and role of technology school, the
in our lives. Recently, the federal government has paid more attention to informal
technician-preparation and school-to-career programs, as well as tradi- education system
tional vocational education. offers
College and universities offer a number of options for more opportunities for
advanced study of technology. There are about 100 science, technology, learning about
and society programs on U.S. campuses that offer both undergraduate and and becoming
graduate courses, and a number of universities have programs in the engaged in a
history, philosophy, or sociology of technology. Many engineering schools variety of issues
require that students take at least one course in the social impacts of related to
technology. technology.
For the adult population already out of school, the informal
education system—museums and science centers, as well as television,
radio, newspapers, magazines, and other media—offers opportunities for
learning about and becoming engaged in a variety of issues related to
technology. Some federal agencies require public input into the planning
of certain types of projects, and participation in decision making can also
boost technological literacy. In addition, independent organizations called
community-based research groups initiate various research projects, many
involving technological issues.
A sampling of print and online resources related to technological
literacy appears in the appendix to the full report. This “toolkit” will be
useful not only to educators and policy makers but also members of the
public who wish to learn more about the subject.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
 Recommendations

The Committee on Technological Literacy reviewed direct and

indirect evidence and drew on the experience and expert opinion of
committee members to develop its recommendations. The committee
considered the role of technology in society and our relationship to it, the
ways current social, political, and educational environments affect techno-
logical literacy, and the benefits—to individuals and society at large—of
greater technological literacy. The committee also reviewed initiatives—
past and present—that might be a basis for a serious, sustained campaign
for technological literacy. The recommendations address four areas: (1)
formal and informal education; (2) research; (3) decision making; and (4)
teaching excellence and educational innovation. A rationale for the rec-
ommendations and an explanation of how each could be carried out can be
found in the full report.
The categories are listed in order of importance, but the recom-
mendations relate to and support one another and should be considered as
an integrated whole. For instance, the availability of better data about
technological literacy and how people learn about technology will inform
activities in the education sector. Initiatives to improve technological
decision making are also likely to increase public sensitivity to the value of
informed debate about technology. This, in turn, should boost support
for research and educational reforms related to technological literacy.

Strengthening the Presence of Technology in Formal

and Informal Education

Recommendation 1 Federal and state agencies that help set educa-

tion policy should encourage the integration of technology content
into K-12 standards, curricula, instructional materials, and student
assessments in nontechnology subject areas.

Recommendation 2 The states should better align their K-12 stan-

dards, curriculum frameworks, and student assessment in the sci-
ences, mathematics, history, social studies, civics, the arts, and lan-
guage arts with national educational standards that stress the
connections between these subjects and technology. National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF)- and Department of Education (DoEd)-

8 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 funded instructional materials and informal-education initiatives
should also stress these connections.

Recommendation 3 NSF, DoEd, state boards of education, and

others involved in K-12 science education should introduce, where
appropriate, the word “technology” into the titles and contents of
science standards, curricula, and instructional materials.

Recommendation 4 NSF, DoEd, and teacher education accredit-

ing bodies should provide incentives for institutions of higher edu-
cation to transform the preparation of all teachers to better equip
them to teach about technology throughout the curriculum.

Developing the Research Base

Recommendation 5 The National Science Foundation should sup-

port the development of one or more assessment tools for monitor-
ing the state of technological literacy among students and the public
in the United States.

Recommendation 6 The National Science Foundation and the

Department of Education should fund research on how people learn
about technology, and the results should be applied in formal and
informal education settings.

Enhancing Informed Decision Making

Recommendation 7 Industry, federal agencies responsible for car-

rying out infrastructure projects, and science and technology muse-
ums should provide more opportunities for the nontechnical public
to become involved in discussions about technological develop-
ments.

Recommendation 8 Federal and state government agencies with a

role in guiding or supporting the nation’s scientific and technologi-
cal enterprise, and private foundations concerned about good gover-
nance, should support executive education programs intended
to increase the technological literacy of government and industry
leaders.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9
 Recommendation 9 U.S. engineering societies should underwrite
the costs of establishing government- and media-fellow programs
with the goal of creating a cadre of policy experts and journalists
with a background in engineering.

Rewarding Teaching Excellence and Educational

Innovation

Recommendation 10 The National Science Foundation, in col-

laboration with industry partners, should provide funding for awards
for innovative, effective approaches to improving the technological
literacy of students or the public at large.

Recommendation 11 The White House should add a Presidential

Award for Excellence in Technology Teaching to those that it
currently offers for mathematics and science teaching.

A Final Word

Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About

Technology should help inform the public—especially the portion of the
public that can affect policy—of the urgent need for technological literacy.
But this report and its recommendations are only a starting point. The
case for technological literacy must be made consistently and on an
ongoing basis. As citizens gradually become more sophisticated about
technological issues, they will be more willing to support measures in the
schools and in the informal education arena to raise the technological
literacy level of the next generation. In time, leaders in government,
academia, and business will become cognizant of the importance of tech-
nological literacy to their own well-being and the welfare of the nation.
Achieving this goal promises to be a slow and challenging journey but one
unquestionably worth embarking on.

10 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 1
Mandate for
Technological Literacy

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of

the society but the people themselves; and if we think
them not enlightened enough to exercise their control
with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform their discretion by educa-
tion. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitu-
tional power.

Thomas Jefferson
letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people

who mean to be their own governors must arm them-
selves with the power which knowledge gives.

James Madison
letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822

T he United States is experiencing a whirlwind of

technological change. Most Americans feel the change
instinctively each time they encounter a new consumer
gadget, read about the possibility of human cloning, or observe children as
young as six or seven socializing with their school friends via online
instant messaging. There have been periods, such as the late 1800s, when
new inventions appeared in society at a comparable rate. But the pace of
change today, with its social, economic, and other impacts, is as signifi-
cant and far reaching as at any other time in history.
This report argues that “technological literacy”—an understand-
ing of the nature and history of technology, a basic hands-on capability

11
 related to technology, and an ability to think critically about technological
development—is essential for people living in a modern nation like the
United States.
The argument for technological literacy is fundamentally about
providing citizens with the tools to participate fully and confidently in the
world around them. This aim is not unique to technological literacy;
many other literacy campaigns—in reading, mathematics, science, and
history, to name just a few—have similar goals. The unique aspect of this
campaign is that it will prepare people—from policy makers to ordinary
citizens—to make thoughtful decisions on issues that affect, or are af-
fected by, technology. There are few things we do, or can do, today that
are not influenced by technology.
This report and a companion website (<www.nae.edu/techlit>)
are the products of a two-year study by the Committee on Technological
Literacy, a group of diverse experts operating under the auspices of the
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the Center for Education
of the National Research Council (NRC). The committee’s charge was to
develop a vision for technological literacy in the United States and recom-
Americans must mend how that vision might be achieved. The charge reflects the interests
become better and goals of the project’s sponsors, the National Science Foundation
stewards of (NSF) and Battelle Memorial Institute, as well as the priorities of the
technological National Academies.
change. The intended audience for the report includes schools of educa-
tion, schools of engineering, K-12 teachers and teacher organizations,
developers of curricula and instructional materials, federal and state policy
makers, industry and nonindustry supporters of educational reform, and
science and technology centers and museums. These groups are well
positioned to influence the development of technological literacy.
As far into the future as our imaginations can take us, we will face
challenges that depend on the development and application of technology.
Better health, more abundant food, more humane living and working
conditions, cleaner air and water, more effective education, and scores of
other improvements in the human condition are within our grasp. But
none of these improvements is guaranteed, and many problems will arise
that we cannot predict. To take full advantage of the benefits and to
recognize, address, or even avoid the pitfalls of technology, Americans
must become better stewards of technological change. Present circum-
stances suggest that we are ill prepared to meet that goal. This report

12 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
represents a mandate—an urgent call—for technological literacy in the
United States.

What Is Technology?

In the broadest sense, technology is the process by which humans

modify nature to meet their needs and wants. Most people, however,
think of technology in terms of its artifacts: computers and software,
aircraft, pesticides, water-treatment plants, birth-control pills, and micro-
wave ovens, to name a few. But technology is more than these tangible
products. The knowledge and processes used to create and to operate the
artifacts—engineering know-how, manufacturing expertise, various tech-
nical skills, and so on—are equally important. An especially important
area of knowledge is the engineering design process, of starting with a set
of criteria and constraints and working toward a solution—a device, say,
or a process—that meets those conditions. Engineers generate designs
and then test, refine, or discard them until they find an acceptable solu-
tion. Technology also includes all of the infrastructure necessary for the
design, manufacture, operation, and repair of technological artifacts, from
corporate headquarters and engineering schools to manufacturing plants
and maintenance facilities.

Technology comprises the entire system of people and

organizations, knowledge, processes, and devices that
go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as
well as the artifacts themselves.

Source: Adapted from Mitchem, 1994.

Technology is a product of engineering and science, the study of

the natural world. Science has two parts: (1) a body of knowledge that
has been accumulated over time and (2) a process—scientific inquiry—
that generates knowledge about the natural world. Engineering, too,
consists of a body of knowledge—in this case knowledge of the design and
creation of human-made products—and a process for solving problems.
Science and technology are tightly coupled. A scientific under-
standing of the natural world is the basis for much of technological
development today. The design of computer chips, for instance, depends
on a detailed understanding of the electrical properties of silicon and other

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 13

 materials. The design of a drug to fight a specific disease is made possible
by knowledge of how proteins and other biological molecules are struc-
tured and interact.
Conversely, technology is the basis for a good part of scientific
research. The climate models meteorologists use to study global warming
require supercomputers to run the simulations. And like most of us,
scientists in all fields depend on the telephone, the Internet, and jet travel.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the achievements of
technology from those of science. When the Apollo 11 spacecraft put
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, many people called it a
victory of science. When a new type of material, such as lightweight,
superstrong composites, emerges on the market, newspapers often report
it as a scientific advance. Genetic engineering of crops to resist insects is
also usually attributed wholly to science. And although science is integral
to all of these advances, they are also examples of technology, the applica-
tion of unique skills, knowledge, and techniques, which is quite different
from science.
Technology is also closely associated with innovation, the trans-
formation of ideas into new and useful products or processes. Innovation
requires not only creative people and organizations, but also the availabil-
ity of technology and science and engineering talent. Technology and
innovation are synergistic. The development of gene-sequencing ma-
chines, for example, has made the decoding of the human genome pos-
sible, and that knowledge is fueling a revolution in diagnostic, therapeutic,
and other biomedical innovations.

Technological Literacy

Technological literacy encompasses at least three

distinct dimensions: knowledge, ways of thinking and
acting, and capabilities.

Over the years, many individuals and organizations have at-

tempted to describe the essential elements of technological literacy (AAAS,
1990a, 1993; Dyrenfurth, 1991; ITEA, 2000). In one popular concep-
tion, technological literacy is equated with a facility with computers
(Fanning, 2001; 21st Century Workforce Commission, 2000). This
conception is prevalent in the U.S. educational sector, where considerable
efforts and resources have been invested in making educational technol-

14 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 FIGURE 1-1 The dimensions of
technological literacy.

ogy, much of it computer related, more available and useful (e.g., U.S.
Department of Education, 1996).
Although computer skills are an important aspect of being an
educated, well-rounded citizen in a modern country like the United
States, the conception of technological literacy used in this report is much
broader and more complex. It encompasses three interdependent dimen-
sions: (1) knowledge; (2) ways of thinking and acting;1 and (3) capabili-
ties (Figure 1-1).
In practice, it is impossible to separate the dimensions from one
another. It is hard to imagine a person with technological capability who
does not also know something about the workings of technology, or a
person who can think critically about a technological issue who does
not also have some conceptual or factual knowledge of technology and
science. So, although such a framework can be helpful in thinking and
talking about technological literacy, it is important to remember the
dimensions are arbitrary divisions.
The dimensions of technological literacy can be placed along a

1
The phrase “ways of thinking and acting” is adapted from the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science’s Project 2061, which used the term to describe
the critical thinking skills (also called “habits of mind”) essential to science literacy
(AAAS, 1990b).

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 15

 continuum—from low to high, poorly developed to well developed, lim-
ited to extensive. Every technologically literate individual has a unique
combination of knowledge, ways of thinking and acting, and capabilities.
In addition, an individual’s locus along any dimension changes over time
with education and life experience. Different job and life circumstances
require different levels and types of literacy. For example, a state legislator
Different job involved in a debate about the merits of constructing new power plants to
and life meet future electricity demand ought to understand at a fairly sophisti-
circumstances cated level the technological concepts of trade-offs, constraints, and sys-
require different tems. He or she must also understand enough details about power
levels and types generation to sort through conflicting claims by utility companies, envi-
of literacy. ronmental lobbyists, and other stakeholder groups. The average con-
sumer pondering the purchase of a new high-definition television may be
well served by a more basic understanding of the technology—for ex-
ample, the differences between digital and analog signals—and a smaller
set of critical thinking skills.
One useful way to think about technological literacy is as a
component of the more general, or “cultural,” literacy popularized by E.D.
Hirsch, Jr. Hirsch (1988) pointed out that literate people in every society
and every culture share a body of knowledge that enables them to commu-
nicate with each other and make sense of the world around them. The
kinds of things a literate person knows will vary from society to society and
from era to era; so there is no absolute definition of literacy. In the early
twenty-first century, however, cultural literacy must have a large techno-
logical component.
The importance of technological literacy to individuals living in a
modern society is not a new idea. Almost 20 years ago, for example,
advisors to the National Science Board called for increased technological
literacy (CPEMST, 1983):

We must return to the basics, but the “basics” of the 21st century are
not only reading, writing, and arithmetic. They include communica-
tion and higher problem-solving skills, and scientific and technologi-
cal literacy—the thinking tools that allow us to understand the
technological world around us.

As we begin the twenty-first century, the need for increasing technologi-

cal literacy has become even greater, first because the influence of technol-
ogy over people’s lives has increased dramatically and second because, as a
society, we have not put a high priority on technological literacy.

16 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
A Technologically Literate Person

Although there is no archetype of a technologically literate per-

son, we can describe some general characteristics such a person ought to
possess (Box 1-1). A technologically literate person should be able to
recognize technology in its many forms, and should understand that the
line between science and technology is often blurred. This will quickly
lead to the realization that technology permeates modern society, from
little things that everyone takes for granted, such as pencil and paper, to
major projects, such as dams and rocket launches.
A technologically literate person should be familiar with basic
concepts important to technology. When engineers speak of a system, for
instance, they mean components that work together to provide a desired
function. Systems appear everywhere in technology, from a simple sys-
tem, such as the half-dozen components in a click-and-write ballpoint
pen, to complex systems with millions of components, assembled in
hundreds of subsystems, such as commercial jetliners. Systems can also be
scattered geographically, such as the roads, bridges, tunnels, signage,
fueling stations, automobiles, and equipment that comprise, support, use,
and help maintain our network of highways.

BOX 1-1 Characteristics of a Technologically Literate Citizen

Knowledge
• Recognizes the pervasiveness of technology in everyday life.
• Understands basic engineering concepts and terms, such as systems, constraints, and trade-offs.
• Is familiar with the nature and limitations of the engineering design process.
• Knows some of the ways technology shapes human history and people shape technology.
• Knows that all technologies entail risk, some that can be anticipated and some that cannot.
• Appreciates that the development and use of technology involve trade-offs and a balance of costs and
benefits.
• Understands that technology reflects the values and culture of society.
Ways of Thinking and Acting
• Asks pertinent questions, of self and others, regarding the benefits and risks of technologies.
• Seeks information about new technologies.
• Participates, when appropriate, in decisions about the development and use of technology.
Capabilities
• Has a range of hands-on skills, such as using a computer for word processing and surfing the Internet
and operating a variety of home and office appliances.
• Can identify and fix simple mechanical or technological problems at home or work.
• Can apply basic mathematical concepts related to probability, scale, and estimation to make informed
judgments about technological risks and benefits.

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 17

 Technologically literate people should also know something about
the engineering design process. The goal of technological design is to
meet certain criteria within various constraints, such as time deadlines,
financial limits, or the need to avoid damaging the environment. Techno-
logically literate people recognize that there is no such thing as a perfect
design. All final designs inevitably involve trade-offs. Even if a design
meets its stated criteria, there is no guarantee that the resulting technology
will actually achieve the desired outcome because unexpected—often un-
desirable—consequences sometimes occur alongside intended ones. These
include obvious things, such as the annoyance we all experience from
mistakenly activated car alarms, to more serious things, such as repetitive-
motion syndrome from heavy use of computer keyboards.
A technologically literate person recognizes that technology in-
fluences changes in society and has done so throughout history. In fact,
many historical eras are identified by their dominant technology—
Stone Age, Iron Age, Bronze Age, Industrial Age, Information Age.
Technology-driven changes have been particularly evident in the past
century. Automobiles have created a more mobile, spread-out society;
aircraft and improved communications have led to a “smaller” world and,
There is nothing eventually, globalization; contraception has revolutionized sexual mores;
inevitable about and improved sanitation, agriculture, and medicine have extended life
the changes expectancy. A technologically literate person recognizes the role of tech-
influenced by nology in these changes and accepts the reality that the future will be
technology— different from the present largely because of technologies now coming
they are the into existence, from Internet-based activities to genetic engineering and
result of human cloning.
decisions and not The technologically literate person also recognizes that society
of impersonal shapes technology as much as technology shapes society. There is nothing
historical forces. inevitable about the changes influenced by technology—they are the result
of human decisions and not of impersonal historical forces. The key
people in successful technological innovation are not only engineers and
scientists, but also designers and marketing specialists. New technologies
must meet the requirements of consumers, business people, bankers,
judges, environmentalists, politicians, and government bureaucrats
(Bucciarelli, 1996). An electric car that no one buys might just as well
never have been developed. A genetically engineered crop that is banned
by the government is of little more use than the weeds in the fields. In
short, many factors shape technology, and human beings, acting alone or
in groups, determine the direction of technological development.

18 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 Technologically literate people realize that the use of any tech-
nology entails risk (Copp and Zanella, 1992; Gould et al., 1988). Some
risks are obvious and well documented, such as the tens of thousands of
deaths each year in the United States from automobile crashes. Others are
more insidious and difficult to predict, such as the growth of algae in lakes
and other bodies of water caused by the runoff of fertilizer from farms.
Technologically literate people will understand that all technolo-
gies, not just the obviously risky ones, have benefits and costs that must be
weighed against one another. A new refining process may produce fewer
waste products but may be more expensive than the old process. A new
software program may have more features but may be more prone to
failure than the old one and may also require learning a new system.
Preservatives extend the shelf-life and improve the safety of our food but
also cause allergic reactions in a small percentage of individuals.
Technologically literate people will recognize that sometimes
there are risks to not using a technology. For example, consider the use of
the pesticide DDT, a chemical technology for pest control. Because of
DDT’s effectiveness against mosquitoes, it is one of the most potent
antimalaria weapons. In the 1970s, the use of DDT was banned in the
United States and many other western nations, where there is no malaria
to speak of, because of concerns about its effect on the environment.
Farmers and others now use less environmentally questionable chemicals
that were available at the time or that have been developed since to control
insect pests.
But the withdrawal of DDT from malaria-endemic regions of
the world has had serious consequences. In the East African island nation
of Madagascar, for instance, the use of DDT was halted in 1986 after
many years of successful control of malaria. By 1988, the incidence of the
disease had increased dramatically, resulting in 100,000 deaths. When
spraying with DDT was reinstituted, the incidence of malaria dropped by
more than 90 percent in just 2 years (Roberts et al., 2000). The United
Nations recently recognized the importance of DDT to public health in a
treaty banning a number of persistent organic pollutants (UNEP, 2001).
The ability to use quantitative reasoning skills, especially skills
related to probability, scale, and estimation, is critical to making informed
judgments about technological risk. For example, based on the number of
fatalities per mile traveled, a technologically literate person can make a
reasonable judgment about whether it is riskier to travel from St. Louis to
New York on a commercial airliner or by car.

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 19

 Technologically literate people will appreciate that technologies
are neither good nor evil, despite our tendency to invest them with these
qualities. For example, the wide availability of handguns, as well as the
desire of some to limit their availability, is an issue fraught with sociologi-
cal, legal, public health, and economic considerations. Some people favor
easy availability based on a need for self-defense, others favor limiting
availability because of accidental deaths caused by handguns. In either
case, weapons technology is not at fault.
Every technology reflects the values and culture of society. For
instance, the popularity of cell phones in the United States is driven partly
by the desire for the freedom to communicate at any time from virtually
any location. Similar motivations, based on our historic emphasis on
Every technology individuality and independence, have encouraged the use of private auto-
reflects the mobiles for transportation. The influence of values and culture on tech-
values and nology is often less straightforward. Technological development some-
culture of society. times favors the values of certain groups more than others, for example the
values of men more than those of women, which might explain why the
initial designs of car air bags were not appropriate to the smaller stature of
most women. (See “On or Off: Deciding About Your Car Air Bag,”
p. 26.)
Once a person has a basic understanding of technology, he or she
can educate himself or herself about particular technological issues. Tech-
nologically literate people will know how to extract the most important
points from a newspaper story or a television interview or discussion, ask
relevant questions, and make sense of the answers (Box 1-2).
A technologically literate individual should also have some hands-
on capabilities with common, everyday technologies. At home and in the

BOX 1-2 Asking Questions About Technology

• What are the short-term and long-term risks of developing or using the
technology?
• What are the costs of not developing or using the technology?
• Who will have access to the technology?
• Who will control it?
• Who will benefit and who will lose by the technology?
• What will the impact of the technology be on me, my family, and my
community?

20 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
workplace, there are real benefits of knowing how to diagnose and even fix
certain types of problems, such as resetting a tripped circuit breaker,
replacing the battery in a smoke detector, or unjamming a food disposal
unit. These tasks are not particularly difficult, but they require some basic
knowledge and—in some cases—familiarity with simple hand tools. The
same can be said for knowing how to remove and change a flat tire or hook
up a new computer or phone. In addition, a level of comfort with personal
computers and the software they use, and being able to surf the Internet,
are essential to technological literacy.
Finally, a technologically literate person will be able to participate
responsibly in debates or discussions about technological matters. When
necessary, he or she will be able to take part in a public forum, communi-
cate with city council members or members of Congress, and in other
ways make his or her opinion heard on issues involving technology.
Technological literacy does not specify a person’s opinion. Literate citi-
zens can and do hold quite different opinions depending upon the ques-
tion at hand and their own values and judgment. A technologically
literate individual will be able to envision how technology—in conjunc-
tion with, for example, the law or the marketplace—might help solve a
problem.

Technical Competency

Technological literacy is not the same as technical competency. Technological

Technically trained people have a high level of knowledge and skill related literacy is not the
to one or more specific technologies or technical areas. For instance, we same as
expect people who repair appliances to be able to diagnose and fix me- technical
chanical or electrical problems in stoves, refrigerators, and dishwashers. A competency.
technician operating a computer numerically controlled milling machine
must be knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the milling ma-
chine, as well as how the mill’s operation fits into the larger manufacturing
process. Civil engineers must have a detailed understanding of the behav-
ior of structures and materials under load; mechanical engineers must have
an in-depth understanding of mechanical systems and their applications;
electrical engineers must be able to design and analyze electrical circuits.
All of these jobs and many others require technically competent people—
people with technical proficiency in a certain technological area, although
not generally in other areas of technology.
A technologically literate person will not necessarily require ex-

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 21

BOX 1-3 What Would You Do?

Imagine yourself in California in the year 2003. A proposition on the statewide ballot calls for 10 percent
of the cars sold in California to be powered by fuel cells or fuel-cell/internal combustion hybrids by the
year 2007. Proponents claim this would reduce automobile-generated pollution and force the rapid
development of a more environmentally friendly technology, which, given this initial boost, can then take
over a larger and larger market share on its own. Opponents respond that the automobile industry cannot
produce safe fuel-cell-powered cars by 2007, that the cars will have to be subsidized or no one will buy
them, and that, anyway, most of the vehicle-generated pollution comes from tractor-trailers, not modern
cars, which already have a lot of pollution-control equipment. How do you go about deciding which way
to vote?

tensive technical skills. Technological literacy is more a capacity to

understand the broader technological world rather than an ability to work
with specific pieces of it. Some familiarity with at least a few technologies
will be useful, however, as a concrete basis for thinking about technology.
Someone who is knowledgeable about the history of technology and about
basic technological principles but who has no hands-on capabilities with
even the most common technologies cannot be as technologically literate
as someone who has those capabilities.
But specialized technical skills do not guarantee technological
literacy. Workers who know every operational detail of an air conditioner
or who can troubleshoot a software glitch in a personal computer may not
have a sense of the risks, benefits, and trade-offs associated with techno-
logical developments generally and may be poorly prepared to make
choices about other technologies that affect their lives. For example, they
might not be well prepared to decide if a car powered by a gas-electric
hybrid engine is a good investment, and if it would be better for the
environment than a traditionally powered car (Box 1-3).
Even engineers, who have traditionally been considered experts
in technology, may not have the training or experience necessary to think
about the social, political, and ethical implications of their work and so
may not be technologically literate. The broad perspective on technology
implied by technological literacy would be as valuable to engineers and
other technical specialists as to people with no direct involvement in the
development or production of technology.

22 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Conclusion

A full appreciation of technological literacy, as of technology

itself, requires an understanding of the larger society and culture in which
it exists. Like other types of literacy, technological literacy is intimately
related to many aspects of our lives. The capability dimension of techno-
logical literacy, for instance, requires a hands-on, design, and problem-
solving orientation, which is in keeping with the job requirements for
many workers, in both technical and nontechnical fields. The knowledge
dimension of technological literacy is related to other academic areas, such
as science, mathematics, history, and language arts. In fact, technological
literacy could be a thematic unifier for many subjects now taught sepa-
rately in American schools. The thinking and action dimension of tech-
nological literacy places it squarely in the realm of democracy and civics.
Some level of participation in decision making about the development and
use of technology is an essential aspect of technological literacy.

References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1990a. The Nature
of Technology and The Designed World. Chapters 3 and 8 in Science for All
Americans. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
AAAS. 1990b. Habits of Mind. Chapter 12 in Science for All Americans. Wash-
ington, D.C.: AAAS.
AAAS. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bucciarelli, L. 1996. Designing Engineers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Copp, N.H., and A. Zanella. 1992. Discovery, Innovation, and Risk: Case Studies in
Science and Technology (New Liberal Arts). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
CPEMST (Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Tech-
nology). 1983. Educating Americans for the 21st Century: A Plan of Action for
Improving Mathematics, Science and Technology Education for All American
Elementary and Secondary Students So That Their Achievement Is the Best in
the World by 1995: A Report to the American People and the National Science
Board. Washington, D.C.: National Science Board Commission on Precollege
Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.
DoEd (U.S. Department of Education). 1996. Getting America’s Students Ready for
the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. A Report to the
Nation on Technology and Education. Washington, D.C.: DoEd.
Dyrenfurth, M.J. 1991. Technological literacy synthesized. Pp. 138–183 in Techno-
logical Literacy. Council on Technology Teacher Education, 40th Yearbook,
edited by M.J. Dyrenfurth and M.R. Kozak. Peoria, Ill.: Macmillan/McGraw-
Hill, Glencoe Division.
Fanning, J. 2001. Expanding the Definition of Technological Literacy in Schools.
Available online at: <http://www.mcrel.org/products/noteworthy/noteworthy/
jimf.asp> (November 13, 2001).

MANDATE FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 23

 Gould, L.C., G.T. Gardner, D.R. DeLuca, A.R. Tiemann, L.W. Doob, and J.A.J.
Stolwijk. 1988. Perceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits. New York:
Russell Sage.
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. 1988. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know.
New York: Vintage Books.
ITEA (International Technology Education Association). 2000. Preparing students
for a technological world. Pp. 1–10 in Standards for Technological Literacy:
Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, Virginia.: ITEA.
Madison, J. 1822. Letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822. P. 276 in The Writings of
James Madison, Vol. 3, edited by G. Hunt. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Mitchem, C. 1994. Thinking Through Technology: The Path Between Engineering
and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, D.R., S. Manguin, and J. Mouchet. 2000. DDT house spraying and re-
emerging malaria. Lancet 356:330–332.
21st Century Workforce Commission. 2000. A Nation of Opportunity—Building
America’s 21st Century Workforce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2001. Text of Persistent Or-
ganic Pollutants Treaty Concluded in Johannesburg; Signing Conference Set for
Stockholm 22 to 23 May 2001. Press release. Available online at: <http://
www.chem.unep.ch/pops/POPs_Inc/press_releases/pressrel-01/pr5-01.htm>
(November 12, 2001).

24 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 2
Benefits of
Technological Literacy

he argument for technological literacy is rooted in a

T single, fundamental belief. In a world permeated by

technology, an individual can function more effectively
if he or she is familiar with and has a basic understanding of technology.
A higher level of technological literacy in the United States would have a
number of benefits, for individuals and for the society as a whole.

Improving Decision Making

Technological literacy prepares individuals to make well-informed

choices in their role as consumers. The world is full of products and
services that promise to make people’s lives easier, more enjoyable, more
efficient, or healthier, and more and more of these products appear every
year. A technologically literate person cannot know how each new tech-
nology works, its advantages and disadvantages, how to operate it, and so
on, but he or she can learn enough about a product to put it to good use or
to choose not to use it.
Americans are not only consumers; they are also workers, mem-
bers of families and communities, and citizens of a large, complex democ-
racy. In all of these spheres, they face personal decisions that involve the
development or use of technology. Is a local referendum on issuing bonds
for the construction of a new power plant a wise use of taxpayer dollars?
Does a plan to locate a new waste incinerator within several miles of one’s
home pose serious health risks, as opponents of the initiative may claim?
How should one react to efforts by local government to place surveillance
cameras in high-crime areas of the city? Technologically literate people

25
 will be much better able to address these and many other technology-
related questions.
Decision making is not only personal. Leaders in a variety of
sectors, including business, government, and the media, make decisions
daily that affect what others—sometimes thousands or even millions of
people—think and do. These individuals in particular will benefit from a
considerable understanding of the nature of technology, and an awareness
that all technologies involve trade-offs and may result in unintended
consequences. With a higher level of technological literacy in the nation,
people in positions of power will be more likely to manage technological
developments in a way that maximizes the benefits to humankind and
There is no minimizes the negative impacts. Of course, there is no hard-and-fast line
hard-and-fast between purely personal concerns and business interests, the needs of
line between states, and the needs of the nation. In most cases the personal interests of
purely personal everyday Americans do influence decisions by policy makers and company
concerns and CEOs.
business Some concrete examples can illustrate the importance of techno-
interests, the logical literacy to decision making at all levels. The next three sections
needs of states, present descriptions of current issues that require decision making of some
and the needs sort. The first is the use of car air bags and relates mostly to the concerns
of the nation. of individual citizens. The second addresses genetically modified foods,
an issue relevant to individuals, who must decide which foods to buy at the
grocery store; policy makers, who must take into account regulatory, trade,
and other considerations; and the biotechnology industry and farmers, the
two groups most responsible for creating and selling such products. The
third example is the California energy crisis, which has put pressure on
individuals, businesses, and political leaders to develop short-term and
long-term solutions.
All three examples have a central technological component, which
may be part of the problem, part of a solution, or both. The technological
component cannot be separated from political, legal, social, and
other concerns. A box at the end of each example shows how the three
dimensions of technological literacy—knowledge, capabilities, and ways
of thinking and acting—might come into play in each case.

On or Off? Deciding About Your Car Air Bag

By now, almost everyone knows that car air bags can cause injury
or even death, as well as offer protection. Most car owners are aware of

26 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
recommendations by safety experts that young children be placed in the
back seat and that a distance of at least 10 inches be maintained between
the driver and the steering wheel to minimize the chances of air bag-
induced injury. Some people feel that air bags are not worth the risk and
would like to shut them off, or at least have the option to do so. An on-off
switch can be installed, but it requires permission from the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and costs several hun-
dred dollars.
The decision to disable your air bag has potentially serious conse-
quences. To make the best choice, the decision maker should know
something about how air bags work, how well they protect, and in what
situations.
All air bag systems operate in basically the same way. Onboard
sensing devices measure crash impact. Once activated, the crash sensors
signal solid-propellant inflators to begin the chemical reaction that gener-
ates nitrogen gas that fills the air bag. The gas inflates a folded nylon bag,
which acts as a protective cushion between the occupant and the inside of
the car. As the person collides with the air bag, vents in the bag allow the
gas to escape, absorbing energy and reducing the severity of impact.
Ideally, occupants collide with the bag just as it becomes fully inflated.
But if the bag strikes the occupant while it is still inflating, it can cause
serious injury or death because the bags travel at speeds of more than 100
mph.
Studies show that air bags are about 13 percent effective in saving
the lives of drivers not wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt (NHTSA, 1996).
That is, if 100 fatally injured drivers in cars without air bags had been
driving cars with air bags, 13 of them would have survived. By compari-
son, seat belts are approximately 42 percent effective in preventing driver Overall, air bags
fatalities, compared to situations in which no seat belts are worn. The reduce the risk of
combined effectiveness, for drivers, of seat belts and air bags is 47 percent. death for drivers
This means that, overall, air bags reduce the risk of death for drivers wearing seat belts
wearing seat belts by 9 percent ([58 – 53]/58). by 9 percent.
As it turns out, the government vastly overestimated the effec-
tiveness of air bags, claiming in the late 1970s they would save 12,000 lives
annually (Federal Register, 1977). The actual record is not nearly as
impressive. From 1986 through April 2001, fewer than 7,000 lives had
been saved by air bags. An estimated 246 people (including 61 uncon-
firmed air bag-related fatalities), mostly drivers and children, had been

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 27

 killed by air bags during the same period (GAO, 2001a). By comparison,
about 11,000 lives are saved every year by seat belts.
The benefits of air bags depend on many factors. One of the
most important factors is the weight and, especially, the height of
the occupants. Because those two parameters are closely linked to gender,
the effectiveness of air bags differs greatly for men and women. For
example, nearly three-quarters of the drivers killed by air bags were
women. In one study, air bags used in conjunction with seat belts reduced
total harm (a mix of fatalities and injuries) among male drivers by 11
percent but increased the harm to female drivers wearing seat belts by 9
percent (Dalmotas et al., 1996). For people of small stature (shorter than
5 feet, 3 inches tall), air bags increased total harm. The data also show
that age makes a difference. Drivers between the ages of 15 and 50
wearing seat belts were better protected with air bags. However, no clear
evidence showed added protection for belted drivers over the age of 50.
A number of factors besides air bags affect the safety of vehicle
occupants. Consider the 9 percent figure, which represents the additional
lifesaving potential of air bags for belted drivers. A belted driver could
reduce his or her risk of dying in a crash by the same amount by driving a
car 200 pounds heavier (Evans, 1991). The same nine-percent reduction
in driver fatalities could be achieved across the nation by lowering average
driving speeds on U.S. roads by 2 mph.
Recently, the technological landscape for air bags has begun to
A number of change. New NHTSA regulations require that automakers design and
factors besides install more advanced air bag systems for model 2004 vehicles. The new
air bags affect the devices are meant to meet the safety needs of drivers and passengers of
safety of vehicle different sizes, weights, and seating positions. The rules have stimulated
occupants. millions of dollars of research on occupant classification sensors, seat belt
usage sensors, multistage inflators that can fill air bags at varying rates,
and less aggressive air bag designs (GAO, 2001a).
Return now to the original decision—whether or not to install an
on-off switch. The decision will depend on many factors related not only
to the personal characteristics of the people who will use the vehicle—
drivers and passengers—but also to the type and age of the vehicle itself.
To make an intelligent choice, the individual will have to draw on all three
dimensions of technological literacy (Box 2-1).

28 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 BOX 2-1 The Technologically Literate Citizen and Air Bags

Knowledge
• Understands that for many occupants air bags provide a moderate increase in safety over the use of
seat belts alone.
• Appreciates that there are risks to turning off the air-bag switch, just as there are risks associated
with leaving the air-bag system intact.
• Understands that more advanced air-bag systems will probably be more expensive than the old
ones, adding to the overall cost of the car.
• Understands that, as certain technologies like air bags become more sophisticated, the incidence of
mechanical, electrical, or other problems may increase.
• Understands that there may be unforeseen consequences with the new air-bag systems, some of
which may require modifications of the existing technology or entirely new technological solutions.
Ways of Thinking and Acting
• Takes steps (e.g., online or library research and reading; contacting state or federal auto safety or
consumer organizations) to learn about the pros and cons of air bags.
• Itemizes personal and vehicle-specific factors to determine the appropriateness of an on-off switch
for his or her car.
• When buying a new car with an advanced air-bag system, inquires about the risks of the system,
especially related to the age and size of front-seat occupants.
Capabilities
• Can optimize the safety and effectiveness of air bags, for example by seating children in the back seat
and maintaining an appropriate distance between the steering wheel and driver.
• Can apply for permission to have the switch installed and to identify and interact with a qualified
mechanic to have the work done.
• Is comfortable knowing when and how to turn the switch on and off.

Waiter, There’s a GMO in My Soup

In fall 2000, American consumers were informed that a type of

genetically modified corn approved for use in animal feed had somehow
made its way into grocery stores as an ingredient in taco shells manufac-
tured by Kraft Foods. There were concerns that a bacterial protein
inserted into the corn’s genetic makeup to protect growing plants from the
European corn borer could trigger an allergic reaction in some people.
Kraft recalled millions of its taco shells in response (Washington Post,
September 18, 2000).
Groups opposed to genetically modified foods cited the episode
as evidence that the risks had not been taken seriously enough. The
biotechnology industry downplayed the importance of the mix-up, point-
ing out that the same protein is present in other types of corn grown for
human consumption—including organically grown corn—and noting that

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 29

 the amount of modified corn was so small that it was unlikely to cause any
noticeable health effects. The media and the public were left to flounder
in a sea of conflicting opinions and interpretations.
In early 2001, batches of seed corn grown by U.S. farmers and
slated for sale overseas were found to contain small amounts of the same
Because genetically modified version discovered in taco shells (Washington Post,
European and March 1, 2001). Because European and Asian opposition to genetically
Asian opposition modified organisms (GMOs) is very strong (Laget and Cantley, 2001),
to genetically billions of dollars of U.S. exports were threatened. The U.S. government
modified ended up buying back millions of dollars worth of seed stock that had been
organisms is very mixed with the genetically modified version, called StarLink.
strong, billions of In late July 2001, a scientific advisory panel to the Environmental
dollars of U.S. Protection Agency (EPA) concluded there was not enough evidence to
exports were prove that the modified corn does not pose an allergic risk to people.
threatened. Based on the panel’s finding, the agency decided to maintain its policy of
banning even trace amounts of the modified corn in foods (Washington
Post, July 28, 2001).
Because of fears of adverse health effects, the European Union
(EU) had already effectively banned the importation of most biotech-
derived foods in 1998, causing sales of exported U.S. corn to plunge from
about $300 million annually in the mid-1990s to less than $10 million in
recent years (GAO, 2001b). The EU accounts for only about 5 percent of
the market for this U.S. crop, but other larger markets in Asia and Latin
America have also taken steps, such as requiring labeling of genetically
modified food products, that are expected to decrease the size of the
export market for American farmers.
Perhaps no technology better illustrates the current mismatch
between the adoption of a new technology and society’s ability to deal
with it. In the past 10 years, the idea of taking genes from one organism
and transferring them into another has gone from a laboratory demonstra-
tion to a commercial reality. In 1999, U.S. farmers planted some 70
million acres of genetically engineered crops, including 36 percent of all
corn, 55 percent of soybeans, and 43 percent of cotton. Most of those
crops were modified either to produce a substance, often a protein, that
defends them against insect pests—as was the case for the corn that ended
up in the tacos—or else to be resistant to herbicides that are sprayed on
the fields to control weeds (New York Times, March 14, 2000).
In the next decade, we could see explosive growth in the agricul-
tural uses of genetic engineering. Researchers are constantly improving

30 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
techniques for putting new genes into organisms, and scientists can now
map out entire genomes—that is, the entire genetic makeup of organ-
isms—quickly and at relatively low cost. This will have two effects. First,
it will improve our understanding of the genetics of crops and farm
animals. Second, it will provide a multitude of new genes to work with.
In the United States, the genetically engineered changes benefit
both farmers and the environment. In the case of StarLink, for example,
farmers growing the modified corn can use less chemical pesticide, thus
cutting their production costs and, at the same time, reducing harmful
pesticide-laden runoff. In developing countries, however, the benefits
could be even greater. Genetic enhancements could mean the difference
between starvation and survival for large numbers of people and between
dependency on foreign imports and agricultural self-sufficiency for entire
nations.
Some gene splicing dramatically improves the health benefits of
foods. In Switzerland, for instance, a German scientist, Ingo Potrykus,
has engineered a new type of rice that produces generous amounts of beta
carotene, which the human body turns into Vitamin A. If widely adopted,
this so-called golden rice could prevent 1 to 2 million deaths and 500,000
cases of blindness each year among children who survive almost com- It is impossible to
pletely on rice for months at a time and suffer from Vitamin A deficiency. know whether a
Healthier foods of this sort could enhance diets and improve health technologically
around the world, in both developed and developing countries. literate
Today, we find ourselves with a volatile combination of rapidly population would
growing biotech capabilities and a public that is not prepared to under- reject GMOs,
stand or assess those capabilities. In Europe, the mismatch has led to a embrace them, or
nearly complete ban on genetically modified foodstuffs. Ingo Potrykus’s find a middle
plan to distribute his beta-carotene rice to poor farmers around the world ground.
is threatened by an effort in Switzerland to pass legislation forbidding the
export of GMOs.
The development and use of GMOs raises a number of ques-
tions, not only for consumers but also for farmers and policy makers.
Which foods are safe to eat? Which crops should be grown and under
what conditions and to whom can they be sold? How should products
containing GMOs be labeled? It is impossible to know whether a techno-
logically literate population would reject GMOs, embrace them, or find a
middle ground, accepting foods that provided significant improvements,
such as the beta-carotene rice, but rejecting foods that simply lowered the
cost of production by a few percentage points. Whatever the outcome, the

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 31

BOX 2-2 The Technologically Literate Citizen and GMOs

Knowledge
• Understands that a common method of creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involves
transferring genetic material from one organism to another.
• Knows that genetic engineering has been used for decades to produce or enhance food crops,
chemicals, drugs and other therapeutics, and organisms with special characteristics, such as oil-eating
bacteria.
• Recognizes that health and environmental risks might be associated with some GMOs and that some
of the risks are uncertain or unknown.
• Understands that one trade-off of producing GMOs may be a decrease in export opportunities for
U.S. crops and food products.
• Appreciates that the development and use of GMOs has economic and political effects in the United
States as well as internationally.
Ways of Thinking and Acting
• Monitors and, when appropriate, participates in decisions by federal and state agencies, as well as by
local grocery stores, regarding the sale of GMO-containing foods.
• Uses information on product labels and in advertising to make informed decisions about purchasing
and consuming GMO-containing foods.
Capabilities
• Can critically evaluate news coverage regarding the scale and probability of risks associated with
GMOs.

decision should be made by people with a basic understanding of technol-

ogy and an ability to weigh risks and benefits (Box 2-2).

Turning the Lights Out: The California Energy Crisis

In January 2001, California was facing an energy crisis. Demand

for electric power had grown to the point that the state’s two major
utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison, were
having difficulty meeting the need. On days of particularly high demand,
they instituted rolling blackouts, turning off electricity to first one area,
then another. In addition, the utilities were losing money so rapidly that
both were predicting bankruptcy.
How did California, which would have the world’s sixth largest
economy if it were a country, get into this predicament? The answer is
complex. At least a part of the explanation is the failure of state officials to
understand—or perhaps their decision to ignore—basic facts about how
the electric power industry works. The state also appears to have miscal-

32 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
culated when it deregulated the electric power industry. In addition,
uncontrollable factors, such as the pace of economic growth in California,
and drought and colder than average temperatures in the Northwest,
conspired to put further pressure on the system.
Commercial electricity is generated in plants large enough to
provide energy for tens of thousands of homes. All electricity, whether
generated from hydroelectric dams, solar collectors, wind turbines, or
plants that consume coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear fuel, is fed into a
network of transmission wires—the “grid”—which delivers the power
where it is needed. Operators keep track of demand on an hourly basis,
making sure that enough power is being fed into the system. If demand
outstrips supply, the operators attempt to find extra power from outside
plants attached to the grid. If they cannot, they shut off power to some
customers to prevent the entire system from failing.
Once it enters the grid, there is no distinction between electricity Once it enters the
generated by, say, a natural gas plant outside Sacramento and a nuclear grid, there is no
plant near San Diego. In short, electricity becomes a commodity that can distinction
be bought and sold by the kilowatt-hour. Because of this, a company like between
Southern California Edison does not have to generate exactly enough electricity
power for its customers. If it needs more, the company can buy extra generated by a
power from another producer; if it has extra power, it can sell it. natural gas plant
For decades the electric power industry has been closely regulated outside
by the states. Each utility was required to have enough generating Sacramento and
capacity to serve its customers. In turn, the state set rates for electricity a nuclear plant
that guaranteed the utilities a reasonable return on their investment. near San Diego.
Although this was a safe arrangement for the utilities, some critics argued
that regulation removed much of the utilities’ incentive to produce power
at the lowest possible cost.
In response to these arguments, the state of California decided in
1996 to deregulate its electric utilities. According to the plan devised by
legislators, the two major utilities would sell off much of their generating
capacity and buy electric power wholesale from whatever companies
would provide it to them at the lowest cost (New York Times, January 2,
2001). The idea was that competition would drive prices down, and the
utilities would be able to purchase power at a lower cost than the cost of
producing it. At a second, later stage, the retail market would be
deregulated, allowing consumers to benefit from the lower costs of elec-
tricity production.
As events would prove, the plan had at least two major flaws.

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 33

 First, it did not pay enough attention to the building of new generating
plants. In the early 1990s, California had an excess of electrical generating
capacity, and its economy was growing slowly enough that new plants did
not seem to be a priority (New York Times, January 11, 2001). Pacific Gas
& Electric and Southern California Edison had always provided enough
electricity, and the lawmakers who wrote the bill assumed that, with
deregulation, other companies would build whatever plants were neces-
sary (New York Times, January 5, 2001).
But they had not counted on the hurdles these companies would
face. California’s environmental laws are among the nation’s toughest, so
building new plants is more difficult there than in many other states (New
York Times, January 10, 11, 2001). Those difficulties, combined with
uncertainties about how the deregulated industry would work, made com-
panies cautious about committing to new plants. And those that did
commit found that the approval rate was slowed both by the state agencies
that approve new plants and local activist groups that did not want
generating plants built in their backyards (New York Times, January 5, 11,
In the 3 years 12, 2001). As a result, in the 3 years after the deregulation law passed,
after the California added only 2 percent to its generating capacity (New York
deregulation law Times, January 11, 2001).
passed, California Meanwhile, the California economy grew rapidly, twice the na-
added only 2 tional average in the late 1990s, and demand for electricity grew apace
percent to its (New York Times, January 11, 2001). By summer 2000, demand had
generating caught up with supply, and on hot days during peak hours, the demand
capacity. exceeded maximum generating capacity. The utilities were forced to buy
electricity from outside the state, but other Western states had little to
spare, and the scarcity drove prices up sharply. The California utilities,
which had been accustomed to paying about $60 to $70 per megawatt-
hour, suddenly found themselves paying as much as $750, the federally
mandated maximum. Later, when the cap was removed, they were forced
to pay spot prices as high as $1,400 per megawatt-hour.
This increased cost could not be passed on to consumers, how-
ever, which was a second major flaw in the deregulation plan. According
to the 1996 law, retail prices of electricity were not scheduled to be
deregulated until March 2002; until then, the utilities could charge no
more than $65 per megawatt-hour (New York Times, January 4, 2001). As
a result, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison found
themselves paying out several times as much to buy power as they took in
for selling it; by January 2001, they had lost a combined $12 billion.

34 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Unable to pay their bills and unable to find creditors willing to lend them
the billions they needed to keep going, both utilities warned they might go
bankrupt by February.
The price freeze also meant that consumers, who were paying an
artificially low price for energy, had no incentive to use less electricity. As
a result, demand continued to rise. The only exception was in the San
Diego area, where San Diego Gas & Electric had sold all of its power
plants and was free to raise its retail rates in response to wholesale costs.
In the summer of 2000, when that utility more than doubled its rates,
consumer energy use dropped by more than 5 percent in a few weeks (New
York Times, January 10, 2001).
The California energy crisis illustrates the danger of taking a
technology for granted and acting without thinking carefully about the
factors that influence the technology in question. A more technologically
literate California legislator might have insisted that planning for addi-
tional generating capacity begin before deregulation went forward. The
trade-offs between increasing electricity supply and protecting the envi-
ronment may also have been more prominent in the state’s debate on A more
energy policy. More knowledgeable citizens might have made a differ- technologically
ence, too, for instance by being more supportive of proposals for building literate California
new generating plants, agreeing to stricter conservation measures, or legislator might
pushing for more investment in alternative energy sources, such as solar, have insisted that
wind, and thermal power. If lawmakers had believed their constituents planning for
were technologically savvy enough to understand the need for steps like additional
these, they might have been more confident about making politically generating
unpopular, but necessary, decisions. capacity begin
Even after the crisis had begun, a more technologically literate before
public might have made a difference. Much of the debate over the crisis deregulation
ignored the fact that the utilities had enough power except during times of went forward.
peak load—the hours when demand is at or near a maximum. If consum-
ers had been convinced to cut their usage slightly during those hours, the
utilities might not have been forced to buy electricity at inflated prices.
Based on the three dimensions of technological literacy, we can
suggest the kinds of understanding and competencies technologically
literate Californians—legislators and citizens—might have brought to
bear on the state’s energy crisis (Box 2-3). It is impossible to know, of
course, whether the crisis could have been avoided if the level of techno-
logical literacy had been higher. It seems reasonable, however, that the

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 35

BOX 2-3 The Technologically Literate Citizen and California’s Energy Crisis

Knowledge
• Understands electricity can be generated in a number of ways, each of which has advantages and
disadvantages.
• Understands that electricity is transported from one place to another as a commodity and is sold
through an interstate grid.
• Understands that many factors besides technology, such as politics, regulations, and markets,
determine energy supply and demand.
• Understands that it takes many years to create new generating capacity.
Ways of Thinking and Acting
• Takes advantage of opportunities for conserving electricity at home and work.
• Keeps abreast of the short-term and long-term proposals for ensuring stable supplies of electricity.
• Evaluates these proposals in terms of their potential risks, benefits, costs, and the constraints to
their development.
Capabilities
• Can evaluate the costs and benefits of energy-efficient appliances and fuel-efficient vehicles.
• Can change a light bulb, set the thermostat on a furnace or air conditioning unit to conserve energy,
and locate and fix a tripped circuit breaker in the event of a power outage.

debate over electric power in California would have been different and
might have included more prominently the voices of everyday citizens.

Increasing Citizen Participation

In addition to being consumers and workers, Americans are also

citizens of a democracy who have a right—indeed a responsibility—to let
their voices be heard on matters that concern them. Most current politi-
cal, legal, and ethical issues, from what to do about global warming to how
to protect privacy in the Information Age, have a technological compo-
nent. A technologically literate citizen is likely to participate in the
decision making, whether by voting for a candidate or in a referendum,
writing a letter to the editor of a local paper, sending an e-mail to a
member of Congress, participating in a public opinion poll, speaking out
at a town meeting, or supporting the work of an organized special-interest
group.
In a democratic society, people must be involved in the techno-
logical decisions that affect them for two very different reasons—one
practical and one philosophical. First, decisions made without public
input are often eventually rejected as illegitimate and antidemocratic,

36 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
which can impede the acceptance of a technology. Second, democratic
principles are based on citizen participation—at least indirect participa-
tion through elected representatives—in decisions that affect them. Few
decisions today affect people more than those about the kinds of technolo- Few decisions
gies that are developed and how they are used. Citizen input can be today affect
influential during the design or research and development (R&D) phase people more than
of technology. People can also affect how a technology is used once it those about the
passes into the public arena. kinds of
Public participation in discussions about the development and technologies that
uses of technology is also important for another reason—it can lead to are developed
greater technological literacy. The simple act of asking and trying to and how they are
answer questions about technology can lead to a better understanding not used.
only of technical, but also of the social, economic, and political aspects of
the issue at hand. What are the risks and benefits, and the trade-offs, of
developing or using a technology? Who wins and who loses? What are
the costs and the alternatives? Public involvement also gives policy makers
a sense of their constituents’ fears and hopes, and thus an indication of the
public response to a particular path of technology development, as well as
to new or lesser known alternatives.

Slaying the “Green Snake” 1

The design and construction of the Boston Central Artery and

Tunnel, the largest public works project under way in the United States,
illustrates the power of everyday people to influence the shape and direc-
tion of technological development.
Scheduled for completion in 2004, the $12 billion-plus project,
involving 160 lane miles in a 7.5-mile corridor, will bring to a close the
development of a massive interstate highway network begun during the
administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. The central artery
portion of the project will remove the “Green Snake,” the elevated road-
way that has been an enormous eyesore in the heart of downtown Boston.
The Green Snake, which was built in 1959, is now clogged with almost
three times as much traffic as planners originally anticipated. The Boston
Central Artery and Tunnel will replace the elevated structure with an
underground route that is expected to facilitate the movement of inter-

1
This account of the Boston Central Artery and Tunnel is based on Hughes
(1998).

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 37

 state highway traffic through the Boston region. The harbor tunnel
portion of the project will provide a route to Logan Airport. The project
also calls for a new bridge across the Charles River from Boston into
Cambridge.
The project is The project is unique in the extent and nature of public participa-
unique in the tion during the design phase and the sensitivity to environmental concerns
extent and nature shown by the developers. Many people believe the project could become a
of public model for other cities throughout the world.
participation Critics, however, point out that the actual cost of the project has
during the design greatly exceeded the original projected figure. Unanticipated construction
phase and the problems can account for much of the cost overrun, but also to blame are
sensitivity to the enormous expenses incurred in responding to the concerns of interest
environmental groups about potential environmental, economic, and cultural impacts on
concerns shown Boston.
by the Because the federal government funds about 90 percent of the
developers. work, the project had to comply with the National Environmental Protec-
tion Act of 1969, which requires the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). EISs are lengthy documents that identify in
detail how a project will positively and negatively affect the environment.
The EIS prepared for the Central Artery and Tunnel addressed 17 cat-
egories, including transportation, air quality, noise and vibration, energy,
economic characteristics, visual characteristics, historic resources, water
quality, wetlands and waterways, and vegetation and wildlife.
Because the law mandated public participation in the design of
the project, a draft EIS was widely circulated by managers of the project.
Copies were placed in libraries; a public hearing was held; and a public
comment period was provided. One hundred seventy-five people, includ-
ing spokespersons for government agencies, such as EPA, and public
interest groups, including the Sierra Club, testified at the hearing, and 99
individuals provided written comments.
Even before the EIS was circulated, negotiations between project
management and the public, especially neighborhood, business, and envi-
ronmental groups, had resulted in a number of changes, called “mitiga-
tions,” in the plan to address adverse impacts. Affluent organizations even
hired their own engineers to provide detailed alternative designs for high-
way alignment, ramps, and locations of ventilation buildings. The citizens
of East Boston called upon their congressional representatives to block
funding for the project, if the harbor tunnel emerged in their neighbor-
hood. The tunnel now emerges on Logan Airport property. Overall, the

38 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
project has accommodated some 1,100 mitigations, which added an esti-
mated $2.8 billion to the total cost.
In 1990, public attention was focused on the design for the
Charles River bridge and ramps. The twenty-sixth alternative design,
nicknamed Scheme Z, was announced in August 1988 but aroused little
reaction, probably because three-dimensional models and easily compre-
hensible drawings of the design were not available. When a model of the
structure was displayed a year later, the architectural critic of the Boston
Globe compared the bridge and access ramps to a massive wall across the
Charles River. An EPA official predicted that the structure would be the
ugliest in New England.
Various citizen groups responded vociferously to Scheme Z. A
newly formed organization, Citizens for a Livable Charlestown, joined
the chorus of complaints and hired an artist to prepare an illustration
emphasizing the overwhelming size of the bridge and associated road-
ways. Publication of the drawing in the Charlestown Patriot caused a
public uproar. Within weeks, other groups, including the Charles River
Watershed Association, which has more than 1,000 members, and the
New England chapter of the Sierra Club joined the chorus of opposition. Overall, the
A weeklong series of articles in the Boston Globe in December 1990 project has
stressing the potential noise, shadows, and blight of the enormous struc- accommodated
ture fanned the fires of discontent, demonstrating the effectiveness of an some 1,100
alliance of media and activist groups in stimulating public participation. mitigations,
In light of the growing opposition, the Boston City Council, by unani- which added an
mous vote, declared its opposition to Scheme Z. estimated $2.8
In January 1991, the Massachusetts secretary of transportation billion to the
attempted to assuage various interest groups by establishing a Bridge total cost.
Design Review Committee. The composition of the 42-member com-
mittee was based on current thinking about participatory design and
conflict resolution. The committee’s deliberations were open,
multidisciplinary, and consensus seeking. Members represented national
environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club; local environmen-
tal, transportation, and business groups, such as the Charles River Water-
shed Association and the Boston Chamber of Commerce; and organiza-
tions of professional engineers, architects, and urban planners.
Instead of revising Scheme Z, in June 1991 the committee voted
unanimously to abandon it and proposed a new conceptual design for a
tunnel under the Charles River to replace some of the massive bridge
structure. The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 39

 Corps of Engineers, however, called for other, nontunnel alternatives.
Critics warned that digging for a tunnel would not only be expensive, but
would also cause serious pollution problems for the river.
The conflict was resolved when the state selected a bridge de-
signed by world-famous Swiss architect Christian Menn. The new design
specified that two bridges be built side by side, one with 10 lanes, and one
with 4. Peter Zuk, the Central Artery/Tunnel project director, pro-
claimed it a world-class, elegant design. Others characterized it as a
signature structure, and an appropriate gateway to a great city.
The Boston project illustrates some interesting ideas about tech-
nological literacy. In this case it was primarily organizations, especially
environmental organizations, not individuals, that were active, effective
participants in design reviews, controversies, and the obtaining of mitiga-
tions. The public at large did not have to be knowledgeable about the
technical details of highway construction and environmental impact. How-
ever, public support—financial and political—for the involved organiza-
tions was critical. In addition, the media, especially local newspapers,
played a major role in informing the public and raising the level of
concern.

Supporting a Modern Workforce

One of the obvious benefits of technological literacy is in the

economic realm. Technology, particularly in the high-tech sector, has
been driving much of the economic growth in the United States and
elsewhere, and an increasing percentage of jobs require technological skills
(Rausch, 1998). Although technological literacy and technical compe-
Increasing the tency are not the same thing, they are related. Increasing the overall level
overall level of of technological literacy would almost certainly improve the climate for
technological technology-driven economic growth. A technologically literate popula-
literacy would tion would, for example, understand that science and technology are the
almost certainly foundation of our economic strength and would be more likely to support
improve the the research, education, and economic policies that support that founda-
climate for tion. Conversely, technologically literate citizens would be less likely to
technology- support policies that would undermine the technological basis of the
driven economic economy.
growth. Improving technological literacy would also help to prepare indi-
viduals for jobs in our technology-driven economy, thus strengthening the
economy. Technologically literate workers are more likely than those

40 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
lacking such literacy to have a broad range of knowledge and abilities,
such as the critical skills identified by the Secretary’s Commission on
Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) (DOL, 1991).
The study of technology involves evaluating how others have
successfully solved problems and provides experience in hands-on prob-
lem solving; hence, technologically literate workers are likely to be able to
identify and solve problems. They are also more likely to put things in a
broad context, because the study of technology emphasizes systems think-
ing. They are more likely to be comfortable with complex interrelation-
ships, which are common in technological systems. And they may be able
to troubleshoot problems with equipment when necessary because they
have learned how to ask the necessary questions to understand why a
technology works—or why it isn’t working.
Technology is everywhere in the business world. Doctors, nurses,
and other medical personnel depend on a growing number of medical
devices for examination, diagnosis, and treatment. Teachers are bom-
barded with new tools for preparing and delivering lessons, researching
new teaching techniques, and enabling students to learn outside the
traditional setting. Farmers use the Global Positioning System to help
monitor crop yields and tailor the application of herbicides, and they must
decide whether or not to plant genetically modified seeds. Self-employed
workers must set up home offices and purchase and operate their own
office technology. Technologically literate people will tend to be more
comfortable dealing with technologies that their jobs demand and will
find it easier to master new technologies as they come along.
The military is also becoming increasingly dependent on technol-
ogy. The nation’s 1.4 million soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines must
be able to operate and manage technically complex weaponry, transporta-
tion systems, and communications systems (DOD, 2001). The effective-
ness of U.S. fighting forces depends largely on how well they do their jobs.
Their performance, in turn, depends not only on their knowledge of the
specific systems but also on their problem-solving, critical-thinking, and
teamwork skills. Improving the overall technological literacy of the popu-
lation will make it easier for the military to find men and women who can
serve effectively.
Employers in all sectors are demanding workers with a mix of
factual and conceptual knowledge, critical thinking skills, and procedural
knowledge. In this climate, technologically literate workers may have a
competitive advantage in the job market and may be more likely to land

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 41

 better paying, more interesting jobs. For similar reasons, technological
literacy can help narrow the growing wage gap—and related shortage of
skills—between salaried workers with higher educations and hourly work-
ers without it (DOL, 1999).
At the moment, the United States does not produce enough
technically skilled workers to support certain sectors of its high-tech
economy. Therefore, we must depend on workers brought in from other
countries (Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology,
2001; 21st Century Workforce Commission, 2000). A campaign for
technological literacy could lessen our dependence on foreign workers by
encouraging young students to pursue scientific or technical careers. Boost-
ing the awareness of the importance of technology in the general popula-
tion may increase the esteem and respect accorded to jobs in the technol-
ogy sector, which would also encourage more students to pursue careers in
science and engineering.

Narrowing the Digital Divide

Many commentators have noted a distressing pattern in the use

of the Internet. Most of the people who have access to it, either at work or
at home, and those most likely to know how to take advantage of its
resources are more affluent, better educated, urban, and are not members
of ethnic or racial minorities. The most recent data from the federal
government show that this “digital divide” has been decreasing as Internet
usage among most groups of Americans continues to increase (DOC,
2000). For instance, in rural areas, 39 percent of households had access to
the Internet as of August 2000, a 75 percent jump from just 20 months
earlier. The gap between the percentage of rural households with Internet
access and the nationwide average fell from 4 percentage points to 2.6
percentage points in 2000, a drop of 35 percent.
Blacks and Hispanics have made significant gains in Internet
access. Over the 20-month period, the proportion of black households
with access increased from 11.2 percent to 23.5 percent; Hispanic access
rose from 12.6 percent to 23.6 percent. However, large gaps still remain
for these groups when measured against the national average, and these
gaps appear to be growing. The gap in Internet access between black and
Hispanic households and the national average was 18 percentage points in
August 2000, an increase of 3 percentage points for blacks and 4.3
percentage points for Hispanics. Large gaps in the ownership of comput-

42 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
ers between these two groups and the national average of ownership have
not narrowed since the last government survey.
Access to a personal computer is the single most important factor
in whether or not a person uses the Internet. Not surprisingly, people in Access to a
higher socioeconomic brackets are far more likely than those in lower personal
brackets to have personal computers at home or have access to them at computer is the
work. In addition, people with higher levels of education were more likely single most
to use the Internet, regardless of their income level. important factor
Black students are less likely than white students to own a home in whether or not
computer even when household incomes are factored into the equation. a person uses
Furthermore, among those without home computers, black students are the Internet.
less likely than white students to access the Internet outside the home—in
school, libraries, or friends’ houses. As a result, many fewer black students
than white students are working on the Internet.
A number of remedies have been suggested for closing the digi-
tal divide. Most focus on providing universal access to the Internet so
that everyone can get online regardless of income level or job status.
Equally important will be improving technological literacy because the
better people understand the Internet and its value or are comfortable
with technology, the more likely they will be to make the effort to learn to
use it.
A similar situation exists for technology in general. All technol-
ogy, not just computers and the Internet, empowers those who own it and
understand it and puts those who do not at a disadvantage. Thus, the
nation’s poor and minorities will benefit much more by being technologi-
cally literate; being literate, they will find it easier to overcome their lack of
preparation and participate effectively in an increasingly technological
world.
If overall technological literacy is not improved, particularly among
the technological have-nots, we can expect to see the growth of a “techno-
logical divide” more pervasive than today’s digital divide. Interesting,
well-paying jobs that require a technological understanding and skills will
go mostly to well-educated upper- and middle-class Americans and for-
eign nationals, while the American underclass will continue to be stuck in
low-wage, low-skill jobs. On a deeper level, the needs and views of this
underclass will, for the most part, not be taken into account by those
responsible for developing and setting policy about technology. Thus,
new technologies and new applications of existing technologies will be

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 43

 largely irrelevant to this group, who will fall further and further outside
the mainstream.

Enhancing Social Well-being

It has become a cliché that only the young are up to date on

technology, particularly in the fast-moving world of computers and the
Internet. Can’t figure out how to set up your Web page? Ask a 15-year-
old. Confused by e-mail? To many elementary school children it is easier
to use than the U.S. mail. But behind the cliché is a basic truth. Technol-
ogy is changing so rapidly that people who are not prepared to deal with it
can quickly find themselves falling behind.
Losing touch in this way can leave people with a sense that they
have somehow lost control of their lives, that the world is moving on
without them. For much of human history, this was not a problem
because changes occurred slowly enough that people had plenty of time to
adapt and get used to them. But eras of rapid change—the Industrial
Revolution in England, for example, or the United States in the late 1800s
Technological and early 1900s—have tested the limits of human adaptability. In times
literacy can of rapid change, many people struggle to adjust to a world that is suddenly
provide a tool for quite different from the one they have known. Even for people who can
dealing with cope with specific how-tos of modern life, living in a highly technological
rapid changes. world can be alienating. This idea has been studied by sociologists and
historians and explored in the popular media, including books, movies,
and television programs.
In the next few decades, people’s abilities to adjust to new ways of
doing things will be tested far more than they have ever been tested
before. People in their forties and fifties already often feel as if technology
is passing them by; in another generation, people in their thirties could
feel the same way. The more adaptable people—those who are invigo-
rated, or at least not threatened, by the new and the unfamiliar—will do
well. But many people will find that their sense of well-being and their
quality of life are diminished rather than enhanced by new and improved
technologies. They will wish that the world were not moving quite as
quickly toward the future.
Technological literacy can provide a tool for dealing with rapid
changes. A technologically literate person will find it easier to understand
and assimilate new technologies and so will be less likely to be left behind.

44 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Equally important, technologically literate people will have a high enough
comfort level with and broad comprehension of technology to put the
changes in context and accept them even if they do not fully understand
them. Technological literacy, along with many other types of literacy, can
empower people by giving them the tools to make sense of their world,
even as it changes around them.

Conclusion

Much would be gained, for individuals and the country as a

whole, by raising the general level of technological literacy in the United
States. Of course, even if technological literacy reaches a high level among
a majority of Americans, it will not solve all of our problems or compen-
sate for the shortcomings of human nature. There will never be such a
panacea. But it seems equally certain that technological literacy will be an
essential ingredient to realizing the benefits outlined in this chapter.
A technologically literate public will undoubtedly make some
poor decisions. But many more decisions will be good ones that benefit
the whole society rather than only one part of it. Participation in itself is
no guarantee of sound decision making. But if participation occurs in an
environment in which education about technology is common and in
which taking part in technological affairs is encouraged, then it will have a
positive influence.
Technological literacy in the workplace is likely to be most rel-
evant in technology-intensive industries, such as communications, bio-
technology, and aerospace. But employers in other sectors of the economy
that are not involved directly in the creation of technology will also reap
the benefits. They, too, need employees with basic technological compe-
tence and the ability to solve problems. The positive effect of technologi-
cal literacy on the national economy is necessarily speculative. The
arguments that have been made about the importance of literacy in
mathematics and science to the economic future of the country are at least
as salient in the context of technological literacy.
The case for technological literacy related to the digital divide
and social well-being is at heart about equity, about leaving no one
behind. Technological literacy is not a sufficient condition for eliminating
all inequities, but it is among the necessary conditions for improvement in
a modern society.

BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 45

 References
Committee on Workforce Needs in Information Technology. 2001. Building a
Workforce for the Information Economy. National Research Council. Wash-
ington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Dalmotas, D.J., J. Hurley, A. German, and K. Digges. 1996. Air bag deployment
crashes in Canada. Paper 96-S1O-05, 15th Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Con-
ference, Melbourne, Australia, May 13-17, 1996.
DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2000. Falling Through the Net: Toward
Digital Inclusion. Available online at: <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
fttn00/contents00.html> (November 13, 2001).
DOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2001. Armed Forces Strength Figures for
April 2001. Available online at <http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/
ms0.pdf> (June 26, 2001).
DOL (U.S. Department of Labor). 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A
SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor.
DOL. 1999. Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21st Century.
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. Available online at: <http://
www.dol.gov/asp/futurework/report.htm> (November 13, 2001).
Evans, L. 1991. Traffic Safety and the Driver. New York: Van Nostrand.
Federal Register. 1977. Federal Motor Vehicle Standards: Occupant Protection
Systems. 42 (128): 34289–34305.
GAO (General Accounting Office). 2001a. Vehicle Safety: Technologies, Chal-
lenges, and Research and Development Expenditures for Advanced Air Bags.
Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members, Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. June 2001. Washington,
D.C.: GAO.
GAO. 2001b. International Trade: Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge U.S.
Agricultural Exports. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Finance, U.S. Senate. GAO-01-727. June 2001. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
Hughes, T.P. 1998. Coping with complexity: Central Artery/Tunnel. Pp. 197–254
in Rescuing Prometheus. New York: Pantheon Books.
Laget, P., and M. Cantley. 2001. European responses to biotechnology: Research,
regulation, and dialogue. Issues in Science and Technology. Summer 2001.
Available online at: <http://www.nap.edu/issues/17.4/p_laget.htm> (December
14, 2001).
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 1996. Effectiveness of
Occupant Protection Systems and Their Use. Third Report to Congress. Avail-
able online at: <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/208con2e.html>
(November 13, 2001).
Rausch, L.M. 1998. High-Tech Industries Drive Global Economic Activity. Avail-
able online at: <http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/issuebrf/sib98319.htm> (November
13, 2001).
21st Century Workforce Commission. 2000. A Nation of Opportunity: Building
America’s 21st Century Workforce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor.

46 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 3
Context for
Technological Literacy

review of the social, political, and educational context for

A technological literacy can reveal the opportunities for as

well as the obstacles that stand in the way of achieving it.
For instance, we can look at the historical role of technology—how
technology has changed and how our relationship to it has changed over
time. Another factor is people’s ideas about technology, specifically,
whether or not they have a broad conception of technology consistent
with technological literacy. We must also consider the influence of K-12
schooling to determine if students are being afforded an opportunity to
develop the three dimensions of technological literacy. In the political
arena, we might ask if policy makers have made technological literacy a
priority and how they approach technological decisions. We must also try
to determine what people actually know about technology and how it is
developed.

The Human Connection to Technology

Five hundred years ago, when Europeans first explored the New
World, they crossed the sea in wind-powered ships, rode the trail in
horse-drawn wagons, and carried muskets for hunting and protection.
From our point of view, these technologies were quite simple and easy to
comprehend. Although only people with special training knew how to
build a ship or sail one, almost everyone could understand what a ship did
and how and why. Three centuries later, when the newly established
United States was looking westward toward Louisiana and the Pacific, the
technologies in use were substantially the same. Although improvements

47
 and refinements had been made, a time traveler from 1500 would have
had little difficulty adapting to the devices and tools of 1800.
Fast forward another hundred years, however, and it is a different
By the end of story. By the end of the nineteenth century, a panoply of new technologies
the nineteenth had appeared that were qualitatively different from earlier technologies:
century, a steamboats and ironclad ships, the telegraph and telephone, the transcon-
panoply of new tinental railroad, the phonograph, the internal combustion engine, gaso-
technologies line and other petrochemicals, aspirin and a wealth of other drugs, the
had appeared automobile, and the machine gun. The world of 1900 was much more
that were dependent upon these machines and tools, which posed challenges that
qualitatively were entirely new. A competent, contributing member of society had to
different from understand and use an increasing number of technological devices.
earlier That pattern continued and accelerated throughout the twentieth
technologies. century. Today, technology and technological systems are integral to
everything we do and can do (Box 3-1). Our homes, our food and water,
our jobs, our travel, our communications, our entertainment, our national
security are all made possible by and depend on technology.
At the same time that technology has become ubiquitous, people

BOX 3-1 The Naked City

Technology is so woven into the fabric of modern life that it has become all but invisible. People look at
it without seeing it. But try this thought experiment. Take a large city and remove everything provided by
technology. What is left?
The buildings are gone, along with their electrical, plumbing, and ventilation systems, phone lines and
phones, computers, televisions, furniture, appliances, and every other manufactured product.
All food is gone and all water, except the puddles still standing from last night’s rain. The air is still there,
but it is noticeably fresher without the gasoline and diesel exhaust, fumes from paints, cleaners, and other
volatile liquids, and all particulate matter produced by industrial activity.
Cars and trucks, buses and trains, bicycles and baby carriages are gone. Roads, bridges, tunnels, airports,
and other components of our transportation infrastructure—gone. The grass, as natural as it seems, has
been grown from seed or sod produced on grass farms, so it too is gone. The weeds remain, but most of
the trees, bushes, and flowers, which were raised in nurseries and transplanted, are gone.
Dogs and cats, bred over millennia for specialized traits—gone. The rats and pigeons, which have also
been shaped by human activity, but in this case inadvertently, remain, along with insects, squirrels, and
other creatures that live alongside humans but are not bred by humans.
Shoes and clothing are gone. So are briefcases, purses, wallets, watches, glasses, contact lenses, hearing
aids, wheelchairs, prosthetic devices, heart valves, pacemakers, artificial joints, and all drugs and medicines,
both legal and illegal. Any semblance of a health care system—from physicians and nurses to hospitals and
ambulances—vanishes. In fact, if it were not for medical technology, many people would also be gone.
And of the remaining few, not many would survive for more than a few weeks without the products of
human innovation.

48 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
have become less and less interested in or able to look below the surface of
technology. The reasons for this are easy to find. One important factor is
the increasing complexity of technology, which makes it difficult for
anyone but experts to work with or understand the technological devices
and systems in use today. Two hundred years ago, the family vehicle was a
horse-drawn wagon, which was simple and straightforward enough that
anyone who examined it could easily understand how it worked. Today
the family car is so complicated that parts of it can only be analyzed and
serviced with the aid of computerized diagnostic equipment and other
specialized devices. Faced with this complexity, many people no longer
try to understand how technology works. Instead, we must be content
simply learning how to make it do what we want it to. Even specialists
who deal with certain technologies—auto mechanics, for instance, or
computer technicians—must rely on other technologies they may or may
not understand.
Most modern technologies are designed so users do not have to
know how they work in order to operate them. We get into our cars, turn
the key, put them into drive, and step on the gas without any awareness of
the computer-controlled fuel-injection system or the antilock brakes. We
click on an icon to retrieve our e-mail with no thought of the complex
hardware and software necessary to perform that task. This is hardly
surprising; we would get very little done each day if we had to think about
the details of our technological helpers before putting them to work.
As technology has become more complex, society has become As technology
more specialized. As a result, all of us know more but about fewer things. has become more
We turn to plumbers, electricians, appliance repairmen, cable TV install- complex, society
ers, telephone workers, and other specialists to service or repair our tech- has become more
nological devices for the simple reason that we don’t have time to learn specialized.
everything we need to know to take care of them. A doctor or a lawyer or
a secretary or a bus driver each has specialized knowledge, but even they
tend to learn only as much about technology as they need to do their jobs
and, perhaps, to maintain a minimal level of technical competence in their
personal lives.
Several other factors have contributed to the lack of hands-on
experience with technology. When Americans lived on the farm, they
were closely involved with the technologies they used. In general, as the
population has shifted from rural to urban and suburban areas, people
have become less technologically self-sufficient. In the workplace, in-
creasing computerization and automation have made it possible for fewer

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 49

 workers to control more machines, thus reducing the number of people
who actually work with machines. At the same time, many jobs have
shifted to the service sector, which now accounts for nearly 80 percent of
the gross domestic product and a little more than 80 percent of jobs
(DOC, 2001). The technical knowledge and capability required of work-
ers in those sectors of the economy that still rely on technically trained
people—such as defense, aerospace, and manufacturing—has increased
significantly (BLS, 1999). Many employers in these sectors cannot find
enough well-trained technicians and have had to invest substantial re-
sources in retraining the people they hire or hire people from abroad
(NSF, 1994).

Misconceptions About the Nature of

Technology

The nature of technology has changed dramatically in the past

hundred years. Indeed, the very idea of technology as we now conceive it
is relatively new. For most of human history, technology was mainly the
province of craftsmen who passed their know-how down from generation
to generation, gradually improving designs and adding new techniques
and materials. At the beginning of the Scientific Revolution in the mid-
1500s, inventors began using a more rational, rigorous approach to the
development of new products and began to apply insights from the
physical sciences (Bernal, 1971). Nevertheless, technology remained mostly
a trial-and-error discipline. As recently as the late 1800s, most techno-
logical progress was made by professional inventors, such as Nikola Tesla,
Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a new approach to
technology appeared, exemplified by Charles Proteus Steinmetz, who
shaped the new field of electricity generation begun by Edison (Hughes,
1983). Unlike Edison, who was an inventor, Steinmetz was an electrical
engineer. Instead of relying on intuition and trial and error, he and others
like him used detailed calculations based on the latest scientific under-
standing. They laid out quantitative rules to guide their designs and those
of others. Although trial and error was—and still is—an important aspect
of technological innovation, the process of engineering design and devel-
opment has become increasingly systematic and professionalized.
This change, combined with other trends, transformed technol-
ogy—indeed, created technology as we know it today. By the beginning

50 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
of the twentieth century, technology had become a large-scale enterprise
that depended on large stores of knowledge and know-how, too much for
any one person to master. Large organizations were now required for the
development, manufacture, and operation of new technologies. Complex
networks of interdependent technologies were developed, such as the suite
of technologies for the automobile. These include gas and oil refineries,
filling stations and repair shops, tire manufacturers, automobile assembly
plants, the highway system, and many more. The government began to
play a larger role in shaping technology through technological policies and
regulations.
The meaning of the word “technology” evolved to reflect these By the beginning
changes (Winner, 1977). In the nineteenth century, technology referred of the twentieth
simply to the practical arts used to create physical products, everything century,
from wagon wheels and cotton cloth to telephones and steam engines. In technology had
the twentieth century, the meaning of the word was expanded to include become a large-
everything involved in satisfying human material needs and wants, from scale enterprise
factories and the organizations that operate them to scientific knowledge, that depended on
engineering know-how, and technological products themselves. large stores of
As the definition of technology changed, its meaning became knowledge and
more vague, leaving room for misconceptions that sometimes led to know-how, too
questionable conclusions. One widely held misconception relates to how much for any one
we perceive the relationship among science, engineering, and technology. person to master.
A second is a technological determinism, a tendency to see technological
development as largely independent of human influence.

Technology, Engineering, and Science

Because science has been central to the development of new

technologies and the improvement of existing technologies, many people
believe that technology is merely the application of science. This idea can
be traced to the development of the atomic bomb and radar, two World
War II projects in which scientists donned engineering hats to create
major technologies almost from scratch. Both efforts were spearheaded
by scientists, primarily physicists (Buderi, 1996; Rhodes, 1986).
However, it takes much more than applied science to create a
new technology. Technology is a product and a process involving both
science and engineering, and the goals of these two disciplines are differ-
ent. Science aims to understand the “why” and “how” of nature, engineer-
ing seeks to shape the natural world to meet human needs and wants.

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 51

 Engineering, therefore, could be called “design under constraint,” with
science—the laws of nature—being one of a number of limiting factors
engineers must take into account (Wulf, 1998). Other constraints include
cost, reliability, safety, environmental impact, ease of use, available human
and material resources, manufacturability, government regulations, laws,
and even politics. In short, technology necessarily involves science and
engineering.
In public Yet in public discourse, innovations and events that have a sig-
discourse, nificant technological component are often described as science. Take the
innovations and building and launching of the Hubble Space Telescope. Although its
events that have purpose is scientific—to gather data about the universe and its origins—
a significant the telescope itself is the product of science and engineering. Similarly,
technological the development of new drugs is often misidentified solely as science.
component are Obviously, a great deal of scientific research underlies the development of
often described a new drug, but that research is put to work toward a technological end.
as science. Even in the computer industry—the first thing that comes to many
people’s minds when they think of technology—cramming more transis-
tors onto a chip or more memory onto a magnetic disk is a technological,
rather than a scientific, advance.
It is not surprising that many people attribute technological
advances exclusively to science. After all, as was noted in Chapter 1,
science and technology are closely related. But the confusion is significant
because it indicates that many people do not appreciate the combined role
of science, engineering, and technology in shaping modern life. A sense
of this complementary relationship is crucial to many policy decisions, for
example how public research dollars should be allocated.

Technological Determinism

Another prevalent misconception is that technological change is

somehow disconnected from human influence. Technology seems to
appear “out of the blue” with little if any input from its intended users.
Technology has a dramatic, direct, but one-way effect on our lives. In
other words, technology affects society, but society does not affect tech-
nology. This idea, sometimes called technological determinism, suggests
that technology follows its own course independent of human direction
(Smith and Marx, 1994; Winner, 1977).
Technological determinism is based on a misperception of the
central role people play in the design and uses of technology. Members of

52 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Congress, company CEOs and the scientists and engineers who work for
them, and the consuming public all have a say in what technology should
do, what it is capable of doing, and what it actually does. Technology
mirrors our values, as well as our flaws. It is merely an agglomeration of
parts until we imbue it with purpose and direction (Lafollette and Stine,
1991; Winner, 1977).
If we perceive technology through the lens of technological de- Almost always,
terminism, we cannot weigh the risks or costs associated with a technol- technologies are
ogy or its benefits. Certain technologies are used in ways that some people more
find objectionable or that result in unintended and sometimes undesirable advantageous for
consequences (Postman, 1993; Tenner, 1996). And almost always, tech- some people,
nologies are more advantageous for some people, animals, plants, genera- animals, plants,
tions, or purposes than others. If one views technology as being outside generations, or
human control, these considerations may never come up. purposes than
Thoughtful consideration of possible advantages and disadvan- others.
tages is extremely important, therefore, before a technology is developed.
At the same time, we must recognize that perfectly sensible uses of a
technology can sometimes have undesirable consequences and that these
may not show up for decades or even longer. We may decide, therefore,
that not every possible technological advance—human cloning, for ex-
ample—should be pursued. Or, conversely, we may decide a technology
should be developed for the greater good, even though a vocal minority
opposes it. In either case, the decision is ours!

Technological Studies in K-12

Developing technological literacy will require early and regular

contact with technology in the school setting. Unfortunately, technology
has not been the focus of study in K-12 in the United States.
Only 14 states require some form of technology education, usu-
ally affiliated with career or technical preparation, for K-12 students
(Newberry, 2001). The Massachusetts Board of Education recently added
a combined engineering/technology component to its K-12 curriculum,
becoming the first state to explicitly include engineering content (Boston
Herald, December 20, 2000). Elsewhere in the country, the availability of
technological studies in grades K-12 varies widely, depending on the
school district. A few schools offer stand-alone courses in all grade levels,
but most school districts pay little or no attention to it. This is in stark
contrast to the situation in some other nations, such as the Czech Repub-

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 53

 lic, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and the United King-
dom, where technology education courses are required in middle school or
high school (ITEA, unpublished).
Technology education is a relatively new academic subject with
roots in the industrial arts movement that began in the early twentieth
century. Industrial arts education was intended to develop the skills,
including an adeptness with tools, that students would need for jobs in
industry. For many students, these classes were purely avocational or
recreational.
As metalworking, woodworking, and other shop classes came to
seem less and less relevant in the second half of the twentieth century,
some industrial arts teachers began to broaden the scope of their classes to
include general information about technology—the basic characteristics
of a technology, the engineering design process, and how technology
shapes society. Although some curricula now include separate classes in
technology, many teachers and school officials still think of it as a voca-
tional rather than academic subject (Rogers, 1995). This idea has been
reinforced by the longstanding perception that vocational and technology
classes—and the students enrolled in them—are of lower status than
college-preparatory classes (Gray et al., 1995).
A recent survey of technology education programs in the United
States reveals a number of trends, including a shift from the development
of tool-related skills to the development of problem-solving abilities, a
greater emphasis on the application of science and mathematics, and
greater involvement by female faculty and students (Sanders, 2001). A
significant minority (40 percent) of technology education programs is still
identified most closely with vocational education rather than general
education. Many of these programs are, in fact, funded by the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-332).
A second limiting factor is the small number of teachers trained
to teach about technology. There are roughly 40,000 technology educa-
tion teachers in the United States, mostly at the middle school or high
school level (Newberry, 2001; Weston, 1997). By comparison, about 1.7
million teachers in U.S. K-12 schools (including all elementary school
teachers and roughly 150,000 secondary science teachers) are responsible
for teaching science (NCES, 2000). Survey data suggest that the percent-
age of technology teacher positions that goes unfilled is greater than that
for the overall teacher workforce (Litowitz, 1998; Weston, 1997). Fewer

54 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
than 80 programs in the United States are granting degrees in technology
education (ITEA, 2001).
A third limiting factor is inadequate preparation of other teachers
to teach about technology. Schools of education spend virtually no time Schools of
developing technological literacy in those who will eventually stand in education spend
front of the classroom. As noted elsewhere in this report, the integration virtually no time
of technology content into other subject areas, such as science, mathemat- developing
ics, social studies, English, and art, could greatly boost technological technological
literacy. Without teachers trained to carry out this integration, however, literacy in those
technology is likely to remain an afterthought in American education. who will
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) is attempt- eventually stand
ing to address this problem by encouraging a dialogue between academic in front of the
leaders in engineering and education. As a first step, IEEE convened a classroom.
group of engineering and education school deans in October 2001 to
discuss ways to enhance teacher preparation.
The paucity of technological studies in mainstream education in
the United States is reflected on standardized tests in the traditional areas,
such as reading, writing, and math. For example, the Third International
Math and Science Study, an ambitious attempt to assess students’ under-
standing of science and math concepts, included virtually no questions
related to the understanding, application, or history of technology. Nei-
ther the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a test that tracks
changes in knowledge in a number of areas, nor the two major college
entrance examinations, the SAT and ACT, tests student knowledge of
technological concepts, history, or processes.
Because school performance and opportunities for postsecondary
education are based largely on these test scores, few administrators are
interested in introducing a new subject that does not appear on the
standardized tests into the curriculum. Unfortunately, this can prolong
the problem. Questions about technology are not likely to be included on
standardized tests until technology education is either made a standard
school subject or technology content is integrated into other subject areas.
A beginning has been made, however. K-12 students are some-
times introduced to technological concepts through other subject areas,
especially science. The two sets of national K-12 science standards
developed in the 1990s include specific benchmarks related to technology
and design, and a small number of rigorously developed instructional
materials that reinforce connections between science and technology have

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 55

 been developed (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996); but they are used in only a
small percentage of schools.
Ironically, although many so-called hands-on science experi-
ments engage students in technology-related experiences rather than sci-
entific ones, they are not identified as such by either students or teachers.
A classic example of this is the “egg-drop” challenge, an exercise in which
students are asked to devise a container that can keep an egg from
breaking when it is dropped from a certain height. Although the experi-
ment illustrates science concepts, such as momentum and force, teachers
usually stress the design, materials, and problem-solving elements of the
exercise.
Technological concepts are also addressed in K-12 standards for
mathematics, history, language arts, geography, visual arts, civics, eco-
nomics, health, and behavioral studies (Mid-Continent Research for Edu-
cation and Learning, 2000). And the standards promulgated by the
Council for Basic Education and the National Center on Education and
the Economy for a variety of school subjects—including those related to
technology, problem solving, and design—have been combined into single
publications (CBE, 1998; National Center on Education and the Economy,
1997). However, with a few exceptions, the technology components of
these standards have not been translated into curricula or instructional
An analysis of materials. An analysis of some highly rated high school American history
some highly rated textbooks, for example, found almost no mention of technology (Cole,
high school 1996). Given the extent of technology-related changes in society in the
American history last 100 years, such as dramatically increased lifespan, the omission is
textbooks found striking. In one positive development, the Sloan Foundation has funded a
almost no group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop a college-
mention of level U.S. history book that will treat science and technology as central
technology. forces in the nation’s history.
At the national level, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
has been the primary funding source for the development of K-12 instruc-
tional materials. Since 1994, NSF’s instructional materials division has
invested about $29 million in some 62 projects (personal communication,
G. Salinger, National Science Foundation, August 2, 2001). The agency’s
spending on technology-related materials has hovered between about 5
and 11 percent of the total for instructional materials in technology,
mathematics, and science. NSF’s investment in technology teacher en-
hancement was about $13 million during the same period, about 2 percent
of the total spent on teacher enhancement in any one year.

56 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
has for decades considered technology education equal in importance to
mathematics and science education. Along with NSF, NASA was instru-
mental in providing early encouragement and, later, funding to the Inter-
national Technology Education Association, which has produced K-12
content standards for the study of technology. Although NASA does not
fund extramural curriculum development, it supports a broad array of
teacher, student, and curriculum enhancement activities associated with
NASA facilities and projects throughout the country (NASA, 2001).

Learning About Technology

Exposure to technological concepts and hands-on, design-related

activities in the elementary and secondary grades are the most likely ways
to help children acquire the kinds of knowledge, ways of thinking and
acting, and capabilities consistent with technological literacy. Unfortu-
nately, there is very little information about how children or adults learn There is very
concepts in technology and how, or whether, that learning differs from little information
other types of cognition (Cheek, 2000). Much of what is known about about how
how people learn comes from research focused on people with expertise, children or adults
that is, a combination of conceptual knowledge and procedural knowledge learn concepts in
accumulated over time (NRC, 1999b). Studies of engineers and engi- technology and
neering students have focused on two areas of learning relevant to techno- how, or whether,
logical literacy: problem solving and design. that learning
Problem Solving. Successful problem solving in engineering or differs from other
technology education requires both the exercise of knowledge specific to types of
the problem at hand and knowledge that transcends the particular prob- cognition.
lem or even the discipline.
Hegarty (1991), for example, in a study of knowledge of mechan-
ics, showed that solving real problems with mechanics requires very com-
plex cognitive processes. The choice of a suitable mental model, or
problem schema, requires considerable conceptual and procedural knowl-
edge, some of which cannot be easily explained.
Tain-Fung et al. (1996) tested general and technological
problem-solving skills in college students pursuing humanities, engineer-
ing, and computer science degrees and found no differences in terms of
general problem-solving skills. On the technological problem-solving
test, however, the computer science students, followed by the engineering
students, had the highest test scores. Cooperative learning and problem

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 57

 solving are typical elements of technology education, and both have been
shown to improve the retention and assimilation of knowledge in a variety
of engineering education contexts (Bernold et al., 2000; Catalano and
Catalano, 1999; Demetry and Groccia, 1997; Hoit and Ohland, 1998).
Design. Design is a central component of the practice of engi-
neering and a key element in technology education. Good design reflects
the designer’s tacit knowledge of materials, artifacts, and systems as they
relate to one another. The design activities that have been introduced into
K-12 technology education in the United States are based on design and
technology syllabi and associated curriculum materials developed in Great
Britain. So-called design briefs that lay out the functional requirements
for a technological design are being introduced into K-12 technology
education. Many articles, even in research journals in the field of technol-
ogy education, strongly advocate the use of design briefs in the school
curriculum but do not provide empirical evidence of their effectiveness.
To address these issues, the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science has begun working with educators in a variety of
disciplines to define a research agenda focused on how people learn about
technology (AAAS, 2000). The project, which is funded by NSF, is also
exploring the most effective methods for teaching technology.

Overemphasis on Computers and

Information Technology

The one exception to the general weakness of technological stud-

ies in grades K-12 is in the area of computers and information technology.
Schools across the country have spent large amounts of money on com-
puters, computer networks, and the Internet, much of it for educational
technology—that is, computers and other technological devices used as
aids in teaching, practice work, and testing. Only one unit in the U.S.
Department of Education, the Office of Educational Technology, pro-
motes the use of technology as a teaching tool, but not the teaching of
technology. Since the launch of the Technology Literacy Challenge
in 1996, the federal government has invested more than $2 billion1 in

1
This figure includes spending on Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the
Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, Preparing Tomorrow’s Leaders to Use Tech-
nology, and Community Technology Centers. It does not include the nearly $5.7
billion collected from consumers by U.S. telecommunications companies to support
school and library access to the Internet (through the so-called e-rate program).

58 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
programs to increase the use of educational technology in U.S. classrooms
(DoEd, 2000).
Many people, even people in the educational system, confuse Many people,
educational technology with technology education, but the two are quite even people in
different. The purpose of technology education is to teach students about the educational
technology, while the purpose of educational technology is to use technol- system, confuse
ogy to help students learn more about whatever subject they are studying. educational
The other purpose of having computers in schools is to teach students to technology with
use computer technologies, from running programs and sending e-mail to technology
setting up websites and surfing the Internet. A number of high-profile education, but
reports in the past several years have reinforced the notion that techno- the two are quite
logical literacy is mostly or entirely concerned with the development of different.
computer-related skills (e.g., PCAST, 1997; 21st Century Workforce
Commission, 2000). Some limited efforts are also being made to expand
the notion of computer literacy to include a basic understanding of the
associated hardware and software (Associated Colleges of the South,
2001; NRC, 1999a).
One might suppose that any sort of technology education in the
schools, even if it is restricted to computers and information technology,
would make it easier to gain acceptance for other sorts of technology
education, but the reality is that the use of “technology education” to mean
learning about computers and of “technological literacy” to mean facility
with computers confuses the issue and leads people to believe that “tech-
nology” means little more than computers and related devices. Thus,
many people believe that their schools already teach about technology,
when in reality they teach only about computers.

A Policy Blind Spot

For the most part, U.S. policy making has rarely addressed the
issue of technological literacy. Excluding legislation focused on the use of
computers as educational tools, only a handful of bills introduced in
Congress in the past 15 years refer to technology education or technologi-
cal literacy. Virtually none of these bills has become law, except for
measures related to vocational education. Three education reform bills
were introduced in 2000 by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.), one of the two
members of Congress who is a physicist. The bills were focused mostly on
science and mathematics education but also included provisions that
would have strengthened the training of technology teachers and provided

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 59

 incentives for schools to hire them. The bills did not reach the floor in the
2000 legislative session, but Ehlers reintroduced them at the beginning of
the next Congress. In the same session, House Science Committee
Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) proposed legislation that would,
among other things, establish partnerships for enhancing elementary and
secondary science and mathematics education. The bill is focused on
science and mathematics, but several of the provisions make reference to
technology education.
The relative absence of legislative attention to the issue of tech-
nological literacy is striking considering the number of issues with a
The relative technological component that come before Congress. An unscientific
absence of sampling of bills that made it to the president’s desk during the 106th
legislative Congress reveals the great variety of topics for which an understanding of
attention to the science and technology would have been useful (Table 3-1). Only 24
issue of members, or slightly more than 4 percent, of the 107th Congress have
technological educational backgrounds in medicine, science, or engineering (AMA,
literacy is striking 2001; ASME, 2001).
considering the Of course, Congress does not act in a vacuum. Members can call
number of issues on the services of the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the
with a Library of Congress, for research on specific topics. Lobbyists, many of
technological whom represent the interests of technology-based industries, are another
component that source of potentially valuable information for congressional decision mak-
come before ers. Members and their staffs also rely on think tanks, such as RAND and
Congress. MITRE, and advocacy organizations that conduct policy studies, like the
Natural Resources Defense Council, for information. Congress and the
executive branch often call on the National Academies to examine techni-
cal and policy issues in the sciences, engineering, and medicine.
For more than two decades, the congressional Office of Technol-
ogy Assessment (OTA) was an important source of in-house advice on
technological matters. OTA conducted nonpartisan studies of the im-
pacts and possible future directions of technology development. The
office was abolished by Congress in 1995. Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), the
other physicist in Congress, and a bipartisan group of about 30 represen-
tatives sponsored legislation (H.R. 2148) midway through the 107th
Congress that would reestablish OTA.
At the state level, lawmakers appear to be slightly more aware of
technology education as a school subject. A keyword search of bills under
consideration by the states from 1996 to 1999 identified 46 that contained
the words “technology” and “education” or the phrase “technological

60 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
TABLE 3-1 Technology-Related Bills Approved by the 106th Congress *

Title (Public Law Number) Technology Provisions (funding level if relevant)

Department of Transportation Supports development of next-generation, high-speed rail ($27 million

Appropriations (P.L. 106-69) appropriated)

Federal Aviation Administration Supports system security technology projects and activities ($53 million
Authorization (P.L. 106-181) authorized)
Supports aircraft safety technology projects ($44 million authorized)

National Aeronautics and Space Provides safety and performance upgrades for the International Space
Administration Authorization Station ($492 million authorized)
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-391)

Fire Administration and Earthquake Establishes network for earthquake engineering simulation ($74 million
Hazards Reduction Authorizations authorized over 4 years)
(P.L. 106-503)

National Institute of Biomedical Consolidates dissemination of research, training, and health information
Imaging and Bioengineering across the federal government related to: new imaging techniques and
Establishment Act (P.L. 106-580) devices; improvements in existing imaging and bioengineering
technologies; and technology assessment

Wireless Communications and Encourages establishment of a universal emergency telephone number,

Public Safety Act of 1999 including for wireless phones
(P.L. 106-81)
Sets forth rules for using wireless phone location and subscriber
information

American Competitiveness in the Increases substantially the number of aliens eligible for the H-1B visa
Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 program, which provides high-skilled workers to U.S. businesses
(P.L. 106-313)
Mandates a U.S. Department of Commerce review of existing public and
private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States

Requires that the National Science Foundation study the divergence in

access to high technology (“digital divide”)

Security Assistance Act of 2000 Supports science and technology centers in the independent states of the
(P.L. 106-280) former Soviet Union ($124 million authorized over 2 years)

*In preparing this table, staff with the National Research Council Office of Congressional and Government Affairs searched
a database maintained by Congressional Quarterly of all bills passed by both houses during the 106th Congress that contained
one or more of the following keywords: competitiveness, education, infrastructure, national security, energy, engineering. This
search resulted in a list of 227 bills. Staff of the National Academy of Engineering selected 50 bills that seemed likely to contain
significant technology-related provisions and chose the most relevant for the table.

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 61

 literacy” (personal communication, D.S. Potestio, National Conference of
State Legislatures, October 16, 2000). Half were concerned with the use
or purchase of information technology, mostly computers. The other half
dealt with the support or creation of technology education, applied tech-
nology, or industrial arts programs.
Like their federal counterparts, state-level policy makers also
require information and advice about science and technology in order to
Like their federal make sound decisions. As states have assumed increasing responsibility
counterparts, for economic development, environmental protection, transportation,
state-level policy health care, job creation, and education, this advice has become even more
makers also important. In an effort to leverage technology for economic growth, for
require example, more than $400 million was invested by states in 1995 to support
information and public-private technology programs (State Science and Technology Insti-
advice about tute, 1996). Since then, the amount has certainly increased greatly.
science and In the 1970s, through its State Science, Engineering and Tech-
technology in nology program, NSF spent more than $5 million to help state legislatures
order to make increase their technical capabilities. By the time the program ended in
sound decisions. 1981, a number of statehouses had begun to support their own programs
to integrate scientific and technical information into the decision-making
process. Four of 43 state legislative research agencies that responded to a
1998 survey by the Council of State Governments (1999) indicated that
they keep scientists, engineers, or statisticians on staff. The majority
of the agencies seek out scientific and technical advice on an ad hoc basis
through specialists, task forces, state universities, and interns and fellows.
One study of legislators in 11 states found a great—and mostly
unmet—need for reliable technical information (Jones et al., 1996). Partly
in response to the need for better technical information, in 1999 the
National Conference of State Legislatures established a Center for
Technical Information (CTI), a nonpartisan information resource for
technology- and engineering-related issues for the nation’s 7,500 state
legislators. The center ceased operation in early 2001 following an unsuc-
cessful fundraising effort (personal communication, L. Morandi, National
Conference of State Legislatures, June 19, 2001).
The need for sound science and technology information in the
states is also apparent at the executive-branch level. One study of the role
of states in science and technology (S&T) concluded that only a few
governors had a single source of advice on the broad range of S&T issues
(CCSTG, 1992). The report recommended that every governor desig-
nate an S&T advisor and that every state establish an independent S&T

62 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
advisory council. Currently, about half of the governors have access to
some form of S&T information, either through a formally appointed Currently, about
advisor or advisory group or through an informal arrangement with an half of the
individual or organization (personal communication, D. Berglund, State governors have
Science & Technology Institute, October 25, 2001). access to some
Thus, although there appears to be a recognition at the federal form of S&T
and state levels of the need for information and advice about technological information.
issues, this concern has not led to a recognition of the value of technologi-
cal literacy for the population at large.

Uncertainties About What We Know

Information about what Americans know about technology is

hard to come by. A variety of local, state, national, and even international
tests measure what U.S. schoolchildren know about mathematics, science,
and American history, but few attempts have been made to assess techno-
logical knowledge. Similarly, few efforts have been made to determine
what the public at large knows about technology, beyond the area of
computers.

Technological Literacy of U.S. Students

One has to go back 12 years to find data that shed any light on
U.S. students’ attitudes and knowledge about technology. In 1988, re-
searchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University adminis-
tered a 100-question survey, the Pupils’ Attitude Toward Technology
(PATT), to more than 10,000 middle school and high school students in
seven states (Bame and Dugger, 1989). More than three-quarters of the
students who took part in the study were either taking or had taken a
technology education or industrial arts class. Two-thirds of the questions
were intended to assess attitudes, and one-third were meant to gauge
knowledge of technological concepts. The PATT survey was developed
and first used in the Netherlands in 1984. Since then, versions of the
PATT survey have been used in more than 25 other countries (Bame et
al., 1993).
The U.S. researchers focused on the relationship between certain
demographic characteristics and responses to related questions. They
found, for instance, that boys were more interested in technology than
girls, that students’ concepts of technology became increasingly accurate

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 63

 with age, and that in general students had a fairly narrow conception of
technology. Certain responses were particularly revealing. For example,
in reaction to the statement, “In my opinion, technology is not very old,”
35 percent of students agreed, and another 27 percent did not know if it
was true or not. When asked to consider the statement, “Technology has
always to do with mass production,” 30 percent agreed, and 35 percent
were unsure. Fifty-four percent of students agreed that, “When I think of
technology I mostly think of computers,” while 30 percent disagreed.
These responses suggest that students had a very narrow conception of
technology, associated largely with computers, and had only a limited
understanding of technology’s influence on human history. The results
are disturbing, especially considering that most of the participants in the
study had some exposure to formal technology education courses.
No assessments of what U.S. students know about technology
have been made since the 1989 PATT study. Given the lack of technol-
Given the lack of ogy studies in U.S. schools, however, it is reasonable to assume that
technology students know less about the nature and history of technology than they
studies in U.S. do about other, standard subjects, such as mathematics and science. The
schools, it is poor performance of U.S. middle school and high school students on the
reasonable to Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) and the recently
assume that completed TIMSS follow-up (TIMSS-R) (Gonzales et al., 2000) suggest
students know student technological knowledge would be even lower.
less about the
nature and history
Technological Literacy of U.S. Adults
of technology
than they do Only a handful of attempts have been made to measure knowl-
about other, edge and attitudes about technology in the American adult population—
standard subjects, except in the area of computers, where scores of surveys have been done in
such as the past decade (e.g., NPR, 1999.) Recently, the International Technol-
mathematics and ogy Education Association (ITEA, in press) commissioned the Gallup
science. Organization to conduct the first-ever public poll in the United States on
technological literacy. The poll tested conceptual and practical under-
standing of technology, as well as opinions about the importance of
studying technology. ITEA hopes to repeat the survey periodically and
use the results as a rough indicator of how—or whether—the level of
technological literacy changes over time.
The results of the poll revealed that most Americans have a very
limited view of technology. Asked to name the first thing that occurred to
them when they thought of technology, the vast majority, nearly 68

64 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
percent, said computers. A distant second (almost 4 percent) was elec-
tronics. When respondents were given the choice of defining technology
as “computers and the Internet” or more broadly as “changing the natural
world to satisfy our needs,” nearly two-thirds chose the former. Ameri-
cans also were confused about the relationship among science, engineer-
ing, and technology. About 60 percent agreed that engineering and
technology and that science and technology “are basically the same thing.”
About three-quarters of Americans said they understood and
were able to use technology to “some extent” or even to a “great extent,”
but far fewer correctly answered questions testing their knowledge of how
specific technologies actually worked (Table 3-2); the discrepancy sug-
gests that our self-rated understanding is superficial. For instance, only
half knew that using a cordless phone in the bathtub poses no risk of
electrocution, and only a quarter knew that FM radios operate virtually
free of static. A much higher proportion, 82 percent, however, knew that
cars operate through a series of explosions in the engine, and 62 percent
knew that microwave ovens do not work by heating foods from the
outside to the inside.
According to the poll, Americans support the idea that people
should understand and have some abilities related to technology, and they
have a great interest in knowing how technologies work. They also
believe strongly that citizens should have input into technology-related
decisions that affect them, such as the location of new roads in their

TABLE 3-2 Responses to Questions about Specific Technologies

True or False Statement % of Americans

(correct answer) Responding Correctly

Using a portable phone while in the

bathtub creates the possibility of
being electrocuted (false) 53

FM radios operate free of static (true) 26

A car operates through a series of

explosions (true) 82

A microwave heats food from the

outside to the inside (false) 62

Source: ITEA (in press).

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 65

 community or the development of genetically modified foods and fuel-
efficient cars. Ninety-seven percent said they believed the study of tech-
nology, broadly defined, should be part of the school curriculum; two-
thirds said it should be integrated in other subjects rather than taught as a
separate course.
As part of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report,
the National Science Board (NSB) has attempted to measure changes in
public attitudes and understanding about science and technology. Jon
Miller and his colleagues at the Chicago Academy of Sciences collected
and assessed the data, which were first published in 1972. Miller’s group
used information from telephone surveys to track interest and knowledge
of, and attentiveness to, S&T issues. The surveys were administered only
to adults. Recently, Miller moved to Northwestern University, and re-
search related to the public understanding of science for the 2002 Indica-
tors volume is being conducted by ORC Macro, which is using a survey
The American design very similar to the one developed by Miller’s group. NSB plans to
public is no more redesign the survey in 2003 (personal communication, M. Pollak, Na-
informed about tional Science Foundation, June 4, 2001).
science and The most recent Indicators shows that the public is very interested
technology than in but relatively poorly informed about science and technology (NSB,
the public in other 2000). More than 40 percent of respondents rated themselves as very
countries. interested in new scientific discoveries and the use of new inventions and
technology. Another 40 to 50 percent said they were moderately inter-
ested. By contrast, only 17 percent considered themselves very well
informed; 30 percent considered themselves poorly informed.
Research by the Pew Center for the People and the Press paints a
mixed picture, with people paying close attention to media reporting on
certain high-profile science and technology issues but nearly ignoring
others (Box 3-2). Cross-national comparisons show that the American
public is slightly more interested and has slightly more positive feelings
about science and technology but is no more informed about them than
the public in other countries (Miller, 1997; Miller et al., 1997; OECD,
1997).
As might be expected, respondents who considered themselves
more informed and more interested in science and technology also were
better educated and had greater exposure to education in the sciences and
mathematics. However, no attempt was made to determine whether the
self-assessments were correct, for example whether those who rated them-
selves well informed actually were well informed. Another study that

66 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 BOX 3-2 Technology in the News

From 1986 to 2000, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press tracked high-profile news
stories in the United States and surveyed members of the public to see how closely they were following
those stories. The selection of stories was based on the judgment of center staff about what issues the
media have been covering most intensively. Of the 735 high-profile stories identified by the center during
that time, 54, or 7 percent, had some connection with technology.
The breakdown of those 54 stories is instructive. Sixteen of them, or nearly a third, were about
accidents—plane and train crashes, oil spills, and the explosion on the U.S. aircraft carrier Iowa. Eleven
related to the U.S. space program, including news about the space shuttle and space station, deployment of
the Hubble Space Telescope, and data glitches with the Mars Polar Lander (the 1986 explosion of the
Space Shuttle Challenger was included in this group). There were eight biotechnology stories, including
items about the cloning of animals and people, the mapping of the human genome, and the controversy
surrounding breast implants. Seven stories dealt with some aspect of global climate change, mostly related
to unseasonable weather patterns in the United States. Seven stories focused on computers, most of them
about the antitrust battle waged by the U.S. government against Microsoft. Four stories concerned testing,
arms reduction, or spying related to nuclear weapons technology, and one described structural damage
following the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.
It is interesting to see how attentive members of the public were to the various high-profile stories.
Eighty percent of those surveyed told the Pew Center researchers that they had followed the Challenger
explosion “very closely,” but only 50 percent followed the flight of the space shuttle after the Challenger
very closely. Fifty-two percent followed the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill and 46 percent followed the 1986
Chernobyl nuclear accident very closely. Only 31 percent of those surveyed followed President Bush’s
1991 announcement of major nuclear arms reductions very closely, and 24 percent followed the 1990
deployment of Hubble very closely. Many important technology-related stories were followed only by a
small share of the public: 18 percent for computer hacker attacks on Yahoo.com and other Internet sites;
17 percent for the cloning of the sheep Dolly; 16 percent for the mapping of the human genome; 9 percent
for the debate over global warming; and 8 percent for NASA’s discovery of possible life on Mars in 1996.

Source: Adapted from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2001.

attempted to test this correlation using a survey method similar to Miller’s

found that many people overestimate their level of knowledge about
technology (Welty, 1992).
Many of the survey questions in the NSB Indicators report lump
science and technology together, making it difficult to tease out public
knowledge and attitudes specifically about technology. Of the questions
that are specific, nearly all of them had to do with science, scientists, or the
scientific method. The report looked carefully at the public understand-
ing of the nature of scientific inquiry but did not focus on the public
understanding of the design process, which is to engineering roughly what
inquiry is to science.
The Miller group’s survey attempted to assess people’s knowledge
of science and technology by testing their ability to judge the correctness

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 67

 of various statements or to define terms. For example, more than 70
percent knew that the continents are moving slowly about the face of the
Earth and that light travels faster than sound. But only 13 percent could
define a molecule (up from 9 percent in 1995), and fewer than 45 percent
knew that lasers do not work by focusing sound waves. Only 16 percent
could define the Internet (up from 13 percent in 1997).
Miller also looked at changes over time in the public attitude
toward several controversial technologies—nuclear power, genetic engi-
neering, and space exploration. The assessments focused on perceptions
of the balance of risks and benefits but did not test an actual understand-
ing of the technology. For example, according to the 2000 Indicators
report, 48 percent of Americans believed the benefits of nuclear power
outweighed the risks, while 37 percent held the opposite view; 15 percent
thought the benefits and risks were equal. Forty-four percent of those
interviewed agreed that the benefits of genetic engineering either strongly
or slightly outweighed the risks.
Taken together, data from the Gallup, NSB, and Pew surveys
strongly suggest a mismatch between what Americans know about tech-
Taken together, nology and their reliance on it. In terms of the three dimensions of
data from the technological literacy, most Americans exist in a relatively small “space”
Gallup, NSB, defined by a combination of limited knowledge, poorly developed ways
and Pew of thinking and acting, and low capability regarding technology (Figure
surveys strongly 3-1).
suggest a
mismatch
Technological Literacy in Other Parts of the World
between what
Americans Several countries outside the United States have used various
know about methods to determine the technological literacy of their school children.
technology During the 1999–2000 school year, for example, researchers in the Cana-
and their dian province of Saskatchewan gave children a five-hour test of their
reliance on it. technological knowledge and abilities. Students answered multiple-choice
and open-ended essay questions and took part in hands-on activities (Box
3-3). Technology is integrated into all subjects in the K-12 curriculum in
Saskatchewan. One purpose of the assessment was to provide a baseline
by which to gauge the success of this integration over time (personal
communication, C. Atkinson, Saskatchewan Education, June 19, 2000).
Another group of Canadian researchers, with funding from the
Ontario Ministry of Education, developed a sophisticated assessment
instrument called Views on Science, Technology, and Society (VOSTS)

68 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 FIGURE 3-1 The dimensions
of technological literacy,
showing the “space” occupied
by most Americans.

(Crelinsten et al., 1992a). A version of VOSTS has been pilot tested on a

cross section of tenth and twelfth grade students but has not been widely
administered (Crelinsten et al., 1992b).
In the late 1980s, a research team operating under the auspices of
the British School Examinations Assessment Council conducted a large-
scale assessment of Britain’s design and technology curriculum (Kimbell
et al., 1991). The focus of the project, which involved more than 15,000
15-year-olds, was on student performance in design and problem-solving
activities rather than on their conceptual understanding of technology.
The study concluded that girls generally do better than boys on more
reflective design projects and on projects that are loosely defined and that
boys do better on projects that require more action and are more tightly
bounded.
The European Commission (EC) conducts periodic opinion polls
of people in the 17 EC countries to gauge their attitudes, knowledge, and
perceptions of risk concerning issues of specific interest to the member
governments. Polls that focused on technological topics, mostly biotech-
nology and genetic engineering, have been published as special reports
(e.g., International Research Associates, 2000). A few others were fo-
cused on information technology/data privacy and radioactive waste (e.g.,
International Research Associates, 1997).
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 69

BOX 3-3 Testing Conceptions of Technology

What is technology? A telephone? An airplane? What about a cup, a stone axe, a bed? Is a book
technology? Is a pair of jeans? A piece of cheese? A flower?
Why do homes use insulation? Why were refrigerators developed? Do all technologies need electricity
to operate? Is inventing ways of doing things technology? What is the purpose of having a password when
using a computer? What is the most important technology ever made? How did people influence its
development? How proficient are you at word processing? How well can you surf the Net? Can you
program a clock radio’s alarm? Design plans for a new schoolyard? Build a lever from Lego blocks?
If you were a Saskatchewan fifth grader in 1999, you may have had to answer these questions and
perform these tasks as part of a wide-ranging assessment of technological literacy. About 1,400 fifth
graders and an equal number of 8th and 11th graders in some 187 schools participated in the assessment.
Among other things, the results reveal that students have a fairly narrow conception of what technology is.
For instance, just 7 percent of 5th and 8th graders, and 18 percent of 11th graders, felt a cup was technol-
ogy. Similarly small percentages of students identified clothing and musical instruments as technology.
Only 31 percent of 11th graders felt an old stone ax was technology. Sixty-two percent of 11th graders
and only 23 and 31 percent of 5th and 8th graders, respectively, classed bridges as technology. Fewer than
40 percent of 5th and 8th graders identified a gun as technology, and only two-thirds of 11th graders did
so. On the other hand, large majorities in all grades identified electronic technologies (e.g., telephone,
computer, microwave oven) as technology.

Source: Saskatchewan Education, 2001.

(OECD) recently initiated the Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA), which measures literacy in reading, mathematics,
and science among 15-year-olds in the 29 OECD countries (OECD,
2001). Although the assessment did not explicitly address technological
issues, PISA plans to develop an assessment area related to problem
solving, which may include technology-related questions (personal com-
munication, S.A. Raizen, National Center for Improving Science Educa-
tion, May 10, 2001).

Conclusion

The United States finds itself in a paradoxical situation. At this

moment, we are the strongest nation in the world economically and
militarily, and our strength in both areas depends greatly on technology.
In day-to-day affairs, too, we rely—whether we realize it or not—on a vast
array of technologies. Under these circumstances, the public and policy
makers should place a high value on a basic understanding of technology,
including an understanding of how it is created. All Americans should be

70 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
aware of how technology has shaped our world and should be equipped to
make informed choices on issues involving technology.
In reality, the situation is very different. For one thing, as
technology has become more sophisticated, more prevalent, and in many
cases more “invisible,” our human connection to it has changed. In a
fundamental way, technology has become unfamiliar to us, not in the
sense that we are unable to use it—in fact, Americans are adept consumers
and users of technology—but unfamiliar in the deeper sense of not under- In a fundamental
standing how or why technology is created or what makes it work. way, technology
Therefore, most Americans have little feel for the limits and potential of has become
technology. This distancing has caused a number of misconceptions to unfamiliar to us.
spring up, for example about the relationship among science, engineering,
and technology. And it has narrowed our idea of what technology is.
The institutions—schools, primarily—with the capability to ad-
dress this lack of knowledge and these misconceptions have not been
called on to do so. Technological studies, whether dedicated technology
education courses or integrated as part of other subjects, have been rel-
egated to the back burner of the K-12 agenda. Some important initiatives
that could be vital building blocks in addressing this shortcoming have
been undertaken (see Chapter 5), but the current situation is discouraging.
Ironically, the one area of technology—computers and the
Internet—that has received the attention of both the public and policy
makers seems to have further diminished the prospects for technological
literacy. The focus on computers has distracted everyone—from students
and classroom teachers to business leaders and legislators—from the grow-
ing, unmet larger need for an understanding of the nature, history, and
role of technology. On Capitol Hill and in statehouses across the country,
the issue of technological literacy is rarely discussed. This policy-making
blind spot is indeed troubling given the thicket of technological issues
lawmakers must negotiate on a daily basis.
The results of the ITEA-commissioned Gallup poll have re-
vealed a deeply rooted problem. Most Americans have a very narrow view
of technology. And although many appear to be confident in their ability
to manage the complexities of the technological world, they also lack an
understanding of how certain common technologies operate. The poll
represents only a snapshot of public opinion, of course. Very few data are
available about what U.S. students or the public at large actually knows
about technology. This lack of information makes it difficult to design

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 71

 and evaluate approaches for boosting technological literacy, either in the
school setting or outside of the formal educational system.
Overall, the current context for technological literacy creates
more obstacles than opportunities. For reasons that are at once historical,
institutional, and reflective of the nature of modern technology, Ameri-
cans appear to be unprepared to engage effectively and responsibly with
technological change. To put it bluntly, we are a nation that does not
value technological literacy and, therefore, has not achieved it.

References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1993. Benchmarks
for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
AAAS. 2000. Proceedings of the AAAS Technology Education Research Confer-
ence. Available online at: <http://www.project2061.org/technology/default.htm>
(November 15, 2001).
AMA (American Medical Association). 2001. 2000 Physician Incumbents. Unpub-
lished data assembled by AMA Media office. Washington, D.C.
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 2001. Is there an engineer in
the House? ASME International Capitol Update. January 17, 2001. Available
online at: <http://www.asme.org/gric/Update/2001/011701.html#2> (June 21,
2001).
Associated Colleges of the South. 2001. Information Fluency. Available online at:
<http://www.colleges.org/~if/index.html> (November 15, 2001).
Bame, E.A., and W.E. Dugger, Jr. 1989. Pupils’ Attitude Toward Technology—
PATT-USA Report Findings. Paper. October 25, 1989.
Bame, E.A., W.E. Dugger, Jr., M. deVries, and J. McBee. 1993. Pupils’ attitudes
toward technology—PATT-USA. Journal of Technology Studies 19(1): 40–48.
Bernal, J.D. 1971. Science in History. Vol. 2: The Scientific and Industrial
Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bernold, L.E., W.L. Bingham, P.D. McDonald, and T.M. Attia. 2000. Impact of
holistic and learning-oriented teaching on academic success. Journal of Engi-
neering Education 89(2): 191–199.
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 1999. Report on the American Workforce.
Available online at: <http://stats.bls.gov/opub/rtaw/rtawhome.htm> (November
15, 2001).
Buderi, R. 1996. The Invention that Changed the World: How a Small Group of
Radar Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technological
Revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Catalano, G.D., and K. Catalano. 1999. Transformation: from teacher-centered to
student-centered engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education 88(1):
59–64.
CBE (Council for Basic Education). 1998. Standards for Excellence in Education—
A Guide for Parents, Teachers, and Principals for Evaluating and Implementing
Standards for Education. Washington, D.C.: CBE.
CCSTG (Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government). 1992.
Science, Technology, and the States in America’s Third Century. New York:
CCSTG.

72 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Cheek, D. 2000. Cognitive Science and Technology Education. Background paper
prepared for the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council
Committee on Technological Literacy.
Cole, J.R. 1996. The two cultures revisited. The Bridge 26(3–4): 16–21.
Council of State Governments. 1999. A State Official’s Guide to Sound Science.
Available online at: <http://stars.csg.org/reports/1999/science/menu.htm> (No-
vember 15, 2001).
Crelinsten, J., J. de Boerr, and G. Aikenhead. 1992a. Measuring Students’ Under-
standing of Science in Its Technological and Social Context. Volume 1: Design-
ing a Suitable Instrument. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Crelinsten, J., J. de Boerr, and G. Aikenhead. 1992b. Measuring Students’ Under-
standing of Science in Its Technological and Social Context. Volume 2: Validat-
ing the Instrument. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Demetry, C., and J.E. Groccia. 1997. A comparative assessment of students’ experi-
ences in two instructional formats of an introductory materials science course.
Journal of Engineering Education 86(3): 203–210.
DOC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 2001. Economic Report of the President of
the Council of Economic Advisors, January 2001. Available online at: <http://
w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002/erp.html> (November 15, 2001).
DoEd (U.S. Department of Education). 2000. Progress Report on Educational
Technology, State-By-State Profiles, November 2000. Available online at: <http:
//www.ed.gov/Technology/progress-statebystate-2000.pdf> (November 15,
2001).
Gonzales, P., C. Calsyn, L. Jocelyn, K. Mak, D. Kastberg, S. Arafeh, T. Williams,
and W. Tsen. 2000. Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-
Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and
1999. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Gray, K., W.J. Wang, and S. Malizia. 1995. Is vocational education still necessary?
Investigating the educational effectiveness of the college prep curriculum. Jour-
nal of Industrial Teacher Education 32(2): 6–29. Also available online at:
<http://borg.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v32n2/gray.html> (November 15, 2001).
Hegarty, M. 1991. Knowledge and processes in mechanical problem solving. Pp.
253–286 in Complex Problem Solving: Principles and Mechanisms, edited by
R.J. Sternberg and P.A. Frensch. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoit, M., and M. Ohland. 1998. The impact of a discipline-based introduction to
engineering course on improving retention. Journal of Engineering Education
87(1): 79–85.
Hughes, T.P. 1983. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–
1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
International Research Associates. 1997. Eurobarometer 46.1. Information Tech-
nology and Data Privacy. Report produced for the European Commission,
Directorate General “Internal Market and Financial Services” by INRA (Europe)
- E.C.O. January 1997. Brussels: INRA (Europe).
International Research Associates. 2000. Eurobarometer 52.1. The Europeans and
Biotechnology. Report by INRA(Europe) - ECOSA on behalf of Directorate-
General for Research, Directorate B- Quality of Life and Management of Living
Resources Programme. March 15, 2000. Brussels: INRA (Europe).
ITEA (International Technology Education Association). 2001. ITEA Institutional
Members Offering Technology Education Degree Programs. Available online
at: <http://www.iteawww.org/J4.html> (November 15, 2001).
ITEA. In press. ITEA/Gallup Poll Reveals What People Think About Technology.
Reston, Va.: ITEA.

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 73

 ITEA. Unpublished. Results of 1997 Survey of the Status of Technology Education
in 14 Nations.
Jones, M., D.H. Guston, and L.M. Branscomb. 1996. Informed Legislatures:
Coping with Science in a Democracy. Lanham, Md.: University Press of
America.
Kimbell, R., K. Stables, T. Wheeler, A. Wosniak, and V. Kelly. 1991. The Assess-
ment of Performance in Design and Technology, The Final Report of the APU
Design and Technology Project, 1985–1991. London: School Examinations
and Assessment Council.
Lafollette, M., and J. Stine. 1991. Contemplating choice: Historical perspectives on
innovation and application of technology. Pp. 1–17 in Technology and Choice:
Reading from Technology and Culture, edited by M. Lafollette and J. Kline.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Litowitz, L.S. 1998. Technology education teacher demand and alternative route
licensure. The Technology Teacher 58(5): 23–28.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. 2000. K-12 Standards—
Content Knowledge. Available online at <http://www.mcrel.org/standards-
benchmarks/> (November 15, 2001).
Miller, J. 1997. Public Understanding of Science and Technology in OECD
Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Paper presented to the 1996 OECD
Symposium on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Tokyo, Japan,
November 5, 1996. Revised February 8, 1997.
Miller, J., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. 1997. Public Perceptions of Science and Technol-
ogy—A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan,
and Canada. Bilbao, Spain: BBV Foundation.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2001. A Guide to NASA
Education Programs. Available online at: <http://ehb2.gsfc.nasa.gov/edcats/
2000/nep/programs/index.html> (November 15, 2001).
National Center on Education and the Economy. 1997. New Standards. Perfor-
mance Standards—English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Applied Learn-
ing. Washington, D.C.: New Standards.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2000. Digest of Education
Statistics, 2000. Available online at: <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/
dt068.html> (November 15, 2001).
Newberry, P. 2001. Technology education in the U.S.: a status report. The
Technology Teacher 61(1): 8–12.
NPR (National Public Radio). 1999. Survey Shows Widespread Enthusiasm for
High Technology—Americans Love Their Computers and the Internet; “Digital
Divide” Still Exists, but There Is Good News, Too. Available online at: < http:/
/www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/technology/> (November 15, 2001).
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1999a. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1999b. Being Fluent in Information Technology. Washington, D.C.: Na-
tional Academy Press.
NSB (National Science Board). 2000. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and
Public Understanding. Chapter 8 in Science and Engineering Indicators 2000—
Volume 1. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation.
NSF (National Science Foundation). 1994. Gaining the Competitive Edge: Critical
Issues in Science and Engineering Technician Education. A Report from a
Workshop Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Federal
Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology. July 1993.

74 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 Available online at: <http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1994/nsf9432/nsf9432.txt>
(November 15, 2001).
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1997. Science
and Technology in the Public Eye. Report of a symposium held November 5–6,
1996, in Tokyo, Japan. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2001. Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. The PISA 2000 Assess-
ment of Reading, Mathematical, and Scientific Literacy. Available online at:
<http://www.oecd.org/els/education/stats.htm> (November 15, 2001).
PCAST (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology). 1997.
Report to the President on the Use of Technology to Strengthen K-12 Education
in the United States. March 1997. Panel on Educational Technology. Available
online at: <http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/k-12ed.html> (November 21, 2001).
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2001. Public Attentiveness to
News stories: 1986–2000. Available online at: <http://www.people-press.org/
database.htm> (November 15, 2001).
Postman, N. 1993. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New
York: Vintage Books.
Rhodes, R. 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rogers, G.E. 1995. Technology education curricular content: a trade and industrial
education perspective. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 32(3): 59–74.
Also available online at: <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v32n3/
Rogers.html> (November 15, 2001).
Sanders, M. 2001. New paradigm or old wine? The status of technology education
practice in the United States. Journal of Technology Education 12(2): 35–55.
Also available online at: <http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v12n2/
sanders.html> (November 15, 2001).
Saskatchewan Education. 2001. 1999 Provincial Learning Assessment in Techno-
logical Literacy. May 2001. Available online at: <http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/
k/pecs/ae/docs/plap/techlit/1999TechLit.pdf> (November 15, 2001).
Smith, M.R., and L. Marx, eds. 1994. Does Technology Drive History: The
Dilemma of Technological Determinism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
State Science and Technology Institute. 1996. State Funding for Cooperative
Technology Programs, June 1996. Available online at: <http://www.ssti.org/
Publications/StateFund_96.pdf> (November 15, 2001).
Tain-Fung, W., R.L. Custer, M.J. Dyrenfurth. 1996. Technological and personal
problem solving styles: Is there a difference? Journal of Technology Education
7(2): 55–71.
Tenner, E. 1996. Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unin-
tended Consequences. New York: Knopf.
21st Century Workforce Commission. 2000. A Nation of Opportunity: Building
America’s 21st Century Workforce. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Labor.
Welty, K. 1992. Technological literacy and political participation in McLean County,
Illinois. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 29(4): 7–22.
Weston, S. 1997. Teacher shortage—supply and demand. The Technology Teacher
57(2): 6–9.
Winner, L. 1977. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme
in Political Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wulf, W.A. 1998. Diversity in engineering. The Bridge 28(4): 8–13.

CONTEXT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 75

 4
Foundation for
Technological Literacy

n the past several decades, curriculum developers, engi-

I neering professional societies, science centers, and others

have devoted effort to initiatives that have improved
technological literacy, even if that was not their explicit aim. These span
everything from projects to develop instructional materials for the class-
room to television programs and museum exhibits. Given the absence of
technological literacy on the agendas of both the policy making and
education communities in the United States, these initiatives, although
modest by comparison with other literacy initiatives, are encouraging.
Although the organizations and individuals promoting these initiatives
have been working away in relative obscurity, they do constitute a resource
for more ambitious efforts.

K-12 Schools

The study of technology in the K-12 classroom has three distinct

forms: (1) a theme in other disciplines, especially science; (2) formal
technology education classes; and (3) technician-preparation, vocational,
and school-to-career programs, which approach technological understand-
ing and skills as means to employment.

Technology as a Theme Within Science and Other

Subjects

One of the first attempts to integrate the study of science and

technology in the secondary school curriculum was Man-Made World, a

77
 series of textbooks developed at the State University of New York, Stony
Brook, as part of the Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project (1971).
Although the texts were never widely adopted, they provided a model for
other projects. A decade later, an analysis of studies of science education
and student assessments suggested that science education must be focused
on content that would prepare students to live and work in a world in
which science, technology, and society continually interact (Harms and
Yager, 1981). Science textbooks of the day devoted almost no space to the
topic of technology or global issues, such as population growth, world
hunger, and air quality (Hamm and Adams, 1989; Piel, 1981).
The notion that the social dimensions of science and technology
should be part of the science curriculum was echoed in a number of
education policy documents of the period (e.g., NCEE, 1982; NSB, 1983;
NSTA, 1982). The holistic consideration of subjects that had tradition-
ally been treated separately reflected the growing popularity of the so-
called science, technology, and society (STS) paradigm in the United
States (Yager, 1996). The influence of these policies on what children
were actually taught about technology is difficult to determine. Indirect
evidence, such as a 1993 survey of state science supervisors that found that
one-third either required or recommended attention to STS themes as
part of their science curricula, suggests that STS policies did have an
effect, if only by raising expectations (Kumar and Berlin, 1996). Instruc-
tional materials, such as the Innovation series of the Biological Sciences
Curriculum Study (BSCS, 1984), those developed by the school district of
Wassau, Wisconsin (Harkness et al., 1986), and modules created by the
New York Science, Technology, and Society Education Project, were
among the first to carry the STS theme into U.S. classrooms.
In 1989, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) published Science for All Americans, an elegantly reasoned
treatise on the importance of science literacy. The report, and the AAAS
standards that followed 4 years later, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993),
emphasized the importance of technology to science and the interrela-
tionship between science, technology, and society. The National Science
Education Standards, another set of comprehensive science standards de-
veloped several years later by the National Research Council (NRC)
(1996), reinforced the curricular connections between science and tech-
nology. These two sets of science standards were the most detailed
descriptions of technological literacy for students until the recent publica-

78 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
tion of Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technol-
ogy (ITEA, 2000).
Many newer instructional materials have tried to meet one or
both sets of science standards. These include BSCS’s Science T.R.A.C.S.
(Teaching Relevant Activities for Concepts and Skills; 2000), which
includes a science and technology strand for K-5 students, and Middle
School Science and Technology (2000), which touches on a variety of techno-
logical concepts related to change, diversity, limits, and systems. The
Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California Berkeley, under
its Science Education for Public Understanding program, has produced
three year-long courses and a number of shorter curriculum modules that
touch on technological issues. The National Science Resources Center,
jointly operated by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Acad-
emies, has produced science materials for elementary students (Science and
Technology for Children) and is developing materials for use in middle
school (Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools).
A number of NSF-funded projects have developed materials that A number of NSF-
integrate technology with other subjects, especially mathematics and sci- funded projects
ence (e.g., Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 2001; Inte- have developed
grating Mathematics, Science, and Technology in the Elementary Schools, materials that
2001). Several of these projects have examined the effects of the technol- integrate
ogy component on student learning in math and science. In at least one technology with
case, scores on international math and science achievement tests were other subjects,
higher among students using the integrated curriculum than in a control especially
group that did not use the materials, suggesting that the technology mathematics and
component of the curriculum boosts learning in other subject areas (Loepp science.
et al., 2000). Similar spin-off benefits in math, science, and reading
achievement were found in elementary schools that piloted a curriculum
emphasizing contextual learning and design activities (Todd and
Hutchinson, 2000).
Some features of technological studies, especially encouraging
students to identify and design solutions to problems significant in their
own lives, may make other academic subjects more interesting and mean-
ingful. For this reason, technology has been recognized as a topic worthy
of study by a variety of disciplines outside of science. For instance, the
National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has cosponsored many
of the annual national technological literacy conferences organized by the
National Association for Science, Technology, and Society. Papers pre-
sented at this conference have addressed varied topics, such as focusing on

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 79

BOX 4-1 Whole Cloth: Discovering Science and Technology Through the History of
American Textiles

The Smithsonian Institution’s Lemelson Center, in partnership with the Society for the History of
Technology and the Education Development Center, has developed eight independent curriculum units
that examine the history of textiles, the technology and science of their production, and their consump-
tion. Each unit deals with an aspect of cloth or clothing production or use and includes 5 to 10 exercises, a
teacher’s essay, and a bibliography. The modules are coordinated with traditional American history,
American studies, and American social history courses as taught in middle schools and high schools.
Students are asked to interpret primary historical documents, create graphs and charts, and engage in
debates and class discussions. The units on early American industrialization, the technology and invention
of dyes and dyeing, and the development of nylon, are available online at: <http://www.si.edu/lemelson/
centerpieces/whole_cloth/index.html>.

technology, work, and values through poetry (Amram, 1989); improving

critical thinking about STS issues through creative writing (Fagan, 1989;
Hankins, 1989; Tangum, 1989); and improving student understanding of
the complexities of STS issues through drama (Miller and Butcher, 1990).
Interesting materials have also been developed combining content from
social studies and technology (Box 4-1).

Technology Education

Technology educators are playing an increasingly important role

in the development and delivery of technology-related content to students
in K-12 classrooms, and technology teachers represent an important
resource for attempts to boost U.S. technological literacy. The recent
publication of Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of
Technology (ITEA, 2000) establishes 20 standards in five categories to
guide curriculum development for all K-12 students (Box 4-2). ITEA is
in the process of developing standards for teacher development, student
assessment, and program development to provide a comprehensive vision
of technological literacy in a school setting.
During the 7-year process of developing the standards, ITEA
worked closely with a number of other organizations that had previously
had little if any connection to the technology education community.
These organizations included national associations representing math and
science teachers, the AAAS, and the National Academies. ITEA benefited

80 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
 BOX 4-2 ITEA Standards for Technological Literacy

Nature of Technology

Standard 1 Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics and scope of technology.
Standard 2 Students will develop an understanding of the core concepts of technology.
Standard 3 Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies and the
connections between technology and other fields of study.

Technology and Society

Standard 4 Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and political
effects of technology.
Standard 5 Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the environment.
Standard 6 Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the development and use
of technology.
Standard 7 Students will develop an understanding of the influence of technology on history.

Design

Standard 8 Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design.

Standard 9 Students will develop an understanding of engineering design.
Standard 10 Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting, research and
development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving.

Abilities for a Technological World

Standard 11 Students will develop abilities to apply the design process.

Standard 12 Students will develop abilities to use and maintain technological products and systems.
Standard 13 Students will develop abilities to assess the impact of products and systems.

The Designed World

Standard 14 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use medical
technologies.
Standard 15 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use agricultural and
related biotechnologies.
Standard 16 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use energy and power
technologies.
Standard 17 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use information and
communication technologies.
Standard 18 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use transportation
technologies.
Standard 19 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use manufacturing
technologies.
Standard 20 Students will develop an understanding of and be able to select and use construction
technologies.

Source: ITEA, 2000.

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 81

 from the support of the NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, which jointly funded the standards project.

Technician-Preparation, Vocational, and School-to-

Career Programs

Although Although technological literacy is not the same as technical pro-

technician- ficiency, courses and skill development in one area of technology can lead
preparation, to a better understanding of the nature, history, and role of technology in
vocational, and general. Therefore, although technician-preparation, vocational, and
school-to-career school-to-career programs are mostly intended to prepare people for jobs,
programs are they can also enhance some attributes of technological literacy.
mostly intended
to prepare people
Technician Preparation
for jobs, they can
also enhance The Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act (P.L. 98-524)
some attributes of enacted by Congress in 1984 stimulated the development of technician-
technological preparation programs. Students in tech prep take courses during their last
literacy. 2 years of high school that are linked (articulated) with two-year associate
degree programs at community colleges (Box 4-3).
A consortium of states, through the Texas-based Center for
Occupational Research and Development (CORD), developed many of
the first tech-prep courses. CORD curriculum materials were the first to
teach physics, chemistry, communications (English language arts), and
mathematics in an applied way for students whose career goals might
depend on skills developed in a two-year technical program. Principles of

BOX 4-3 Technology Studies in Community Colleges

Community colleges play an important part in promoting job-related technological competency by

training tens of thousands of people every year in a variety of technology-related fields. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a total of 998 private or public two-year institutions offer
engineering-related technologies programs. Slightly more than 20,000 individuals graduated with associate
degrees in this area in the 1996–1997 school year, making it the fourth most popular community-college
program. An additional 6,200 people earned engineering technology certificates that year. By comparison,
the 955 programs in computer and information sciences awarded about 8,000 associate degrees in 1996–
1997.

Source: NCES, 2000a.

82 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Technology, a two-year, 14-unit, high-school physics curriculum first pub-
lished in 1984, remains the classic tech-prep textbook (CORD, 1984).
The text was recently adapted for a one-year program and reissued as
Physics in Context (CORD, 2001).
In recent years, the tech prep concept has been expanded at the In recent years,
federal and state levels to embrace students preparing for a wider range of the tech-prep
careers. According to NCES, about half of comprehensive U.S. high concept has
schools now offer tech-prep courses (NCES, 2000b), and a variety of been expanded
instructional materials have been developed to meet this demand. For at the federal and
example, Science in a Technical World, a set of 12 modules developed with state levels to
NSF support, is intended for applied science courses in grades 11 and 12. embrace
Published by W.H. Freeman, current module topics include the Carbon- students
ated Beverage Industry, Wastewater Treatment Industry, Plant Tissue preparing for a
Culture, Paint Research and Development, Petroleum Refining, Petro- wider range of
leum Location, Polymer Research and Development, and Pulp and Paper. careers.
In 1993, NSF initiated the Advanced Technology Education
(ATE) program to support curriculum development and program im-
provement at selected community colleges. Recipients of ATE awards,
usually in collaboration with local secondary schools, four-year colleges
and universities, and industry, offer students training in many fields, such
as biotechnology, computer and information systems, manufacturing tech-
nology, and telecommunications. From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal
year 2001, NSF invested $222 million in 420 ATE projects (personal
communication, G. Salinger, National Science Foundation, August 2,
2001).

Vocational Education

The federal government divides vocational education at the high

school level into three categories: (1) courses that prepare students for
specific jobs in such areas as agriculture, business, health care, marketing,
and trade and industry; (2) courses in family and consumer sciences; and
(3) more general courses, such as keyboarding, industrial arts classes, and
technology education classes. The trade and industry programs, which
include courses in construction, mechanics and repair, and precision pro-
duction, were the most popular in 1994, the latest year for which data are
available. Eight percent of high school students took three or more
courses in this area, compared to 16 percent in 1982, reflecting a general
decline in student interest in vocational courses and a shift toward college-

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 83

 prep curricula (NCES, 2000b). In 1994, 97 percent of U.S. high school
graduates had taken at least one vocational course, almost the same
number as in 1982.

School-to-Career Programs

The 1994 School to Work Opportunities Act (P.L. 103-239)

focused on coordinating school-based learning and work-based learning
and integrating vocational and academic learning for all students, not just
those in vocational programs. Many private companies support school-
to-work programs as a way of increasing the pool of qualified entry-level
workers and reducing the amount of training business must provide for
new workers. All 50 states have received federal funds to develop school-
to-work partnerships, and nearly three-quarters have enacted laws to
continue the partnerships after the federal program ends in 2001 (Na-
tional School to Work Office, 2000). The connections between tech prep
and the school-to-career movement are still being worked out in each
state.
Through the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB), the federal
government has also been working to develop skill standards for 15
industry sectors. The standards are being developed by volunteers from
business, labor, civil rights, and community groups. Standards in manu-
facturing and sales and service are almost complete, and standards in the
education and training, utility, and hospitality and tourism industries are
under development (NSSB, 2000). Industry sectors with strong connec-
tions to technology include construction; scientific and technical support;
and telecommunications, computers, and arts and entertainment. The
NSSB is also compiling information on certification and apprenticeship
programs around the country in the 15 industry sectors.

Postsecondary Education

The study of technology during the formative years in the K-12

grades is crucial to the development of technological literacy. A number
of opportunities for more advanced study of technology are also available,
mostly for people pursuing careers as K-12 teachers, curriculum develop-
ers, or scholars. Postsecondary education plays an important role
in developing the human infrastructure that can support technological
literacy.

84 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Undergraduate and Graduate Science, Technology,
and Society Programs

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of colleges and

universities launched programs or courses designed to increase student
awareness of interactions among science, technology, and society (STS).
In 1982, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation initiated the New Liberal Arts
Program, a series of grants to about 30 colleges to help them integrate the
study of technology and the engineering process into the general curricu-
lum (Sloan Foundation, press release, November 9, 1982).
The most recent survey to track the progress of STS showed that
there were 127 complete programs in 92 American colleges and universi-
ties (De la Mothe, 1983). About 100 are estimated to exist today (per- About 100 STS
sonal communication, S. Cutcliffe, Lehigh University, December 12, programs exist in
2000). Even well-established STS programs face substantial hurdles, the United States
such as opposition from faculty in traditional disciplines, difficulties in today.
staffing, and maintaining the multidisciplinary approaches STS studies
require (Foltz, 1988).
Undergraduate majors in STS have been available for some time
at elite colleges and research universities, such as Stanford, Cornell, Penn-
sylvania State University, University of Pennsylvania, Rensselaer Poly-
technic Institute, North Carolina State University, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology, and Vassar. Many of the same schools have had
graduate programs dealing with technology and society for many years.
These programs vary widely in their emphasis on social sciences, history,
engineering, and the physical sciences.

Writing and Interdisciplinary Courses in Engineering

Engineering programs have begun to emphasize writing courses

in the undergraduate curriculum. One goal of this movement is to ensure
that future engineers can convey complex technical concepts and prin-
ciples to the lay public. These “engineering writing” courses are an
example of how the engineering community is attempting to communi-
cate with the larger society, which is affected by the work of engineers.
Since the 1980s and 1990s, many engineering schools have re-
quired that all undergraduate engineering students take one or more
courses on the social impacts of technology. At Penn State, the largest
engineering school in the nation, these courses have been required for all

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 85

 students since the late 1980s. Similar requirements have been adopted by
many other institutions, including Worcester Polytechnic, University of
Virginia, Stanford, MIT, Lehigh, Cal Tech, and most of the large state-
supported engineering schools.

History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Technology

Programs

The first formal courses outside of engineering schools dealing

with technology were developed by departments of history and the phi-
losophy of science. Scholars in these disciplines generally considered
technology “applied science,” which is apparent in Isis, the official journal
The first formal of the History of Science Society. The society also publishes Osiris, an
courses outside annual volume of research on the history of science and its cultural
of engineering influences. History of science programs at the undergraduate and gradu-
schools dealing ate levels have always addressed technology issues. Recently, the Society
with technology for the Social Study of Science has applied sociological, anthropological,
were developed and sociological techniques to the study of science. The organization’s
by departments Handbook of Science and Technology Studies is a landmark reference work in
of history and the this arena (Jasanoff et al., 1995).
philosophy of Historians have written about technology since the late 1800s
science. (Hughes, in press). In 1958, Melvin Kranzberg and other historians of
technology founded the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT),
signaling that the study of technology should become a formal, recognized
discipline separate and distinct from the study of science. The first issue
of the society’s journal, Technology and Culture, featured articles by Lewis
Mumford, Peter Drucker, Kranzberg, and others that laid out a vision and
research agenda for this new discipline. Today, many colleges and univer-
sities offer history, sociology, and philosophy of technology programs, and
the research agenda envisioned by Kranzberg and associates has been
amplified and fleshed out by symposia, books, and articles. Membership
in SHOT now stands at more than 2,000 individuals and 1,500 institu-
tions worldwide (SHOT, 2000).
Philosophy of technology has recently become a separate disci-
pline, distinct from the philosophy of science or philosophy in general.
JAI Press has published an influential series of books on philosophy of
technology, and philosophers of technology have been included in major
endeavors, such as the Human Genome Project, suggesting recognition of

86 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
the importance of philosophy of technology, especially to public policy
deliberations.
The NSF through its Science and Technology Studies Program
spends about $3 million per year to support research and other activities in
the history, philosophy, and social studies of science and technology
(Hackett, 2000). NSF’s Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science,
and Technology program also supports research on the impacts of tech-
nology and engineering.

Management of Technology

A variety of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels

prepare students to assume management responsibilities in technology-
based businesses. These programs go by various names, depending on A variety of
where they are housed in the university. Most are affiliated with an programs at the
engineering school or a school of management or business. And although undergraduate
the emphasis on engineering-related and management-related topics var- and graduate
ies considerably, almost all of these programs blend basic business knowl- levels prepare
edge with an appreciation for the impact of modern technology on the students to
world of work. assume
management
responsibilities in
Schools of Education
technology-
There are 517 accredited teacher education programs in the based
United States (NCATE, 2000a). New accreditation standards by the businesses.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
emphasize that new teachers must have an in-depth knowledge of the
subject matter they will teach, the lack of which has been a suspected cause
of the poor performance of U.S. students on international assessments of
mathematics and science (NCATE, 2000b). Almost one-fifth of U.S.
high school teachers who teach science do not have even a minor in
science (National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for
the 21st Century, 2000). Two hundred twenty schools of education
specialize in preparing teachers of science (NCATE, 2000a).
Most of the 80 or so technology teacher education programs in
the United States are affiliated with schools of education. NCATE uses
program evaluation standards developed by the Council on Technology
Teacher Education (CTTE), the professional development arm of the
International Technology Education Assocation (ITEA), to review these

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 87

 programs for accreditation. The CTTE standards are currently being
revised to reflect ITEA’s Standards for Technological Literacy.

Informal Education

Technological literacy can be improved outside of the formal K-

12 or university setting. Most Americans (about 70 percent) are no longer
in school, and for them to become more technologically literate, they must
have opportunities outside of the school setting, so-called informal educa-
tional settings (Figure 4-1).
Museums and science centers, television, radio, newspapers, maga-
zines, and other media comprise the informal education system, which
offers citizens of all ages and backgrounds an opportunity to learn about
and become engaged in a variety of issues related to technology. Research
indicates that formal, school-based education is the primary contributor
to a conceptual understanding in the sciences, but informal education also
has a measurable impact on the acquisition of science knowledge (Miller,
1998; 2001). Presumably, the same is true for technology.

Museums and Science Centers

The Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC), which

represents more than 430 institutions around the world, periodically col-

Children in -pre kindergarten

through grade 12
20%

Undergraduates at
degree- granting
institutions
5%

FIGURE 4-1 Educational Graduate students

(includes professional
status of the American degree students)
population, 2000. 1%
Sources: Bairu, 2001;
Broughman and Colaciello,
2001; U.S. Census Remaining adult
population
Bureau, 2000.
74%

88 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
lects information about activities and programs at these facilities. In one
survey, 12 percent of the 2,237 exhibits reported by survey participants
were considered to be about technology (ASTC, 1997). Technology was
the third most popular subject for exhibits, after those in physics and the
life sciences. A considerable number of physics exhibits also dealt sub-
stantively with technology issues, and many exhibits were grouped in both
the physics and technology categories. The greatest number of technol-
ogy exhibits were related to computers, but a substantial number were
focused on communications, energy and power production, and transpor-
tation.
Museums and science centers are increasing their educational
programs for children and teachers. According to the survey, 83 percent
of U.S. ASTC members sponsored teacher education workshops for
teachers already working in schools. Museums and science centers also Museums and
devoted considerable resources to preparing future teachers. More than science centers
40 percent of survey respondents provided museum staff to teach educa- also devoted
tion courses or workshops at local colleges. Thirty-seven percent indi- considerable
cated they were working with universities on education research projects; resources to
and nearly 50 percent provided resource kits for training programs for preparing future
future teachers. A handful of museums produce instructional materials teachers.
(e.g., San Francisco’s Exploratorium).
For years, experts in the science of learning have tried to deter-
mine what and how people learn through museum experiences. An
estimated 120 million visitors entered science centers and museums in the
United States in 2000, suggesting museums play an extremely important
role in informal education (ASTC, 2001). However, because visits to
museums serve social, entertainment, and educational purposes, and be-
cause museum visits are almost always unstructured and of very short
duration, it is difficult to quantify how much museum-goers take away
from their visits (personal communication, G. Hein, Leslie University,
December 17, 2000). Contextual-model based assessments of learning
show that museums increase understanding and interest among nearly all
visitors (Falk and Dierking, 2000).
Although the primary focus of science and technology centers is
on communicating facts and concepts, they can also put issues into a social
context and thus engage the public in meaningful debate about the effects
of science and technology. A case in point is “Mine Game,” an exhibit
developed in the early 1990s at Science World in Vancouver, British
Columbia (Bradburne, 2000). The exhibit was designed to mirror heated

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 89

BOX 4-4 “Engineer It”

The theme of the “Engineer It” exhibit at the Oregon Museum for Science and Industry is “think, build,
test, do it again.” Funded by NSF and Intel Corporation, the exhibition, which includes a traveling
component, is intended to give everyone, especially children, a chance to explore engineering in a practical
way. “Engineer It” encourages visitors to use the same steps engineers use to design and build boats,
bridges, windmills, and airplanes and then to test their performance in water tanks, shake tables, and wind
tunnels. A companion website, <http://www.omsi.org/explore/physics/engineerit/>, provides print and
web-based resources for teachers and activities and online games for children.

conflict in the province about the use of natural resources. Museum

visitors were challenged to work through competing scenarios of how
logging, mining, and environmental protection might coexist.
Exhibits like “Mine Game” are likely to improve technological
literacy, especially the dimension of thinking and acting. They engage the
public in the messy process of scientific and technological decision mak-
ing, making concepts such as risk, constraints, and trade-offs of practical
value rather than only theoretical importance. Museums and science
centers also can contribute to the capabilities dimension of technological
literacy, particularly through exhibits that encourage hands-on, problem-
solving, and engineering-design activities (Box 4-4).

Television, Radio, Newspapers, and Other Media

Technology as a subject of reporting by print, broadcast, and

electronic media is now commonplace. Almost every day, at least one
leading story in the local or national news is related to technology. Our
fascination with technology is apparent in a ranking of the most important
news stories in the twentieth century; almost half involve technology to a
substantial degree (Bybee, 2000).
Frequently, the media’s focus on technology has a business or
consumer slant. The Washington Post, for example, has a separate section,
<www.Washtech.com>, on its main website devoted to business coverage
of technology industries. Like many other newspapers, the Post’s print
and online coverage of technology often involves developments in com-
puters and other electronic devices. The New York Times, San Jose Mercury
News, Toronto Star, and Seattle Times, among others, have stand-alone
technology sections focused on devices that employ microchips. Even
newspapers that do not have stand-alone sections in their print versions

90 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
often have separate technology sections on their websites (e.g., Miami
Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, USA Today).
Among television outlets, the Public Broadcasting System
(PBS), especially the program “NOVA,” has the longest track record of
technology-related programming. In the past 20 years, PBS has run
dozens of documentaries, special films, and film series on aeronautics and
flight, crime, computers, energy, weapons and warfare, and ancient and
modern engineering. Many of these programs have companion books,
websites, and resources for teachers to use in the classroom. Among cable
networks, the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, The Learning
Channel, and Think Network have featured technology-related program-
ming. Network television, by and large, has not invested in programming
related to technology or, for that matter, science. Notable exceptions are
the news magazines, such as 60 Minutes, 60 Minutes II, 48 Hours,
Primetime Live, and Dateline, which run occasional in-depth pieces on
technology topics. Network
The Sloan Foundation has funded series of short segments on television, by and
science and technology topics on Public Radio International and National large, has not
Public Radio (NPR), as well as segments of “The Osgood File” on CBS invested in
radio that relate to technology. According to the Sloan Foundation, at programming
least 20 million listeners tune in to at least one of these broadcasts every related to
week. In 2000, Sloan funded the production of five one-hour radio technology or, for
documentaries on NPR, “The DNA Files,” on new developments in that matter,
genetics. science.

The Professions

Architects and engineers are well positioned to influence the

general level of technological literacy and are already taking steps in this
direction. The American Institute of Architects (AIA), for example,
compiles a media guide to help editors and reporters cover architecture,
interior design, and the building industry. The guide provides contact
information for architects around the country who are expert on diverse
topics, such as building security, environmental sustainability, and home
renovation. Through the American Architectural Foundation, AIA runs
a grant program that provides funds to local organizations interested in
improving public understanding and appreciation of architecture. The
foundation also distributes teacher curriculum guides for grades K-12 that

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 91

 integrate design concepts into science, social studies, art, and other sub-
jects.
A handful of engineering societies have developed and promoted
instructional materials for the classroom. One of the most ambitious is
the World in Motion series developed for middle schools by the Society
for Automotive Engineers (SAE). These eight-week units are focused on
problem-solving and design activities. The SAE Foundation supplies
activity kits for student experiments, teacher manuals, and instructional
videos free of charge to any school that agrees to become partners with a
local engineer or company that will provide volunteer support to the
classroom.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has
been working for the past 3 years to encourage communication and
collaboration between practicing engineers and K-12 teachers. The insti-
tute recently launched a website, PEERS (Pre-College Engineer/Educa-
tor Resource Site; <www.ieee.org/eab/precollege/peers/index/htm>), to
facilitate these interactions. In October 2001, IEEE brought together
At least 30 pairs of deans of education and engineering from some 40 universities to
engineering consider how technology content might become part of mainstream teacher
schools or education and how engineers could become better informed about educa-
programs in the tion theory and practice. IEEE also hosts a comprehensive online re-
United States are source related to the history of electrical technologies (see Appendix A).
currently The largest mobilization of engineering talent on behalf of K-12
engaged in education occurs during National Engineers Week, held annually during
outreach to the the month of February. A mainstay of the program is the “DiscoverE K-
K-12 education 12” program, when 40,000 engineers volunteer in classrooms across the
community. country, interacting with more than five million students and teachers.
More than 60 corporations and 75 government, education, engineering
and minority organizations supported EWeek 2001.
At least 30 engineering schools or programs in the United States
are currently engaged in outreach to the K-12 education community
(NAE, unpublished). These initiatives include career days, which bring in
schoolchildren to learn about engineering and engineers, summer pro-
grams for students and teachers, and visits by university engineers to local
classrooms. A few programs, such as the Center for Engineering Educa-
tional Outreach at Tufts University, design and disseminate curricula
based on engineering principles (see Appendix A).
The health professions, particularly physician groups, are also
working to influence the public understanding of technology. Modern

92 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
medicine has become highly technical, both for practitioners and patients,
and many people are poorly equipped to participate in their own care.
Recently, the American Medical Association Foundation (2000) launched
a campaign to improve communication between doctors and patients,
partly by simplifying instructions for and descriptions of medical proce-
dures. Doctor-patient communication about the benefits, risks, and role
of technology in health care could easily be made a part of this and similar
initiatives.

Contests and Awards

A number of professional societies, businesses, and other organi-

zations sponsor contests and award programs intended to interest students A number of
in science, engineering, and technology. The majority of these involve professional
participants in a combination of design, construction, and problem- societies,
solving activities. The most well known of contests is the Intel Interna- businesses,
tional Science and Engineering Fair, which has been administered by and other
Science Service since 1952. Each year, several million students compete organizations
in local, state, and regional fairs around the world. After a lengthy sponsor contests
winnowing process, 1,200 finalists vie for cash awards and other prizes in to interest
15 categories, including engineering. The top two contestants receive all- students in
expense-paid trips to attend the Nobel Prize ceremony in Stockholm, science,
Sweden. engineering, and
Several contests attempt to attract participants through robotics. technology.
The FIRST Robotics Competition, begun by inventor Dean Kamen in
the early 1990s, for example, challenges teams of high school students and
engineers to design and build a robot that can defeat another robot in
some kind of a game. The competition attracts more than 500 teams each
year. In 1998, FIRST initiated a contest for middle school children using
LEGO building blocks, sensors, motors, and gears.
Real-world problem solving is the focus of the TEAMS (Tests of
Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics, and Science) Contest, sponsored by
the Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS). Roughly 1,700 four-
to-eight person teams participated last year. Odyssey of the Mind and the
Future Problem Solving Contest also emphasize creative problem-solving
skills, but students do not participate in hands-on, design-and-build
activities.
The National Engineering Design Challenge, sponsored by JETS
and several other organizations, encourages the creation of products with

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 93

 practical applications. The finals of this competition, which attracts about
80 teams from around the country, are held in conjunction with National
Engineers Week. In the Future City Competition, also part of National
Engineers Week, students design a city of the future using SimCity
software, build a scale model of part of the city, and propose a solution to a
technological problem facing the city.
No one has attempted to assess the impact of these contests on
student learning or future career choices, although some programs collect
attitudinal or anecdotal information about student participants, their par-
ents, teachers, and coaches. A FIRST survey of participants in the
robotics competition found, for example, that 70 percent of the students
became more interested in science, and an equal percentage of their
parents believe the contest experience was a factor in their children want-
ing to attend engineering school.

Participation in Technological Decision

Making

Several federal agencies have formal mechanisms in place for

involving the public in the planning and, sometimes, execution of feder-
ally funded projects, some of which have technological aspects. The U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), for example, requires its grant
recipients to provide opportunities for public input on major transporta-
tion initiatives. DOT publishes case studies documenting public partici-
pation (DOT, 1997a, b, c). Even with these guidelines, however, com-
plex civil works projects can severely test the efforts of local politicians,
engineers, and the public at large to work cooperatively (Hughes, 1998).
Applicants for block grant monies from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to involve citizens
in the planning process for housing, homeless, and community and eco-
nomic development projects. HUD publishes examples from around the
country of best practices related to citizen participation (HUD, 2001).
Technology-related issues in HUD-funded projects involve environmen-
tal concerns, the design and construction of new buildings, and the
revitalization of existing commercial or residential areas.
A number of community organizations in the United States, so-
called community-based research groups, initiate, and sometimes partici-
pate in and even fund, research projects. This approach is sometimes
called “participatory research.” Some of these organizations have been

94 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
active for two decades or more; most are much newer. Because these
groups are generally small and independent, it is difficult to gauge the
extent of their activities. The Loka Institute, an Amherst-based non-
profit, has identified about 75 community-based research organizations
around the country, a dozen of which appear to be at least partly con-
cerned with technological issues (Loka Institute, 2001). Many activities
by community-based organizations are funded by foundation, university,
or local government monies, as well as federal agencies (e.g., CDC, 2001;
NIEHS, 2001; USDA, 2001).

International Experience

In some countries, formal mechanisms for involving the public in

discussions about the development and use of technology are more com-
mon than they are in the United States. Consensus conferences bring
together experts and nonexperts to encourage discussions about the scope
and implications of technology. Unlike the approach to consensus confer- In some
ences pioneered by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, in European countries, formal
consensus conferences the conclusions and recommendations are devel- mechanisms for
oped by a panel of laypersons, not experts (Van Eijndhoven, 1997). involving the
The Danish Board of Technology (Teknologirådet), which pro- public in
vides technology assessment services to the Danish Parliament, held what discussions about
was probably the first such consensus conference in the world in 1987, on the development
gene technology in industry and agriculture. To date, the board has and use of
sponsored 19 conferences on various topics, including electronic identity technology are
cards, educational technology, and the future of private automobiles. A more common
least a dozen other countries, including Japan and South Korea, have than they are in
attempted to emulate the Danish approach. the United States.
Scenario workshops, also pioneered by the Danish Board of
Technology, involve the public and other stakeholders—usually business
leaders, policy makers, and technical experts—in forward-thinking dis-
cussions of the local dimensions of sociotechnical challenges. Scenario
workshops are intended to develop solutions to specific problems rather
than to explore the use and regulation of technology generally (Andersen
and Jaeger, 1999).
The scenario approach was used first in Denmark in the early
1990s to examine the topic of urban ecology. A modified version of the
technique, called the European Awareness Scenario Workshop® (EASW),
was adapted by the European Commission’s (EC) Sustainable Cities and

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 95

 Towns Campaign in 1994. EASW is a tool to help communities respond
to the sustainability agenda (Agenda 21), drafted during the Earth Sum-
mit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. EASW scenarios have been developed on
four broad themes: the urban environment, regeneration, information
and communication, and mobility. In addition, 60 workshops have been
held in nine European cities under the auspices of FLEXIMODO, an EC
project overseen by a consortium of Dutch, Danish, Italian, and Portu-
guese organizations (EC, 2000).
Science shops, which originated in the Dutch university system
in the mid-1970s, coordinate and sometimes conduct research on social,
scientific, and technological issues in response to questions posed by
community and public-interest groups as well as by individuals. Public
participation in the process is essential, but it is not the overarching
purpose. The science-shop approach was developed to engage the aca-
demic research community in the solution of societal problems (Utrecht
University, 2000).
According to the General Secretariat Dutch Scienceshops, there
are 33 science shops at 11 universities in the Netherlands. Each has one or
more areas of expertise, such as the environment, physics, chemistry,
medicine, or architecture. Science shops or similar organizations are
doing work in Denmark, Norway, Germany, Austria, Northern Ireland,
England, Canada, South Korea, Malaysia, Israel, and Romania. The EC
is currently studying ways to internationalize the science-shop model to
increase public access to science (General Secretariat Dutch Scienceshops,
2000).
Another approach, constructive technology assessment (CTA), is
designed to include technology users in the technology design process.
Rather than focusing on the problems of existing technologies or the
potential applications of a technology, CTA focuses on public concerns
and desires during the “construction” of a technology. In this respect,
CTA is different from other methods of involving lay citizens in technol-
ogy assessment. The Rathenau Institute (formerly the Netherlands
Organisation of Technology Assessment) has been instrumental in the
development of the CTA concept. The Dutch government has used the
CTA approach to examine the introduction of novel protein foods that
could replace meat in the diet. Other countries, notably Denmark,
Norway, and Germany, have also used CTA-like processes (Schot and
Rip, 1997).

96 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
Evidence for Impact

Up to now, very few studies have been done to determine whether

the views, concerns, and actions of the nonexpert public actually influence
choices about technology. Nor has the effect of such participation on
public understanding of science and technology—or on technological
literacy—been carefully evaluated. Recently, a small group of mostly
European researchers has begun to examine the impact of public partici- Very few studies
pation on decision making. One of the first studies attempted to deter- have been done
mine the extent to which consensus conferences influenced the legislative to determine
decisions of the Danish Parliament (Joss, 1998). The study involved a whether the
mail survey of members of the parliament, follow-up interviews with five views, concerns,
of those who responded, and an analysis of parliamentary proceedings and and actions of
legislation. the nonexpert
The survey showed that 75 percent of members of Parliament public actually
had heard of consensus conferences, and half of those had attended at influence
least one. Of those who were familiar with consensus conferences, 13 choices about
percent felt that the conferences sometimes led to parliamentary discus- technology.
sions, debates, or initiatives, such as issuance of laws or guidelines. The
study documented a number of instances in which consensus conferences
were mentioned in parliamentary proceedings or debates. At least one
conference, on human genome mapping in 1989, served as the basis for
new legislation.
Following a series of Danish scenario workshops in 1992 on
urban ecology, the Danish government established a national committee,
which is credited with several initiatives encouraging public debate about
sustainable housing. But no assessment was done on the long-term effects
of the workshops on the communities in which they were held (Andersen
and Jaeger, 1999).
An evaluation of the only U.S. participatory consensus confer-
ence to date, “Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy,” con-
cluded that the conference had “no actual impact” on the substance of
telecommunications policy or on the general thinking about the issue
among policy makers (Guston, 1998). But the assessment did find that
the nonexpert participants in the process learned a good deal about tele-
communications technology and about consensus conferences and the role
of citizens in public decision making.
Taken together, the available evidence suggests that formal pub-
lic participation in technological decision making can influence policy

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 97

 making, although the effect may be difficult to measure. Public participa-
tion does appear to help citizens become more versed in technological
matters, at least according to their self-reporting.

Conclusions

The breadth of efforts to boost technological literacy has been

impressive. Information to improve the understanding of technology is
available in many venues, from kindergarten classrooms to graduate semi-
nars, from news stories in local papers to the exhibit halls of science
museums. In terms of promoting the three dimensions of technological
literacy, the most extensive efforts have been directed toward the K-12
classroom, for which a cadre of thoughtful technology educators, curricu-
lum developers, and others has produced high-quality instructional mate-
rials, textbooks, websites, and other resources. The science standards
For developed in the early and mid-1990s have provided a framework for
improvements to integrating science and technology into the classroom, and the newly
be meaningful published ITEA standards for technological literacy could inform teach-
and lasting, ing and learning about technology for decades to come. For these im-
standards, provements to be meaningful and lasting, standards, instructional materi-
instructional als, and assessments will have to be coordinated.
materials, and Another major impediment to lasting reform is the lack of infor-
assessments mation about how people, especially students, learn about technology in
will have to be formal and informal settings. However, interest in the science of learning
coordinated. is burgeoning among educators and policy makers, which is encouraging
for the future of technological literacy.
Given the large proportion of citizens who are no longer in
school, the informal education system must become a major focus for
promoting technological literacy. However, unlike in formal education,
where standards, curriculum, and testing govern what is taught, there are
no similar pressure points influencing what museums, the media, and
others in the informal sector do—or choose to neglect—in their role as
educators. An additional concern is the difficulty of determining what
people actually learn from exhibits, television programming, or science
and technology contests.
The overall situation is discouraging. Many projects have had an
impact on student or public understanding of technology but have been of
limited duration. And some of the most effective initiatives have reached
only a few people. Until a drive for technological literacy is consistently

98 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING
reinforced in schools and in informal education settings, and until rigor-
ously developed standards, curriculum, and assessments have been devel-
oped and put in place, the prospects for sustained improvement are slim.

References
AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1989. Science for
All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
AAAS. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
American Medical Association Foundation. 2000. Partnership in Health: Improving
the Patient-Physician Relationship Through Health Literacy. Available online
at: <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3125-3307.html> (October 5,
2001).
Amram, F. 1989. Poetry as focus for technology, work and values. Pp. 314–324 in
Technology Literacy IV: Proceedings of the Fourth National Technological
Literacy Conference, edited by D.W. Cheek and L.J. Waks. Bloomington, Ind.:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (ED315326).
Andersen, I.-E., and B. Jaeger. 1999. Scenario workshops and consensus confer-
ences: towards more democratic decision-making. Science and Public Policy
26(5): 331–340.
ASTC (Association of Science-Technology Centers). 1997. Yearbook of Science-
Center Statistics. Washington, D.C.: ASTC.
ASTC. 2001. ASTC Sourcebook of Science Center Statistics, 2001. Washington,
D.C.: ASTC.
Bairu, G. 2001. Public School Student, Staff, and Graduate Counts by State: School
Year 1999–2000 (NCES 2001-326r). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Bradburne, J. 2000. Presentation at Workshop on National and International Efforts
that Encourage the Development of Technological Literacy, Committee on
Technological Literacy, The National Academies. Washington, D.C., March
16, 2000.
Broughman, S.P., and L.A. Colaciello. 2001. Private School Universe Survey, 1999–
2000 (NCES 2001-330). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
BSCS (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study). 1984. Innovations: The Social
Consequences of Science and Technology Program. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/
Hunt Publishing Co.
BSCS. 2000. Science T.R.A.C.S. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
Bybee, R. 2000. Achieving technological literacy: A national imperative. The
Technology Teacher 60(1): 23–28.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2001. Division of Prevention
Research and Analytic Methods. Available online at: <http://www.cdc.gov/epo/
dpram/dpram.htm> (November 20, 2001).
CORD (Center for Occupational Research and Development). 1984. Principles of
Technology. Waco, Texas: CORD.
CORD. 2001. Physics in Context: An Integrated Approach. Waco, Texas: CCI
Publishing.
De la Mothe, J.R. 1983. Unity and Diversity in STS Curricula. ED 230–431.
Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Science, Mathematics, and Environ-
mental Education.

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 99

 DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1997a. Public Involvement for Trans-
portation Decision-Making—Case Study: South Sacramento, California, Light
Rail Transit/La Linea Del Sur. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
DOT. 1997b. Public Involvement for Transportation Decision-Making—Case
Study: Metroplan (Little Rock, Arkansas) “Pouring Water on Dry Ground.”
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
DOT. 1997c. Public Involvement for Transportation Decision-Making—Case
Study: Public Involvement at Oregon Department of Transportation. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
EC (European Commission). 2000. Community Research and Development Ser-
vice, Training and Dissemination Schemes Project. FLEXIMODO. Available
online at: <http://www.cordis.lu/tdsp/en/fleximod/00.htm> (November 20, 2001).
Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project. 1971. The Man-Made World. New
York: McGraw Hill Publishing.
Fagan, E.R. 1989. Teaching literature: Science/Humanities. Pp. 333–337 in Tech-
nology Literacy IV: Proceedings of the Fourth National Technological Literacy
Conference, edited by D.W. Cheek and L.J. Waks. Bloomington, Ind.: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (ED315326).
Falk, J.H., and L.D. Dierking. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences
and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
Foltz, F.A. 1988. Origin of an Academic Field: The Science, Technology and
Society Paradigm Shift. Unpublished paper in partial fulfillment for M.A.
degree. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.
General Secretariat Dutch Scienceshops. 2000. National Secretariat Dutch Science
Shops. Available online at: <http://www.ssc.unimaas.nl/LSW/indexuk.HTM>
(November 20, 2001).
Guston, D.H. 1998. Evaluating the Impact of the First U.S. Citizens’ Panel on
“Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy.” Paper prepared for deliv-
ery at the 1998 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Boston, September 3-6.
Hackett, E.J. 2000. Trends and opportunities in science and technology studies: A
view from the National Science Foundation. Pp. 277–292 in Science, Technol-
ogy and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by D.D. Kumar
and D.E. Chubin. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hamm, M., and D. Adams. 1989. An analysis of global problem issues in sixth- and
seventh-grade textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(5): 445–
452.
Hankins, J.C. 1989. Writing as a bridge between high school science and society: A
theoretical perspective. Pp. 344–350 in Technology Literacy IV: Proceedings of
the Fourth National Technological Literacy Conference, edited by D.W. Cheek
and L.J. Waks. Bloomington, Ind.: ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/
Social Science Education (ED315326).
Harkness, J.L., J. Ihde, R. LeClair, and D. Tietge. 1986. Modular Science-
Technology-Society. Wausau, Wis.: Modular STS Incorporated.
Harms, N.C., and R.E. Yager. 1981. What Research Says to the Science Teacher.
Vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association.
HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2001. John J.
Gunther Blue Ribbon Practices in Community Development. Topic: Citizen
Participation. Available online at: <http://www.hud.gov/ptw/participation.html>
(November 13, 2001).
Hughes, T.P. 1998. Coping with complexity: Central Artery/Tunnel. Pp. 197–254
in Rescuing Prometheus. New York: Pantheon Books.

100 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

Hughes, T.P. In Press. History of Technology: An Essay for the International
Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, U.K: Elsevier.
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology. 2001. IMaST home page.
Available online at <http://www.ilstu.edu/depts/cemast/imast/imasthome.htm>
(November 20, 2001).
Integrating Mathematics, Science, and Technology in the Elementary Schools. 2001.
MSTe home page. Available online at <http://www.bnl.gov/scied/mste/
mste.html> (June 28, 2001).
ITEA (International Technology Education Association). 2000. Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, Va.:
ITEA.
Jasanoff, S., G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds. 1995. Handbook of
Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Joss, S. 1998. Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology
assessment: an impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and
Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy 25(1): 2–22.
Kumar, D.D., and D.F. Berlin. 1996. A study of STS curriculum implementation in
the United States. Science Educator 4(10): 12–19.
Loepp, F., S. Meier, and R. Satchwell. 2000. Integrated program increases test
scores. Proceedings of the International Conference of Scholars on Technology
Education, edited by G. Graube and W.E. Theuerkauf. Braunschweig, Ger-
many: Technical University Braunschweig.
Loka Institute. 2001. The Community Research Network. Available online at:
<http://www.loka.org/crn/index.htm> (November 20, 2001).
Miller, J.D. 1998. The Influence of Science Television and Other Informal Science
Education on Civic Scientific Literacy. Paper for a discussion with the staff of
NOVA and WGBH, October 23, 1998. Unpublished.
Miller, J.D. 2001. The acquisition and retention of scientific information by American
adults. Pp. 93-114 in Free-Choice Science Education: How We Learn Science
Outside of School, edited by J.H. Falk. New York: Teachers College Press.
Miller, D.H., and N. Butcher. 1990. Creative environmental dramatic opportunity:
An interdisciplinary approach to combine earth science and drama for 8th grade.
Pp. 206–209 in Technology Literacy V: Proceedings of the Fifth National
Technological Literacy Conference, edited by D.W. Cheek. Bloomington, Ind.:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (ED325429).
NAE (National Academy of Engineering). Unpublished. Data collected through an
informal survey of engineering schools and engineering programs at U.S. univer-
sities, June–August, 2001.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.
2000. Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commis-
sion on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Available
online at: <http://www.ed.gov/americacounts/glenn/report.doc> (November 20,
2001).
National School to Work Office. 2000. Available online at: <http://www.stw.ed.gov>
(November 21, 2001).
NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education). 2000a. A List
of Professional Accredited Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education.
Washington, D.C.: NCATE.
NCATE. 2000b. NCATE 2000 Unit Standards. Available online at: <http://
www.ncate.org/2000/2000stds.pdf> (November 20, 2001).
NCEE (National Commission on Excellence in Education). 1982. A Nation at Risk.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 101

 NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2000a. Vocational Education in
the United States: Towards the Year 2000. Available online at: <http://
nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000029> (November 20, 2001).
NCES. 2000b. IPEDS College Opportunities On-Line. Available online at
<www.nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool> (November 20, 2001).
NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2001. Community-
Based Prevention/Intervention Research. Available online at: <http://
www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/programs/translat/cbpir/cbpir.htm> (March 5, 2001).
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NSB (National Science Board). 1983. Commission on Precollege Education in
Mathematics, Science, and Technology: Educating Americans for the 21st Cen-
tury. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.
NSB. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators 2000—Volume 1. National Science
Board. Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation.
NSSB (National Skill Standards Board). 2000. The NSSB: A Brief Description.
Available online at: <http://www.nssb.org/> (November 20, 2001).
NSTA (National Science Teachers Association). 1982. Science-Technology-Society:
Science Education for the 1980s. Washington, D.C.: NSTA.
Piel, E.J. 1981. Interaction of science, technology and society in secondary schools.
Pp. 94–112 in What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Vol. 3, edited by
N.C. Harms and R.E. Yager. Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers
Association.
Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assess-
ment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–68.
SHOT (Society for the History of Technology). 2000. Available online at: <http://
www.press.jhu.edu/associations/shot/index.htm> (November 20, 2001).
Tangum, M. 1989. Writing to learn: An NSF summer experience. Pp. 362–370 in
Technology Literacy IV: Proceedings of the Fourth National Technological
Literacy Conference, edited by D.W. Cheek and L.J. Waks. Bloomington, Ind.:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education (ED315326).
Todd, R., and P. Hutchinson. 2000. The transfer of design and technology to the
United States: A case study. Pp. 215–223 in Design and Technology Interna-
tional Millennium Conference 2000, edited by R. Kimbell. Wellesborne, En-
gland: The Design and Technology Association.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Population Estimates Program, Population Division,
Washington, D.C. Available online at: <http://www.census.gov/population/
www/index.html> (June 28, 2001).
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2001. USDA Forest Service. Urban and
Community Forest Ecosystem Research. Urban Forest Research Units. Avail-
able online at: <http://svinet2.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/otherfs.html> (November
13, 2001).
Utrecht University. 2000. Introduction, Utrecht Scienceshops (English translation).
Available online at: <http://www.uu.nl/cws/english/homepage.html> (Novem-
ber 20, 2001).
Van Eijndhoven, J.C.M. 1997. Technology assessment: Product or process? Tech-
nological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 269–286.
Yager, R.E. 1996. History of science/technology/society as reform in the United
States. Pp. 3–15 in Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Educa-
tion, edited by R.E. Yager. Albany: State University of New York Press.

102 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 5

Recommendations

ased on direct and indirect evidence from a variety of

B sources, as well as committee members’ experiences and

expert judgment, the committee concluded that it is in
the interest of all Americans to understand more about technology. The
conclusion is based on an exploration of technology’s role in society and
our relationship to it; an analysis of how current social, political, and
educational environments affect both the idea and the practical expression
of technological literacy; an estimation of the benefits—to individuals and
society at large—of greater technological literacy; and a sampling of
initiatives that may provide a foundation for a more serious and sustained
campaign for technological literacy. The logical question, then, is, what
comes next? What steps should be taken, and by whom, to make a
campaign for technological literacy a reality? The ultimate goal of the
campaign must be to increase the number of people who are knowledge-
able, thoughtful, and capable with respect to technology (Figure 5-1).
The Committee on Technological Literacy decided to focus its
recommendations on four areas: (1) formal and informal education; (2)
research; (3) decision making; and (4) educational innovation. While
more categories are possible, the committee believes this set provides an
appropriate, balanced, and feasible agenda for enhancing technological
literacy in the United States. The categories are addressed roughly in
order of priority. Readers should note, however, that the recommenda-
tions overlap and support each other, so no category can be ignored. For
instance, the availability of better data about technological literacy and
how people learn about technology will inform efforts in the education
sector. Initiatives to improve technological decision making, which would

103
FIGURE 5-1 The dimensions of
technological literacy, showing
desired growth in the “space”
occupied by most Americans.

increase public awareness of the value of informed debate about technol-

ogy, should also increase support for research and educational reforms.

Strengthening the Presence of Technology

in Formal and Informal Education

The U.S. education system has many components that are closely
interrelated. Creating lasting change in this complex system requires a
strategy that targets several components simultaneously over a sustained
period of time. Four key points in the system are curricula, instructional
materials, student testing, and standards. Currently, few curricula or
instructional materials at the K-12 or undergraduate level integrate
nontechnology subjects with technology-related content. Short of the
widespread adoption of dedicated courses in technology—an unlikely
scenario, in the committee’s view—the inclusion of technology subject
matter in other academic areas is one of the surest ways of increasing the
visibility of technology in U.S. schools. To date, the most attention has
been paid to integrating technology with science and mathematics. The
committee urges that these initiatives be continued, and, in addition,
attempts should be made to include technology content in other subjects,
such as social studies, civics, history, geography, art, language arts, and
even literature.
There are virtually no tests at the state, national, or international

104 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

level designed to measure what K-12 students and undergraduates know
about technology. As curricula and instructional materials that incorpo-
rate technology content are developed, questions about technology are
likely to be integrated into student assessments. In addition, targeted
efforts to redesign these tests to include technology-related items could
significantly accelerate the integration of technological content into
curricula.
Although national standards in a variety of subject areas, such as
science, mathematics, history, and language arts, stress connections to
technology, for the most part these standards are not reflected in the
curricula, instructional materials, and assessments for those subjects. State
curriculum frameworks for most school subjects do not make connections
to technology content.

Recommendation 1 Federal and state agencies that help set education

policy should encourage the integration of technology content into K-12
standards, curricula, instructional materials, and student assessments in
nontechnology subject areas.

At the federal level, the National Science Foundation (NSF)

and the Department of Education (DoEd) can do this in a
number of ways, including, when appropriate, making integra-
tion a requirement for providing funding for the development of
curriculum and instructional materials. The technically oriented
federal agencies (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
and Energy, National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
can support integration by developing background materials for
teachers of science, history, social studies, civics, the arts, and
language arts keyed to national standards and benchmarks in
those subjects.
At the state level, science and technology advisors and advisory
councils can use their influence with governors, state legislatures,
and industry to encourage the inclusion of technology content in
nontechnology subjects, not only in the general K-12 curriculum
but also in school-to-work and technician-preparation programs.
State boards of education can provide incentives for publishers to
modify next-generation science, history, social studies, civics, and

RECOMMENDATIONS 105
 language arts textbooks to include technology content, for ex-
ample by incorporating technological themes into state educa-
tional standards or by modifying the criteria for school textbooks
to include a requirement that the texts contain substantial tech-
nology content. Science and history tests that are part of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress and future itera-
tions of the Third International Mathematics and Science Survey
could be modified to include technology-related items.

Science and technology are so closely connected in the modern

world that it is hard to think about them as separate entities. This
interconnectedness may explain the confusion in the minds of students,
teachers, and the public at large about how science and technology are
related. Both have played fundamental roles in our history and culture. In
the vast majority of U.S. classrooms, however, technology is not treated as
a partner to science or recognized as a major influence on society. Some
science classes touch on design, problem solving, and other facets of
technological thinking, but teachers and instructional materials rarely
explore these concepts. Even fewer nonscience curricula and instructional
materials touch on technology.

Recommendation 2 The states should better align their K-12 standards,

curriculum frameworks, and student assessment in the sciences, math-
ematics, history, social studies, civics, the arts, and language arts with
national educational standards that stress the connections between these
subjects and technology. NSF- and DoEd-funded instructional materials
and informal-education initiatives should also stress these connections.

State boards of education in the United States should explic-

itly link K-12 content in the sciences, mathematics, history,
social studies, civics, the arts, and language arts with technology
content in their standards, curriculum frameworks, and student
assessments in ways suggested by the appropriate national stan-
dards. (For example, in science, boards of education might refer
to Benchmarks for Science Literacy, the National Science Education
Standards, and the Standards for Technological Literacy: Content
for the Study of Technology. In mathematics, boards could refer to
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.) State science
and technology advisors and advisory councils should use their

106 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 influence with governors, state legislatures, industry, and com-
munity colleges to support and facilitate this process.
All new instructional materials developed with funding from
NSF, DoEd, or other federal agencies should have a much more
sophisticated and expanded presentation of technological con-
cepts and themes, and these should be closely articulated with the
materials’ core content in the sciences or other subjects.
In a parallel action, federally funded projects in informal edu-
cation, particularly those supported by the NSF, should be re-
quired to make explicit the relationship between technology and
the main academic subject focus of the initiative, as spelled out in
the appropriate national standards.

A better understanding of the distinctions between science and

technology as well as their interdependencies would enable teachers to
focus their efforts on technological design issues in the classroom, which
could lead to more discussion of attitudes and assumptions about technol-
ogy. Teachers and students could then focus on related questions about
the risks and benefits of introducing new technologies, ethical issues,
issues of evidence, and so on.

Recommendation 3 NSF, DoEd, state boards of education, and others

involved in K-12 science education should introduce, where appropriate,
the word “technology” into the titles and contents of science standards,
curricula, and instructional materials.

This seemingly trivial change in language could have a pro-

found effect on students’ and the public’s awareness of technol-
ogy. This recommendation is not a recommendation for new courses.
The change would be appropriate in many cases where the word
“science” appears in isolation. The addition of the word “tech-
nology” would provide a more accurate description of the content
of some curricula and would put technology issues on an equal
footing, at least linguistically, with science issues.

Another crucial component in the U.S. educational system is

teacher education. Indeed, the success of changes in curricula, instruc-
tional materials, and assessments will depend largely on the ability of
teachers to implement those changes. Lasting improvements will require

RECOMMENDATIONS 107
 both the creation of new teaching and assessment tools as well as the
appropriate preparation of teachers to use those tools effectively.

Recommendation 4 NSF, DoEd, and teacher education accrediting bod-

ies should provide incentives for institutions of higher education to trans-
form the preparation of all teachers to better equip them to teach about
technology throughout the curriculum.

In general, teachers of technology must approach the subject

from an engineering perspective rather than an industrial arts
perspective. These teachers must be fully conversant with the
International Technology Education Association’s Standards for
Technological Literacy and familiar with the materials and tech-
niques for teaching to those standards. Technology teachers with
a good understanding of science and the interactions between
technology, science, and society will be well prepared to work
with other teachers to integrate technology with other subjects.
Teachers of science should have a solid education in technol-
ogy and engineering design to ensure that they are prepared to
use new materials that will become available that include technol-
ogy-related examples and activities. Teachers of history and
social studies should be required to become knowledgeable about
how science and technology influence history and society.
Elementary school teachers should, at the very least, be scien-
tifically and technologically literate. Universities can provide ap-
propriate courses or make provisions for teachers to meet this
requirement by examination. The content of the American
Assocation for the Advancement of Science’s (AAAS) Science for
All Americans could be used as a minimum standard; the publica-
tions listed in AAAS’s Resources for Science Literacy (Appendix A)
can provide some of the necessary information.
Teachers at all levels should be able to conduct design projects
and use design-oriented teaching strategies to encourage
learning.

Developing a Research Base

Efforts to improve technological literacy in the United States

have been hampered by a weak research base. The lack of reliable,

108 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

longitudinal information about what people know and believe about tech-
nology, for example, has made it difficult for curriculum developers to
design strategies for addressing gaps in what students know, correcting
misconceptions, and building on existing understandings. Further, be-
cause we have not been able to measure changes in public understanding,
policy makers have been hard pressed to know how to enhance techno-
logical literacy.
Very little research has been done on the cognitive steps involved
in constructing new knowledge about technology. This information
would benefit developers of instructional materials and curricula, as well as
teachers trying to plan classroom strategies and designers of initiatives in
informal education. Developing a research base for technological literacy
will require creating cadres of competent researchers, developing and
periodically revising a research agenda, allocating funding for research
projects, and incorporating research findings in teaching materials and
techniques.

Recommendation 5 NSF should support the development of assessment

tools that can be used to monitor the state of technological literacy among
students and the public in the United States.

NSF, which has already invested considerable effort in deter-

mining the public understanding of, and attitudes toward, sci-
ence and technology, should take the lead in supporting assess-
ment research. A first step would be to evaluate methods currently
used to measure knowledge and understanding in other subject
areas to determine if they could be used to gauge technological
literacy. Researchers would have to take into account the special
challenges associated with assessing technological understanding,
including the different meanings people attribute to the word
“technology” and the real, sometimes confusing connections be-
tween science and technology. Researchers should also consider
how much an assessment of technological literacy should rely on
knowledge and capabilities spelled out in formal content stan-
dards (e.g., the standards created by the International Technol-
ogy Education Association, National Research Council, and
American Association for the Advancement of Science).

RECOMMENDATIONS 109
 Recommendation 6 NSF and DoEd should fund research on how people
learn about technology, and the results should be applied in formal and
informal education settings.

This research would focus on the relationship between scien-

tific knowledge and technological knowledge; the roles of proce-
dural and conceptual knowledge in enhancing technological un-
derstanding; the nature and process of technological problem
solving; and the application of findings in cognitive science to
technological learning. The work being done by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science to develop a re-
search agenda for technology education should be continued and
expanded.
The results of this research must be translated into practical
strategies for enhancing learning and teaching in the classroom
and in informal settings, such as museums, science and technol-
ogy centers, and through materials in print, online, and in the
broadcast media.

Enhancing Informed Decision Making

In a modern nation like the United States, a substantial number

of decisions have a technological component. Outside the formal school
setting, one of the best ways to become educated about technology is to
engage in discussions of the pros and cons, risks and benefits, knowns and
unknowns of a particular technology or technological choice. Engage-
ment in decision making is likely to have a direct, positive effect on the
nonexpert participants, and involving the nonexpert public in delibera-
tions about technological developments as they are taking shape, rather
than after the fact, may actually shorten the time and reduce the resources
required to bring new technologies into service. Equally important, public
participation may also result in design changes that better reflect the needs
and desires of society.

Recommendation 7 Industry, federal agencies responsible for carrying

out infrastructure projects, and science and technology museums should
provide more opportunities for the nontechnical public to become in-
volved in discussions about technological developments.

110 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 The technical community—especially engineers and scientists
in industry—is largely responsible for the amount and quality of
communication and outreach to the public on technological is-
sues. Industry should err on the side of encouraging greater
public engagement, even if it may not always be clear what types
of technological development merit public input. In the federal
arena, some agencies already require recipients of funding to
engage communities likely to be affected by planned infrastruc-
ture projects. These efforts should be expanded. In general,
efforts to enhance public involvement in technological decision
making in the United States could benefit from the experiences
of other nations, particularly Denmark and Holland.
The informal education sector, especially museums and sci-
ence and technology centers, is well positioned to prepare the
nontechnical public to grapple with the complexities of decision
making in the technological realm. These institutions and the
government agencies, companies, and foundations that support
them could do much more to encourage public discussion and
debate about the direction and nature of technological develop-
ment at both the local and national level.

Informed decision making is important for all citizens of a de-

mocracy and is vital for leaders in government and industry whose deci-
sions influence the health and welfare of the nation. State and federal
legislators, who set policy and allocate resources, largely determine the
national agenda in education, national security, health care, and many
other areas. Industry shapes the consumer culture and drives economic
growth and productivity through investments in research, product devel-
opment, and marketing.
Government and industry both face a daunting array of issues
with substantial technological components, from the creation and regula-
tion of genetically modified organisms to the future of the Internet and e-
commerce. The committee believes there is a great unmet need in both
sectors for information and education that would contribute to more
informed decision making about technological matters.

Recommendation 8 Federal and state government agencies with a role

in guiding or supporting the nation’s scientific and technological enter-
prise, and private foundations concerned about good governance, should

RECOMMENDATIONS 111
 support executive education programs intended to increase the techno-
logical literacy of government and industry leaders.

Executive education programs could include courses, lasting

from several days to several weeks, designed for leaders and
decision makers (and key staff) in Congress, state and local
governments, and industry. The courses might use case studies
to deal with current and anticipated technological problems and
choices. These courses could be offered in many locations
throughout the country, at major research universities, commu-
nity colleges, law schools, business schools, schools of manage-
ment, colleges of engineering, and other institutions. The courses
would be taught by experts in technology, science, history of
science and technology, and technological literacy.

The engineering community, which is directly involved in the

creation of technology, is uniquely equipped to promote technological
literacy. An engineering-led effort to increase technological literacy could
have significant, long-term pay-offs, not only for decision makers in
government but also for the public at large.

Recommendation 9 U.S. engineering societies should underwrite the

costs of establishing government- and media-fellow programs with the
goal of creating a cadre of policy experts and journalists with a background
in engineering.

These programs could be small to begin with, but should be

expanded over time to include a larger number of fellows from
the ranks of master’s, doctoral, and postdoctoral level engineers.
Government fellowship programs could include workshops and
internships in Congress and statehouses around the country.
Because few national or state legislators are engineers, a techno-
logically savvy staff could be very helpful. Graduates of the
program might become permanent government employees or
might return to engineering practice or education but would
continue to serve as consultants to state and local legislators on
technological issues.
The training for media fellows should include workshops,
followed by internships at cooperating newspapers, magazines, or

112 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 television or radio stations. Graduates of the program might
become professional journalists or might return to engineering,
but would continue to serve as consultants to the media. Better
media coverage of technological issues would help inform citi-
zens, who would then be better equipped to make decisions in
their own lives.

Rewarding Teaching Excellence

and Educational Innovation

One of the biggest obstacles to enhancing technological literacy

in the United States is the limited amount of high-quality instructional
materials and curricula available. Although some good materials and
effective curricula and programs have been developed, the developers
often do not have sufficient funding, time, or expertise to disseminate
their work to a broad audience. Some teachers, education researchers, and
curriculum developers have created interesting and effective approaches to
engaging students in technology and design activities, but most of them
are known only in the school or school system where they originated.

Recommendation 10 NSF, in collaboration with industry partners, should

provide funding for awards for innovative, effective approaches to improv-
ing the technological literacy of students or the public at large.

A key criterion for the awards should be that the innovation be

scalable (i.e., it can be replicated on a large scale). The awards
would provide financial and logistical support for disseminating
the innovation widely across the United States. The National
Academy of Engineering’s Gordon Prize, which is awarded for
innovations in engineering education, could be a model for devel-
oping an award program.

For almost 20 years, outstanding teachers in science and math-

ematics from around the United States have been recognized annually for
their contributions to student learning through the Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Math and Science Teaching. Awardees receive a $7,500
educational grant for their schools, a presidential citation, and a trip to
Washington, D.C., for a series of events honoring their achievements.
The program not only increases the visibility of the work of high-caliber

RECOMMENDATIONS 113
 teachers, it also draws public attention to and helps build support for
excellence in science and math education. No similar award exists for
technology education.

Recommendation 11 The White House should add a Presidential Award

for Excellence in Technology Teaching to those that it currently offers for
mathematics and science teaching.

The NSF, which administers the Presidential Awards for

Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching for the White
House, should consult with the International Technology Edu-
cation Association (ITEA), which already has several long-stand-
ing award programs for technology teachers who are members of
the organization. Those eligible for the new award could include
not only teachers with degrees in technology education, but also
teachers with backgrounds in science, math, and other subjects.

A Final Word

The purpose of this report is to inform the public—and especially

people in a position to affect policy—of the urgent need for technological
literacy. The report and its recommendations provide only a starting
point. The case for technological literacy must be made consistently, on
an ongoing basis, in light of the technological developments of the time.
As Americans gradually become more sophisticated with regard to tech-
nological issues, they will be more willing to support measures in the
schools and in the informal education arena to raise the level of techno-
logical literacy of the next generation. In time, leaders in government,
academia, and business will also recognize the value of widespread tech-
nological literacy to their own and the nation’s welfare. The journey
promises to be slow and challenging but unquestionably worth the effort.

114 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 APPENDIX A
Toolkit for
Technological Literacy

his appendix is a compilation of resources—a toolkit—

T intended to assist readers who want to know more about

technology and technological literacy. The toolkit is a
sampling rather than a comprehensive listing. Most of these sources of
information will be of interest to general audiences; some may be of more
interest to specific groups. Educators, for example, may find the “Re-
sources for the K-12 Classroom” particularly useful. An expanded and
updated version of the toolkit is available on the National Academy of
Engineering website that accompanies this report: <www.nae.edu/techlit>.
The Committee on Technological Literacy and project staff have
reviewed these entries for relevance and accuracy. However, inclusion on
this list does not represent an endorsement by either the committee or the
National Academies or a judgment of the quality of a particular organiza-
tion or resource.

Nature and History of Technology

Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Po-

litical Thought
Langdon Winner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1977.
This book explores the relationship between technology and
political theory throughout history. Winner stresses the interactions
between technology and conceptions of human nature and social and
political institutions.

115
 Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology
Robert Pool, Oxford University Press, 1997.
This book, part of the Sloan Foundation Technology Book Se-
ries, presents the fascinating, often complex ways machines and society
interact. Pool demonstrates that technology is shaped not only by engi-
neering, but also by cultural values, economics, management, and history.

Buildings, Bridges, and Tunnels

<www.discovery.com/stories/technology/buildings/buildings.html>
This website explores how tall buildings have evolved through
time, tours grand bridges around the world, and explains tunnel technolo-
gies. This is a companion site to a three-part series on the Discovery
Channel celebrating the advances in engineering design and technology.

Designing Engineers
Louis L. Bucciarelli, MIT Press, 1996.
X-ray inspection systems at airports, photoprint machines, and a
residential energy system all illustrate how society influences engineering
design. Through case studies, readers are shown how business and man-
agement issues, as well as engineering design, influence the
conceptualization and production of technologies.

The Design of Everyday Things

Donald A. Norman, Currency/Doubleday, 1990.
This collection of examples of good and bad design includes
some simple rules for designers and prompts readers to think about how
they interact with their surroundings.

Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma of Technological De-

terminism
Edited by Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx, MIT Press, 1994.
The essays in this collection focus on how society is shaped by
technology. Experts in various disciplines argue that technologies are
social products and therefore subject to social or democratic controls.

Dream Reaper: The Story of an Old-Fashioned Inventor in the High-

Tech, High-Stakes World of Modern Agriculture
Craig Canine, Alfred A. Knopf, 1995.
In the past 150 years, agricultural technology has changed dra-

116 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

matically as the population has moved from farms into cities. The author
describes those changes through the struggle of two cousins from Kansas
who developed and marketed a new type of grain reaper.

Engineering and the Mind’s Eye

Eugene S. Ferguson, MIT Press, 1994.
Focusing on design and visualization, Ferguson argues that good
engineering relies as much on intuition and imagination as on models and
calculations. The author presents the story of engineering as a profession
and argues that engineering education must prepare engineers for working
on projects in the real world, as opposed to models and theories.

The Existential Pleasures of Engineering (Second Edition)

Samuel Florman, St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
This book explores the thoughts and feelings of engineers about
their profession and their work. Florman also discusses some philosophies
of technology.

The Great Idea Finder

<www.ideafinder.com>
The Great Idea Finder (TGIF) website highlights historic and
cutting-edge inventions, profiles inventors, and provides resources for
learning about technology and innovation.

Greatest Achievements of the 20th Century

<www.greatachievements.org/greatachievements>
From electricity and safe drinking water to airplanes and com-
puters, engineering reshaped society in the twentieth century. This website
provides pictures and background material on 20 of the most important
engineering achievements of the last hundred years.

High Tech, High Touch: Technology and Our Search for Meaning
John Naisbitt, Nana Naisbitt, and Douglas Philips, Broadway Books, 1999.
This book presents information on technological issues and in-
cludes interviews with doctors, scientists, military leaders, and clergy, who
believe that technology is accelerating the pace of activity and feeding the
yearning for more emotionally satisfying lives.

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 117

 How Stuff Works
<www.howstuffworks.com>
This website provides information about how everything from
computers to coffeemakers works. It includes a question of the day
archive, feature articles that change regularly, and a HowStuffWorks
Express site for kids.

The Intellectual Appropriation of Technology: Discourses on Moder-

nity, 1900–1939
Edited by Mikael Ha°rd and Andrew Jamison, MIT Press, 1998.
The essays in this collection suggest that current debates about
technology have been shaped by the social and academic responses to
techonological developments from 1900–1940. The authors focus on
how attitudes about technology are shaped by national and cultural tradi-
tions.

The Invention That Changed the World: How a Small Group of Radar
Pioneers Won the Second World War and Launched a Technological
Revolution
Robert Buderi, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Buderi recounts the rapid development of radio detection and
ranging (RADAR) during World War II and the subsequent scientific
and technological advances it inspired. This story includes technical
details, as well as descriptions of the personalities, rivalries, and broader
context that influenced the development of this seminal technology.

Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest
Scientific Problem of His Time
Dava Sobel, Walker and Company, 1998.
This is the remarkable story of a clock maker who invented the
chronometer, which revolutionized navigation at sea.

More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from

the Open Hearth to the Microwave
Ruth Schwartz Cowan, Basic Books, 1983.
As people moved away from traditional farming, many labor-
saving devices were developed to help with chores that had been done by
men or children. Cowan argues that the roles of family members in

118 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

household maintenance have changed much more slowly than the tech-
nology, which ironically has increased the responsibility of women.

Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th Century America

David C. Mowery and Nathan Rosenberg, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
The internal combustion engine, electricity, and chemistry are a
few of the case studies in this book on innovation in America in the
twentieth century. The authors also identify general patterns of
techonological development and economic growth.

The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of

Invention
David F. Noble, A.A. Knopf, 1997.
Noble’s thesis is that science and religion were closely linked for
most of the 2000 years of Western history. When science became a quest
for knowledge separate from its religious underpinnings, he argues, tech-
nical progress took off in a different direction, sometimes leading to
terrible events like Hiroshima and Chernobyl.

Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental Projects That Changed the

Modern World
Thomas P. Hughes, Pantheon Books, 1998.
Hughes tells the story of how four large-scale techonological
projects undertaken since World War II have contributed to new methods
of management and engineering. He argues that innovation is now the
product of interacting systems of technology rather than of an inventor
working alone.

Sightseer’s Guide to Engineering

<www.engineeringsights.org>
This online travel guide includes links to websites for manufac-
turing facilities, roller coasters, ski lifts, museums, lighthouses, and engi-
neering marvels like the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam. The site
is sponsored by the National Society of Professional Engineers and Na-
tional Engineers Week.

The Soul of a New Machine

Tracy Kidder, Modern Library, 1997.
This Pulitizer Prize winning book follows a group of young

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 119

 engineers at Data General who built a new minicomputer in just one year.
Their handling of the difficult and complex obstacles to achieve this goal
set a standard of highly motivated, hard-working professionals in the
computer industry.

Technology and Culture

This international quarterly journal published by the Society for
the History of Technology includes articles on the history of technology
and its relationship to politics, economics, labor, business, the environ-
ment, public policy, science, and the arts. Details, including subscription
information, are available at <shot.jhu.edu/tc.html>.

Technology and the Future (Eighth Edition)

Edited by Albert H. Teich., Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2000.
The essays in this collection were written by scholars of technol-
ogy and society with a variety of opinions about the future relationship
between them. The essays focus on theories, limits, and risks of technol-
ogy and impacts on medicine, labor, politics and policy, society, gender
roles, and the family.

Technological Literacy
Edited by Michael J. Dryenfurth and Michael R. Kozak, Council on Technol-
ogy Teacher Education, MacMillan/McGraw-Hill, 1991.
This collection of essays covers the context for technological
literacy, provides different perspectives on the concept, and suggests prac-
tical implications for technology educators.

Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

Neil Postman, Vintage Books, 1993.
In this book, Postman argues that the United States has become
the world’s first technopoly—a culture that not only uses technology, but
is also shaped by it.

To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design

Henry A Petroski, Vintage Books, 1993.
Petroski uses several examples to demonstrate that engineering
successes are often the results of a long succession of sometimes spectacu-
lar, but forgotten, failures.

120 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial De-
velopment in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present
David S. Landes, Cambridge University Press, 1969.
This classic book presents basic economic issues and techonological change
that have had the greatest impact on society since 1750.

Virtual Center for Science and Technology

<echo.gmu.edu/center>
Exploring and Collecting History Online (ECHO) Virtual Cen-
ter for Science and Technology is an annotated catalogue of Internet sites
on the history of science, technology, and medicine. This resource in-
cludes links from the original WWW Virtual Library.

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended

Consequences
Edward Tenner, Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.
Using examples from sports, medicine, environmental control,
and the computerized office, Tenner describes how new technologies can
have unexpected results, such as unforeseen problems and unforeseen
benefits.

Resources for the K-12 Classroom

Building Big
<www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/index.html>
BUILDING BIG™ explores the history of some of the greatest
feats of engineering in the world and the ingenuity of the engineers,
architects, and builders who designed and built them. This is a compan-
ion site to a five-part PBS series.

The Children Designing & Engineering Project

The College of New Jersey; 103 AR, P.O. Box 7718, Ewing, NJ 08628-0718;
Phone: 609-771-3331; Email: [email protected].
The Children Designing & Engineering Project is a collabora-
tion of the College of New Jersey’s Department of Technological Studies,
the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers. The project has developed instructional materials
for the K-5 age group using a thematic design-and-technology approach.
The hands-on, inquiry-based units emphasize the relationship between

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 121

 science, math, technology, and the business world. They range between
four and six weeks in length and take approximately 15-20 hours to
complete. Details available at: <http://www.tcnj.edu/~cde/home.html>.

The City Technology Project

City College of New York; 140th St. & Convent Ave.; Room T-233; New York,
NY 10031. Phone: 212-650-8389 Email: [email protected].
The City Technology Project is a collaboration of elementary
classroom teachers, the City College Schools of Education and Engineer-
ing, the Center for Children and Technology and the Institute of Electri-
cal and Electronics Engineers. The project has developed materials for
teachers to support the teaching of technology in the elementary grades.
These materials draw upon everyday artifacts and systems as the source of
materials for analysis and design. Five volumes in the Stuff that Works!
series are available from Heinemann (Portsmouth, NH): Mechanisms &
Other Systems; Packaging & Other Structures; Mapping; Designed Environ-
ments: Places, Practices and Plans; and Signs, Symbols & Codes. The project
is currently organizing a professional development plan to support the use
of these materials through hands-on workshops and Internet-based
forums.

DESIGN
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Science Education Depart-
ment, MS-71, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; Phone: 617-496-
4796; Email: [email protected]
Doable engineering science investigations geared for nonscience
students (DESIGN) are design-based activity modules for use in physical
science and technology courses in grades 5 through 9. The engineering
projects include: batteries, bridges, electromagnets, gravity cars, solar
houses, and windmills. Students make prototypes of specific designs and
are then challenged to improve them in some way, such as by increasing
their speed while working within constraints, such as size or budget.
DESIGN II is a one-year physical science and technology course for
middle schools, based on the engineering projects developed and tested
through the DESIGN project. Details are available at: <cfa-
www.harvard.edu/cfa/sed/projects/designsinfo.html>.

122 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

EngineerGirl
<www.engineergirl.org>
This site for girls about engineers and engineering careers fea-
tures a Gallery of Women Engineers, an Ask an Engineer option, a career
quiz, and an increasing number of engineering links. A companion
website, Celebration of Women in Engineering <www.nae.edu/cwe>,
provides additional project plans and resources for parents, teachers, and
other mentors.

Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology

Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology; Illinois State University,
Campus Box 5960, Normal, IL 61790-5000; Phone: 309-438-3089; Email:
[email protected]
The Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
program provides an integrated curriculum for grades 6 through 8 that
promotes hands-on learning for students and teamwork among teachers
from different disciplines. Teams of mathematics, science, and technol-
ogy specialists, in collaboration with experts in other fields, researched and
created this curriculum that meets national standards. Details are avail-
able at: <www.ilstu.edu/depts/cemast/imast/imasthome.htm>.

Integrating Technology Education Across the Curriculum

Many NSF-funded curricula and teacher-developed classroom
activities are catalogued in this annotated list of technology education
resources, programs, and publications. The list is available through the
International Technology Education Association and can be accessed
through its website at: <www.iteawww.org>.

Learning by Design
The EduTech Institute; Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Atlantic Drive,
Atlanta, GA 30332; Phone: 404-894-3807; Email: [email protected]
In the Learning by Design approach to math and science, stu-
dents learn through collaborative design activities and reflection on their
experiences. The bases for these project-based curriculum units for middle
school classrooms are complex, real-world engineering and design prob-
lems. Researchers at Georgia Tech’s EduTech Institute, working with
teachers from Atlanta-area school systems, developed units including:
Vehicles in Motion, Work and Energy, Machines That Help, Managing

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 123

 Erosion, Tunneling, and Changing Coastlines. Details are available at:
<www.cc.gatech.edu/edutech/projects/lbdview.html>.

Manufacturing Is Cool!
<www.manufacturingiscool.com/>
Information on colleges, engineering camps for students, facility
tours, scholarships, and classroom resources are available on this site,
which focuses on careers and opportunities in manufacturing.

Middle School Science and Technology

BSCS; 5415 Mark Dabling Boulevard, Colorado Springs, CO 80918-3842;
Phone: 719-531-5550; Email: [email protected]
The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) Middle School
Science and Technology curriculum materials are designed to incorporate
technology, including principles of design, cost-and-benefit and systems
analysis, and complexity into technological problems. Details may be
found at: <www.bscs.org>.

NASA Education Programs

<http://ehb2.gsfc.nasa.gov/edcats/2000/nep/programs/index.html>
Like several other organizations and government agencies, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) supports edu-
cation programs relating to technology. This website is a comprehensive
list of NASA’s education programs.

Resources for Science Literacy: Professional Development

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press,
1997.
This resource book includes an extensive list of science trade
books on the nature of technology and the designed world. The book
comes with a CD-ROM that contains additional information and book
reviews. It can be ordered through AAAS’s Project 2061 website at:
<www.project2061.org>.

SMETE Open Federation

SMETE Open Federation Headquarters; 3115 Etcheverry Hall, University of
California at Berkeley; Berkeley, CA 94720-1750; Phone: 510-643-1818;
Website: <www.smete.org>
SMETE.ORG is developing a digital library to provide students,

124 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

teachers, other education professionals, and lifelong learners access to a
comprehensive collection of science, mathematics, engineering and tech-
nology (SMET) education content online.

The Technology Teacher Magazine

Published eight times a year, this journal is for technology educa-
tion professionals from elementary school teachers to middle school,
junior high, and high school classroom teachers, as well as educators of
teachers. Articles cover many issues, including technology learning activi-
ties, new programs, and reports of current trends in technology education.
Subscription information is available online at: <www.iteawww.org/
F1.html>.

TIES Magazine
The online Magazine of Design & Technology Education (TIES)
provides stories and ideas for integrating math, science, and technology in
middle, junior, and senior high school curricula. Articles emphasize
design and problem solving as instructional techniques. The publication
is available online at: <http://www.tiesmagazine.org>.

TSM Connection Activities

Technology Education; 144 Smyth Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-
0432; Phone: 540-231-6480
These 11 activities designed to integrate the instruction of math,
science, and technology at the middle school level were developed through
the Technology, Science, and Mathematics Integration Project (TSM).
The activities challenge students to design, construct, and test solutions to
real-world problems. The TSM units encourage team teaching and
include detailed suggestions for math, science, and technology teachers.
Details can be found at: <http://teched.vt.edu/TechEd/HTML/Research/
TSMOverview1.html>.

World in Motion
SAE: World in Motion; 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-
0001; Phone: 877-606-7323; Email: [email protected]
Students working in “engineering design teams” explore physics
through a series of activities, including designing boats, cars, and steel can
rovers. Developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1990, this
curriculum kit provides a physical science supplement for grades 4, 5, and 6.

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 125

 A World in Motion: The Design Experience is a multidisciplinary
curriculum for grades 7 and 8. Teachers who enlist the support of
engineers are eligible to receive free curriculum kits that includes a teacher’s
manual, manipulatives, and promotional materials. Details are available
at: <www.sae.org/students/awim.htm>.

Standards and Related Publications

Benchmarks for Science Literacy

Benchmarks for Science Literacy is the AAAS Project 2061 state-
ment of what all students should know and be able to do in science,
mathematics, and technology by the end of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12.
Benchmarks provides educators with sequences of specific learning goals
that can be used to design a core curriculum. The nature of technology
and the designed world benchmarks relate directly to technological lit-
eracy. Benchmarks can be found online at: <www.project2061.org/tools/
benchol/bolframe.htm>.

Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks

Massachusetts Department of Education; 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148-5023; Phone: 781-338-3460; Email: [email protected]
The Massachusetts Department of Education has created the
country’s first statewide K-12 curriculum framework that explicitly in-
cludes engineering. A complete copy of the framework is available online
in PDF format at: <www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/default.html>.

National Science Education Standards

The National Science Education Standards (NSES) outline what
scientifically literate students should know, understand, and be able to do
at different grade levels. Standards on science and technology focus on
establishing connections between the natural and designed worlds and
developing decision-making abilities. The NSES can be found online at:
<www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/nses/html/contents.html>.

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics is a set of compre-
hensive goals in mathematics for all K-12 students. Developed by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, these standards include

126 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

probability, problem solving, and making connections to other subject
areas, such as science and technology. The website address is:
<standards.nctm.org>.

Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of

Technology
International Technology Education Association; 1914 Association Drive, Suite
201, Reston, VA 20191; Phone: 703-860-2100; Email: [email protected]
This ITEA report presents 20 standards of what technologically
literate K-12 students should know and be able to do in five general areas,
as well as several benchmarks for specific grade levels. ITEA is currently
developing a series of curriculum guides to assist teachers and other
educators to implement the standards. The website address is:
<www.iteawww.org/TAA/STLstds.htm>.

Organizations of Interest

Association for Career and Technical Education and EdGate

1410 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; Phone: 800-826-9972; Email:
[email protected]; Website: <www.acteonline.org>
The Association for Career and Technical Education (ACTE),
formerly the American Vocational Association, is the largest national
education association dedicated to preparing youths and adults for careers.
Founded in 1926, ACTE members are teachers, administrators, guidance
counselors, university professors, state/local employees, and students in
subject areas ranging from business to health care.

Association of Science-Technology Centers

1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3516; Phone:
202-783-7200; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.astc.org>
The Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) is an
organization of informal education centers and museums dedicated to
furthering the public understanding of science. Founded in 1973, the
members of ASTC include science-technology centers and science muse-
ums, nature centers, aquariums, planetariums, zoos, botanical gardens,
space theaters, and children’s museums.

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 127

 The Center for Engineering Education Outreach
Tufts University School of Engineering; 105 Anderson Hall, Medford, MA
02155; Phone: 617-627-5888; Email: [email protected]; Website:
<www.ceeo.tufts.edu/default.asp>
The Center for Engineering Educational Outreach at Tufts Uni-
versity is dedicated to bringing engineering into the K-12 classroom.
Using the model of engineering design projects, the center coordinates the
work of experts in engineering and education with teachers to create
engineering-based curricula.

Center for Occupational Research and Development

P.O. Box 21689, Waco, TX 76702-1689; Phone: 254-772-8756; Email:
[email protected]; Website: <www.cord.org>
The Center for Occupational Research and Development
(CORD) is a national nonprofit organization that promotes innovations
in education to prepare students for careers and higher education. CORD
assists educators in secondary schools and colleges through new curricula,
teaching strategies, professional development, and partnerships with com-
munity leaders, families, and employers.

International Technology Education Association

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539; Phone: 703-
860-2100; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.iteawww.org/index.html>
The goal of ITEA, the professional organization of technology
teachers, is to promote overall technological literacy by supporting the
teaching of technology by professional, well-educated teachers. ITEA
developed the Standards for Technological Literacy and supports the publi-
cation of Technology Teacher, a magazine for technology education profes-
sionals, and the Journal of Technology Education, a scholarly publication
focused on technology education research, philosophy, and theory.

Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and
Innovation
National Museum of American History, Room 1016, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, DC 20560-0604; Phone: 202-357-1593; Email: LemCen@
nmah. si.edu; Website: <www.si.edu/lemelson>
The Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson Center for the Study of
Invention and Innovation documents, interprets, and disseminates infor-
mation about inventions and innovations. The center supports programs

128 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

and events to encourage young people to be inventive and to recognize the
role of invention and innovation in U.S. history. The Lemelson Center,
housed at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American
History, has extensive resources for teachers, students, and others.

Junior Engineering Technical Society

1420 King Street, Suite 405, Alexandria, VA 22314-2794; Phone: 703-548-
5387; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.jets.org>
Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS) sponsors competi-
tions, programs, and other activities and provides educational materials
about the world of engineering showing how math and science are used to
solve technological problems that have social, political, and economic
effects. JETS sponsors the Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics,
and Science (TEAMS) and the National Engineering Design Challenge
(NEDC), and the National Engineering Aptitude Search+ (NEAS+), a
self-administered academic survey that enables students to determine
their current level of preparation in applied mathematics, science, and
reasoning.

The Loka Institute

P.O. Box 355, Amherst, MA 01004-0355; Phone: 413-559-5860; Email:
[email protected]; Website: <www.loka.org>
The Loka Institute is a nonprofit research and advocacy organi-
zation concerned with the social, political, and environmental repercus-
sions of research, science, and technology. Since 1987, the Loka Institute
has created and/or supported programs to promote more informed science
and technology policy by making it more responsive to social and environ-
mental concerns. Loka strives to increase opportunities for individual,
grassroots, and public-interest group involvement in science and technol-
ogy decision making.

NACME, Inc.
Empire State Building; 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2212; New York, NY 10118-
2299; Phone: 212-279-2626; Website: <www.nacme.org>
The National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, Inc.
(NACME), provides leadership and support for national efforts to in-
crease the participation of African Americans, American Indians, and
Latinos in engineering, and technology-, math-, and science-based
careers.

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 129

 National Science Resources Center
955 L’Enfant Plaza, SW, Suite 8400, Washington, DC 20560-0952; Phone:
202-287-2063; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.si.edu/nsrc/
default.htm>
The National Science Resources Center (NSRC), operated jointly
by the National Academies and the Smithsonian Institution, is dedicated
to improving the teaching of science. NSRC is a clearinghouse for
information about exemplary teaching resources and develops and dis-
seminates science curriculum materials for elementary classrooms. The
center also sponsors outreach activities to help school districts develop and
sustain hands-on science programs.

National Skill Standards Board

1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20005-3512; Phone: 202-
254-8628; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.nssb.org>
The National Skill Standards Board is a coalition of community,
business, labor, education, and civil rights leaders. The board is building a
national voluntary system of skill standards, assessment, and certification.

Project 2061
AAAS; 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20005; Phone: 202-326-
6666; Email: [email protected]; Website: <project2061.aaas.org>
Project 2061 of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science is a long-term initiative to reform K-12 science education. The
project is creating coordinated reform tools and services in the form of
books, CD-ROMs, and online resources. Established in 1985, Project
2061 provides support to enable all Americans to become literate in
science, mathematics, and technology. A 1989 publication, Science for All
Americans, provided recommendations for what all students should know,
and be able to do, in science, mathematics, and technology by the time
they graduate from high school.

Salvadori Center
c/o City College, Y Building 308A, 135th Street & Convent Avenue, New
York, NY 10031-9198; Phone: 212-650-5497; Email: thecenter@
salvadori.org; Website: <www.salvadori.org/index.html>
The Salvadori Middle School Program (SMSP) in New York
City, the core program of the Salvadori Center, offers teacher training and
support to improve student academic performance and critical thinking

130 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

skills. Fully integrated, hands-on projects focusing on the built environ-
ment help students learn math, science, and the humanities while devel-
oping an appreciation for the aesthetics, history, and practice of engineer-
ing. Teachers from participating middle schools attend a summer institute
and meet regularly to continue sharing their experiences in implementing
the SMSP.

Society for the History of Technology

Department of the History of Science, 216B Ames Hall, Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, Baltimore, MD 21218; Phone: 410-516-8349; Email: [email protected];
Website: <http://shot.press.jhu.edu>
Society for the History of Technology (SHOT) is an interdisci-
plinary organization concerned with the history of technological devices
and processes and the relationship of technology to science, politics, social
change, the arts and humanities, and economics. SHOT members in-
clude practicing scientists and engineers, anthropologists, librarians, po-
litical scientists, and economists. The organization publishes a regular
newsletter and Technology and Culture, a quarterly journal.

Society of Women Engineers

230 East Ohio Street, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60611-3265; Phone: 312-596-
5223; Email: [email protected]; Website: <www.swe.org>
The Society of Women Engineers (SWE) encourages women to
achieve their full potential in careers as engineers and leaders, increases
public awareness of the engineering profession, and demonstrates the
value of diversity. Like many other engineering societies, SWE supports
an active network of volunteers who go into classrooms and work with after-
school programs to interest students in math, science, and technology.

Contests and Awards

BEST
Boosting Engineering, Science, and Technology; Email: [email protected]
The Boosting Engineering, Science, and Technology (BEST)
competition exposes middle and high school students to the concepts of
engineering and technology through a robotics design challenge. Teams
have 6 weeks to design and build prototypes of a remote-controlled robot
that can accomplish a specific task. Competitors advance from local

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 131

 events to a regional play-off and championship. Details can be found at:
<www.bestinc.org>.

Craftsman/NSTA Young Inventors Award

National Science Teachers Association; 1840 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA
22201-3000; Phone: 888-494-4994; Email: [email protected]
The Craftsman/NSTA Young Inventors Awards Program chal-
lenges students to use their creativity and imagination, along with their
science, technology, and mechanical ability, to invent or modify a tool.
The competition runs from late August to mid-March with separate
divisions for grades 2 through 5 and 6 through 8. Details can be found
online at: <www.nsta.org/programs/craftsman/>.

Draper Prize
National Academy of Engineering; 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Wash-
ington, DC 20418; Phone: 202-334-1237
The Charles Stark Draper Prize is a preeminent award for engi-
neering achievement. This annual prize honors an engineer or group of
engineers whose accomplishments have significantly improved the quality
of life, improved people’s ability to live freely and comfortably, and/or
permitted access to information. The $500,000 award is intended to
increase public awareness of the contributions of engineers and technol-
ogy to the welfare and freedom of humanity. Details can found at:
<www.nae.edu>.

FIRST LEGO League

200 Bedford Street, Manchester, NH 03101; Phone: 800-871-8326; Email:
[email protected]
Teams of 9- to 14-year-olds use LEGO bricks, sensors, motors,
and gears to construct and program fully autonomous robots capable of
completing different missions while maneuvering around a 4-foot-by-8-
foot playing field. Teams are mentored by adults or sometimes high
school students who competed in the FIRST Robotics Competition.
Details about the contest, including past challenges, can be found online
at: <www.legomindstorms.com/fll>.

132 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

FIRST Robotics Competition
200 Bedford Street, Manchester, NH 03101; Phone: 800-871-8326; Email:
[email protected]
The FIRST Robotics Competition is a national engineering
contest for high school students in which student teams work with engi-
neers from business and universities to brainstorm, design, construct, and
test “champion robots.” The competition, which takes place over a period
of 6 weeks, kicks off in January and culminates with the national champi-
onship in April. Details are available at: <www.usfirst.org/robotics/
index.html>.

Future City Competition

1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; Phone: 703-684-2852; Email:
[email protected]
Working with a teacher and an engineer, student teams design a
future city using a computer program and then build a scale model of a
section of their city. Teams must also write a 500-word essay on a specific
engineering topic and make an oral presentation of their work. The
winners of regional contests compete at the national level for awards
sponsored by various organizations and businesses. Details of the contest,
sponsored by National Engineers Week, can be found online at:
<www.futurecity.org>.

Future Problem Solving Program

Future Problem Solving Program; 2028 Regency Road, Lexington, KY 40503;
Phone: 800-256-1499; Email: [email protected]
The Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP) emphasizes using
creative problem-solving skills to address a variety of anticipated prob-
lems. The program features both competitive and noncompetitive activi-
ties. Under the guidance of teachers/coaches, teams of four students in
grades 4 through 12 explore challenges and propose action plans
to address complex societal problems. The program is designed to be used
in the regular classroom to introduce students to creative problem solving
in a hands-on, nonthreatening environment. Details of the program can
be found at: <www.fpsp.org>.

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 133

 Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology
Education
National Academy of Engineering; 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Wash-
ington, DC 20418; Phone: 202-334-1237
The National Academy of Engineering Bernard M. Gordon
Prize is a biennial cash award of $500,000 given to an individual or small
group of individuals for a specific project/program or for a body of work
over a period of years. The prize is intended to encourage improvements
of engineering and technology education relevant to the practice of engi-
neering, the maintenance of a strong, diverse engineering workforce,
innovation and inventiveness, and the promotion of technology develop-
ment. Details can found at: <www.nae.edu/awards>.

Intel International Science and Engineering Fair

Science Service; 1719 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036; Phone: 202-
785-2255; Email: [email protected]
The Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) is
the world’s largest precollege science competition. Young scientists from
around the world come together in May of each year to share ideas,
showcase cutting-edge science projects, and compete for more than $3
million in awards and scholarships. Rules and guidelines, as well as
science and engineering resources, are available on the ISEF website at:
<www.sciserv.org/isef/index.asp>.

Lemelson-MIT Awards
Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E 60-
324, Cambridge, MA 02139; Phone: 617-253-3352; Email: [email protected]
The Lemelson-MIT Prize is a $500,000 award presented to an
American inventor-innovator for outstanding inventiveness and creativity
in the field of science, medicine, engineering, or entrepreneurship. An-
nual awards are also presented to outstanding college and high school
innovators. Invention Dimension, the program’s website (web.mit.edu/
invent), includes an “inventor of the week” feature and extensive links and
other resources.

National Engineering Design Challenge

Junior Engineering Technical Society; 1420 King Street, Suite 405, Alexan-
dria, VA 22314-2794; Phone: 703-548-5387; Email: [email protected].
National Engineering Design Challenge (NEDC) encourages

134 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

teams of high school students to work with engineer advisers to design,
fabricate, and demonstrate a working solution to a social need. NEDC is
a cooperative program between Junior Engineering Technical Society, the
National Society of Professional Engineers, and the National Talent
Network. Teams present their solutions before a panel of judges at a
regional competition, and the winners advance to the national finals held
in Washington, D.C., during National Engineers Week, in February.
Details of the contest can be found at: <www.jets.org/nedc.htm>.

Odyssey of the Mind

Odyssey of the Mind Program; c/o Creative Competitions Inc., 1325 Rt. 130
South, Suite F, Gloucester City, NJ 08030; Phone: 856-456-7776; Email:
[email protected]
This international program encourages creative problem solving
by challenging students in a variety of areas, from building mechanical
devices to interpreting literary classics. Teams of five to seven students
compete in four grade-level divisions. Each year five new problems are
presented to be solved over a period of weeks or months. At competitions,
teams present their solution to a “long-run” problem; they are then given
an on-the-spot “spontaneous” problem to solve. Details and practice
problems can be found online at <www.odysseyofthemind.com>.

RI/SME Student Robotic Engineering Challenge

Society of Manufacturing Engineers; One SME Drive, P.O. Box 930,
Dearborn, MI 48121-0930; Phone: 313-271-1500; Email: [email protected]
The RI/SME is a competition for middle school through college
students that tests knowledge of the manufacturing process as demon-
strated through robotics and automation contests. Teams from middle
and high schools, community colleges, and universities compete in 14
different categories. Students are judged on their application of manufac-
turing principles and their ability to solve manufacturing-related problems
through a team approach. Details can be found at: <www.sme.org>.

Toshiba/NSTA Exploravision Awards

1840 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201-3000; Phone: 800-EXPLOR-
9 or 703-243-7100; Email: [email protected]
The Toshiba/NSTA Exploravision Awards encourage students
to combine the tools of science with their own imaginations to create a
vision of future technologies. Teams of two, three, or four students

APPENDIX A: TOOL KIT FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY 135

 simulate research and development teams and, with the guidance of a
team coach and mentor (optional), select a technology or an aspect of a
technology relevant to their lives. They then imagine what the technology
will be like 20 years from now and convey their vision to others through
written descriptions and five graphics simulating web pages. Details can
be found at: <www.toshiba.com/tai/exploravision>.

136 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

 B
APPENDIX
Committee and Staff Biographies

Committee on Technological Literacy

A. THOMAS YOUNG, chair, is a member of the National

Academy of Engineering and retired executive vice president of
Lockheed Martin. Mr. Young was previously president and chief
operating officer of Martin Marietta Corporation. Prior to join-
ing industry, Mr. Young worked for 21 years at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), where he di-
rected the Goddard Space Flight Center, was deputy director of
the Ames Research Center, directed the Planetary Program in
the Office of Space Science at NASA headquarters, and was
mission director for the Project Viking Mars landing program.
He has been a member of several National Research Council
committees, including the Office of Science and Engineering
Personnel Advisory Committee and the Committee on Supply
Chain Integration: New Roles and Challenges for Small and
Medium-Sized Companies.

PAUL ALLAN has been working on teacher professional devel-

opment at Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington, for the
past 2 years. Before that, he taught physics, mathematics, and
technology courses at Colony High School in Palmer, Alaska, for
9 years. A classroom teacher for 20 years, Mr. Allan received his
M.S. in science education from Columbia University Teachers
College and his B.A. in biology. Mr. Allan has participated in
the Dartmouth Project for Teaching Engineering Problem Solv-

137
 ing and has served as president of the Alaska Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. Mr. Allan’s recent awards include the 1996 Teacher of the
Year at Colony High School, 1994 Presidential Award for Excellence in
Science Teaching, and 1999 Distinguished Physics Teacher from Alaska
by the American Physical Society.

WILLIAM ANDERS, retired chairman of General Dynamics, was a

U.S. Air Force fighter pilot and engineer until being selected as a NASA
astronaut. In 1968, he flew with Frank Borman and James Lovell aboard
the Apollo 8 lunar mission, the first spacecraft to leave the Earth and orbit
the moon. From 1969 to 1973 he was the executive secretary of the
National Aeronautics and Space Council, and from 1973 to 1975 he was
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. From 1976 to 1977 he
was U.S. Ambassador to Norway. Mr. Anders is a member of the
National Academy of Engineering, a trustee of the Battelle Memorial
Institute, and a member of the board of the Center for Occupational
Research and Development, an organization that develops comprehensive
tech-prep programs designed to enable students to make a successful
transition from school to work.

TAFT H. BROOME, JR. is professor of civil engineering at Howard

University. During his 29-year career at Howard, Dr. Broome has been
department chair and chair of the University Senate. In 1985, he received
his M.S. in science, technology, and society from Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. Dr. Broome has served in leadership positions of major national
organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, American Society for Engineering Education, and the Na-
tional Association for Science, Technology, and Society. Among his
many publications is “Race and the Information Super Highway: Implica-
tions for a Participatory Democracy,” a chapter in The Information Society
and the Black Community (Greenwood, forthcoming). He is a member of
the board of directors of Women in Engineering Program Advocates
Network and of the National Academy of Engineering’s Committee on
Engineering Education.

JONATHAN R. COLE is provost and dean of faculties at Columbia

University, as well as the John Mitchell Mason Professor at the university.
Dr. Cole has spent much of his academic career studying the social aspects
of science and technology and developing the sociology of science. He has

138 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

published widely on many subjects, including the system of social stratifi-
cation in science; the reward system of science; the place of women in the
scientific community; the growth of knowledge; the measurement of
the quality of scientific work; the communications system in science; the
social construction of medical facts; and the peer review system in science,
particularly at the National Science Foundation. His recent publications
have focused on the structure of the research university and the new digital
media and intellectual property. Dr. Cole has had a long-standing inter-
est in questions of scientific and technological literacy. He has been a
Guggenheim fellow, fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavior Sciences, and been elected to the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences, among other honors. He has served on many advisory
boards and committees of the National Academies and the National
Science Foundation.

RODNEY L. CUSTER, chair of the Department of Industrial Technol-

ogy at Illinois State University, is a national leader in technology educa-
tion and chair of the Secondary Standards Development Team for the
International Technology Education Association’s initiative to develop
K-12 standards in technology education. Dr. Custer is a member of the
National Research Council’s Committee on Teacher Preparation in Sci-
ence, Mathematics, and Technology Education: Integrating Research
Recommendations and the Realities of Practice, and the National Acad-
emy of Engineering’s Committee on Engineering Education.

GOÉRY DELACÔTE is a renowned scientist, science educator, and

public servant who joined the Exploratorium as executive director in
February 1991. He is currently on leave from the University of Paris,
where he is professor of physics. Dr. Delacôte has a Ph.D. in solid state
physics from the École Normale Supérieure and has been involved in
science and science education since the outset of his career. From 1982 to
1991, Dr. Delacôte was the director of the Science and Technology
Information Division of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
(CNRS). He has also been a member of the Board of Trustees of the
Bibliothèque de France, the new National Library of France (1989 to
1993). Dr. Delacôte served on the National Committee on Science
Education Standards and Assessment of the National Research Council,
which issued K-12 science education standards in September 1995. As
executive secretary of the Exploratorium, Dr. Delacôte has implemented a

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 139

 new approach combining exhibits, networking, and teacher education to
create a public laboratory on learning with outreach to a large audience of
scientists, artists, educators, children, and families. Under his leadership,
many Exploratorium partnerships have been established in the United
States and abroad.

DENICE DENTON is professor of electrical engineering and dean of

engineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. Prior to her current
position, she was professor of electrical engineering at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. In addition to serving on several visiting commit-
tees for the National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Engi-
neering, she has been involved in many activities in the NSF Directorate
for Education and Human Resources (EHR). Most recently, she served
on the EHR Advisory Committee, which was responsible for a major
review of undergraduate education. She also chaired the National Re-
search Council Board on Engineering Education.

PAUL DE VORE is president of PWD Associates, a consulting com-

pany which he founded. Prior to that, Dr. De Vore was professor and
chair, Department of Technology Education, West Virginia University;
research associate (history of technology), Smithsonian Institution; and
director, Division of Education and Training, National Technology Trans-
fer Center. Among his publications are a monograph, Technology and the
New Liberal Arts (University of Northern Iowa, 1976), which explores the
relation between the study of technology as a discipline and the study of
technology as part of a liberal education, and several books, including
Technology: An Intellectual Discipline (American Industrial Arts Associa-
tion, 1964); Structure and Content: Foundations for Curriculum Develop-
ment (American Industrial Arts Association, 1968; reprinted 1973), which
contributed to the establishment of technology education as a national
movement; and Technology: An Introduction (Davis Publications, 1980), a
leading college textbook and reference. He is also the editor of Introduc-
tion to Transportation (Davis Publications, 1983) and coauthor of Creativ-
ity in the Technologies (Davis Publications, 1989).

KAREN FALKENBERG is currently a full-time doctoral candidate at

Emory University; her dissertation will focus on creativity, innovation,
and education. Most recently, she was the program manager for the
Elementary Science Education Partners Program (ESEP), a five-year

140 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

NSF-funded science education reform project based in Atlanta, Georgia.
ESEP was a collaborative effort between eight institutions of higher
education in the metropolitan Atlanta area and the urban Atlanta Public
School District. ESEP provided professional development, classroom
materials, and undergraduate science partners to more than 1,600 elemen-
tary teachers, and the program influenced the science instruction for more
than 35,000 elementary students. Ms. Falkenberg is an international
education consultant, a member of the Southeastern Regional Vision for
Education Leadership Academy for Science and Mathematics, and a
mentor for the WestEd National Academy for Science and Mathematics
Education Leadership. She has served on the NSF’s teacher enhance-
ment panel, has been a faculty member for the National Science Resources
Center’s Leadership Academy for Science Education Reform, and was a
featured classroom teacher in case studies of prominent U.S. innovations
in science, math, and technology education. Ms. Falkenberg worked as a
research engineer and taught high school before entering the field of
science education reform.

SHELAGH A. GALLAGHER is assistant professor of education at the

University of North Carolina, Charlotte, where she also directs a U.S.
Department of Education project, P-BLISS (Problem-Based Learning in
the Social Sciences). She has spent many years conducting training and
research on problem-based learning and studying the characteristics of
gifted adolescents and gender differences in the development and expres-
sion of talent. Dr. Gallagher has served as director of measurement for
the Longitudinal Study of American Youth at the Chicago Academy of
Science and director of research and assessment at the Illinois Mathemat-
ics and Science Academy. At the College of William and Mary, she was
project manager for the Javits Science Curriculum Project, which included
a review of science curricula and the production of six problem-based
science units.

JOYCE GARDELLA, principal of Gardella & Associates, a strategic

marketing consulting firm, has expertise in marketing science and tech-
nology concepts and programs. Prior to launching her own business, Ms.
Gardella was vice president for marketing at the Museum of Science in
Boston and before that marketing director at the Museum of Science &
Industry and Brookfield Zoo, both in Chicago.

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 141

 DAVID T. HARRISON, vice president of educational programs at
Seminole Community College in Sanford, Florida, is responsible for
student learning in the liberal arts, sciences, business and information
technology, health professions, criminal justice and public service, and
other professional and technological fields. He also oversees an alternative
high school, adult basic education programs, and language programs for
international students. Dr. Harrison has worked extensively on lifelong
learning opportunities, and on economic, workforce, and community
development issues.

PAUL HOFFMAN is working on a book on the history of flying

machines before the Wright Brothers. A former president of Encyclope-
dia Britannica and editor in chief of Discover magazine, he has a long
history of involvement in communicating science and technology to the
public. Mr. Hoffman has been a special science correspondent for “Good
Morning America” and has appeared on CNN, “ABC News,” and “The
Charlie Rose Show.” He has written for many national magazines,
including The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times
Magazine, Smithsonian, and Business Week, and was the first winner of the
National Magazine Award for Feature Writing. He has written 10 books,
including the international bestseller, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers:
The Story of Paul Erdos and the Search for Mathematical Truth (Hyperion,
1998).

JONDEL (J.D.) HOYE is president of Keep the Change, a workforce

development consulting firm. Ms. Hoye is the immediate past director of
the National School-to-Work Office, a joint initiative of the U.S. Depart-
ments of Labor and Education. Prior to her work in the federal govern-
ment, Ms. Hoye was associate superintendent of the Oregon Department
of Education and Office of Community College Services. In that posi-
tion, she was responsible for professional, vocational, and technical educa-
tion statewide.

THOMAS P. HUGHES is Mellon Professor Emeritus, University of

Pennsylvania, and a distinguished visiting professor at MIT, a visiting
professor at Stanford University, and a visiting professor at the Royal
Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Dr. Hughes, who did his graduate
work in European history at the University of Virginia, has published
books on American and European history that pay especial attention to

142 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

the history of modern technology, science, and culture. His publications
include two books about the nature of technological and social change:
Networks of Power: Electrification of Western Society, 1880–1930 (Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1983) and Elmer Sperry: Inventor and Engineer
(Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971). Both books won Dexter Prizes
for outstanding books in the history of technology. American Genesis: A
Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970 (Penguin
USA, 1990) was one of the three finalists for the 1990 Pulitzer Prize in
history. His most recent book is Rescuing Prometheus (Pantheon Books,
1998), which focuses on managing the creation of large technological
systems. Dr. Hughes has been chairman of the Department of the
History and Sociology of Science, University of Pennsylvania; the NASA
History Advisory Committee; and the U.S. National Committee for the
History and Philosophy of Science. He is a history consultant for ABC
television, WGBH television, and the Sloan Foundation and has been a
member of the Advisory Council to the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution. He chaired the National Research Council Committee on
Innovations in Computing and Communications: Lessons from History.

MAE JEMISON was the first woman of color to travel into space when
she flew on the space shuttle Endeavor in 1992. Since resigning from
NASA, Jemison has founded The Jemison Group, a technology design
and consulting company in Houston that focuses on the beneficial inte-
gration of science and technology into everyday life. Jemison is also a
professor of environmental studies and director of the Jemison Institute
for Advancing Technology in Developing Countries at Dartmouth Col-
lege. The institute promotes sustainable development—improving the
quality of life without compromising the opportunities for future genera-
tions to grow and prosper. Jemison speaks nationally on the importance
of education, adult responsibility, and universal science literacy. She
established The Earth We Share™, an international science camp for 12-
to 16-year-olds that builds critical thinking and problem-solving skills
through an experiential curriculum. She also serves as Bayer Corporation’s
National Science Literacy Advocate. Jemison is an engineer and physi-
cian, and the author of a young adult autobiography, Finding Where the
Wind Goes: Moments From My Life (Scholastic, 2001).

F. JAMES RUTHERFORD is education advisor to the executive officer

of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 143

 and has extensive experience in planning and overseeing efforts to reform
the U.S. K-12 education system. At AAAS, he has been responsible for
several national initiatives, including Science Resources for Schools, Chal-
lenge of the Unknown, the National Forum for School Science, and
Science Seminars for Teachers, and for several publications, including
Science Education News, the annual Science Education Directory, the annual
This Year in School Science, and Science Education in Global Perspective. As
initiator and director of Project 2061, he headed the nation’s most promi-
nent, long-term, comprehensive effort to promote nationwide reform in
science, mathematics, and technology education. Prior to joining AAAS,
Dr. Rutherford served in two federal agencies. In 1977, he was appointed
by President Carter to be assistant director of the National Science Foun-
dation responsible for all science, mathematics, and engineering education
programs, preschool through postdoctoral, and for federal programs to
improve the public understanding of science. When the new U.S. De-
partment of Education was launched, President Carter appointed him
assistant secretary for research and improvement, a position that included
responsibility for the National Institute of Education, the National Cen-
ter for Educational Statistics, the Fund for the Improvement of Post-
Secondary Education, and federal programs supporting libraries and the
development of educational technologies. Earlier, Rutherford was profes-
sor of science education at Harvard University and at New York Univer-
sity, and earlier still, a high school science teacher in California.

KATHRYN C. THORNTON is professor of technology, culture, and

communication and director of the Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Education at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.
The center is an interdisciplinary office coordinating the activities of the
university’s engineering school, Curry School of Education, College of
Arts and Sciences, and Office of the Vice President for Research and
Public Service. Previously, for 12 years Dr. Thornton served as an
astronaut based at the Johnson Space Center, where her duties included
participating in space missions and heading the Education Working
Group. She is a member of the National Research Council Aeronautics
and Space Engineering Board.

ROBERT TINKER is founder, president, and chairman of the Concord

Consortium in Concord, Massachusetts. For more than 20 years, he has
conducted pioneering work in constructivist approaches to education,

144 TECHNICALLY SPEAKING

particularly novel uses of educational technology in science and math-
ematics. Prior to founding the Concord Consortium, Dr. Tinker was
director of TERC (formerly the Technical Education Research Center),
where he developed the idea of equipping computers with probes for real-
time measurements and of using the Internet for collaborative student
data sharing and investigations. Dr. Tinker has taught college physics for
more than 10 years.

Project Staff

GREG PEARSON is a program officer with the National Academy of

Engineering (NAE), where he directs the academy’s efforts related to
technological literacy. In this capacity, Mr. Pearson most recently served
as the responsible staff officer for the Committee on Technological Lit-
eracy, a joint project of the NAE and the National Research Council. He
also oversaw a review of national K-12 content standards for the study of
technology developed by the International Technology Education Asso-
ciation. He has worked collaboratively with colleagues within and outside
the National Academies on a variety of projects involving K-12 science,
mathematics, technology, and engineering education and the public un-
derstanding of engineering and science. Pearson has a B.A. in biology
from Swarthmore College and an M.A. in journalism from The American
University.

ROBERT POOL is a freelance writer based in Tallahassee, Florida, who

specializes in science and technology. He has written for a number of
magazines, including Science, Nature, Discover, New Scientist, and Technol-
ogy Review and is the author of three books, including Beyond Engineer-
ing: How Society Shapes Technology (Oxford University Press, 1997). He
was also a writing consultant for the International Technology Education
Association Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000).

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 145

 Index

A Attitudes, 4, 17, 18, 20, 118

see also Public opinion
ACT test, 55 adults, 64-67, 68, 71, 109
Age factors science and technology centers, 88-89
see also Primary and secondary students, 63-64, 71
education Automobiles, 22, 26-29, 65
adults technological literacy, general, Autonomous Technology:
64-68 Technics-out-of-Control as a
automobile air bags, 26-29 Theme in Political Thought, 115
museums and science centers, 89 Awards, see Contests and awards
social well-being, 44
student attitudes toward technology,
63-64 B
Agriculture, 116-117
genetically modified organisms, 14, Battelle Memorial Institute, 138
18, 26, 29-32 committee study sponsorship, vii, 2,
Global Positioning System, 41 12
American Architectural Foundation, Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 78, 106,
91-92 126
American Association for the Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes
Advancement of Science, Technology, 116
15(n.1), 58, 78, 80-81, 108, Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies,
109, 110, 124, 126, 130, 79
143-144 Biomedical sciences, 14, 19, 48, 52, 67
American Institute of Architects, 91-92 see also Health and safety issues
Army Corps of Engineers, 38-39 curriculum development, 78, 79, 81
Assessment of technological literacy, 9, genetics,
31, 63-72, 105, 107-110 genetically modified organisms,
see also Tests and testing 14, 18, 26, 29-32, 67
Association for Career and Technical public participation in decision
Education, 127 making, 95
Association of Science-Technology legislation, 61
Centers, 88-89, 127 professional organizations, 92-93

147
 Black persons, 42, 43, 129, 138, 143 Consumer decision making, 3, 16, 25
Boosting Engineering, Science, and automobile air bags, 22, 26-29, 65
Technology, 131-132 genetically modified organisms, 14,
Britain, see United Kingdom 18, 26, 29-32
British School Examinations Contests and awards, 98
Assessment Council, 69 students, 93-94, 131-136
Building Big, 121 teachers, 10, 113-114
Buildings, Bridges, and Tunnels, 116 Cost and cost-benefit factors, 4, 20
see also Risk assessment
automobile air bags, 27
C Boston Central Artery and Tunnel,
37-40
Canada, 68-69, 70 California energy crisis, 36
Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education engineering process, 52
Act, 82 Council for Basic Education, 56
Center for Engineering Education Council of State Governments, 62
Outreach, 128 Council on Technology Teacher
Center for Occupational Research and Education, 87-88
Development, 82-83, 128 Craftsman/NSTA Young Inventors
Children Designing and Engineering Award, 132
Project, 121-122 Cultural factors, 4, 16, 23, 81, 118, 120
City Technology Project, 122 see also Political factors; Social factors
Colleges and universities, 7, 84-88, 124, religious issues, 117, 119
128, 133 Curriculum and instructional materials
see also Teacher education development, 2, 77-80, 91-92,
museums and science centers, 89 104, 105, 109, 113
public decision making, 95, 112 biomedical sciences, 78, 79, 81
Commission on Achieving Necessary Department of Education, 8-9, 105,
Skills, 41 107
Competency, technical, see Technical federal government involvement, 9,
competency 82, 83
Computer technology, 4, 5-6, 13-15, inventive programs, 10, 105
58-59, 133 National Science Foundation, 6-7,
see also Internet 8-9, 56, 57, 82, 105, 107, 123,
adult literacy, 64 141
climate models, 14 national standards, 9, 78-79, 80, 104,
curriculum standards, 81 105, 106-108, 126-127
digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138 postsecondary education, 85
Global Positioning System, 41 resources for technological literacy
mass media coverage, 67, 90-91 summarized, 121-125, 128-
overemphasis on, 58-63 129, 130
primary and secondary education, state standards, 8, 9, 126
5-6, 44 technician preparation/vocational
digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138 education, 82-83
overemphasis on, 58-59 textbooks, 77-78, 105-106
teaching with technology vs teaching
about technology, 6, 58-59
Congress, see Legislation; Office of D
Technology Assessment
Consensus conferences, 39, 95, 97 Danish Board of Technology, 95, 111
Constructive technology assessment, 96, Decision making, 3-4, 8, 25-35, 45,
144-145 94-98, 103-104, 110-113
see also Problem solving

148 INDEX
 automobile air bags, 22, 26-29, 65 E
Boston Central Artery and Tunnel,
37-40 Economic factors, 121, 129, 131
California energy crisis, 32-36 see also Cost and cost-benefit factors;
civic, 3-4, 7, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, Employment
36-40, 65-66, 70-71, 86-87, California energy crisis, 32-36
90, 94-98, 103-104, 110-111 digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138
colleges and universities, 95, 112 job skills, 4-5, 40-42, 45, 49-50
consensus conferences, 39, 95, 97 leadership, 26, 111
genetically modified organisms, 14, Education Development Center, 80
18, 26, 29-32 Elementary and secondary education, see
leadership, 3-4, 9, 12, 16, 26, 59-63, Primary and secondary
111-112, 114 education
museums and science centers, 90 Elementary Science Education Partners
participation in, general, 7, 36-37, Program, 140-141
39, 94-98 Employment
constructive technology job skills, 4-5, 40-42, 45, 49-50
assessment, 96 school-to-work partnerships, 84, 105
scenario workshops, 95-97 vocational education, 7, 53-55, 58,
science shops, 96 77, 82-84
technological determinism, 51, Energy resources and supply
52-53, 115, 116 decision making, California energy
Definitional issues crisis, 32-36
technological literacy, 3, 4, 14-21 historical perspectives, 50
technological literacy vs EngineerGirl, 123
technological competency, Engineering Concepts Curriculum
21-22 Project, 77-78
technology, vii, 2-3, 13-14, 51 Engineering in the Mind’s Eye, 117
Department of Education Engineers and engineering, 2, 4, 112
primary and secondary education, college curricula, 7, 42
curricula and instructional design process, 13, 18, 21, 37, 51-52,
materials, 8-9, 105, 107 58, 81, 108, 116, 117, 122-
research on methods of learning, 9, 123, 132-136
110 earthquakes, legislation, 61
Department of Housing and Urban electrical power, 50
Development, 94 fellowship programs, 10, 112-113
Department of Transportation, 94 primary and secondary education, 54,
The Design of Everyday Things, 16 81, 91-93, 108
Designing Engineers, 116 contests and awards, 93-94
Digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138 relationship to science, 13-14, 51-52
Dimensions of technological literacy, 3, resources for technological literacy
14-16, 23, 26, 69, 81, 98 summarized, 116, 117,
air bags, 29 119-120, 121-127, 130-136
California energy crisis, 35, 36 social implications, 22, 51, 52-53,
genetically modified foods, 32 115, 116
Does Technology Drive History?: The women, 123, 131
Dilemma of Technological Environmental protection, 52
Determinism, 116 Boston Central Artery and Tunnel,
Draper Prize, 132 38-39
Dream Reaper: The Story of an California energy crisis, 34
Old-Fashioned Inventor in the genetically modified organisms, 30, 31
High-Tech, High-Stakes World Environmental Protection Agency, 30,
of Modern Agriculture, 116-117 38-39

INDEX 149
 Ethnicity, see Race/ethnicity primary and secondary education,
European Awareness Scenario 6-7, 8-9, 56-57, 109
Workshop, 95-96 computer technology, 58-59, 61
European Union curricula and instructional
genetically modified organisms, 30 materials, 6-7, 8-9, 56, 57, 82,
public opinion/knowledge polls, 69 91-92, 105, 109, 123
urban areas, public participation in school-to-work partnerships, 84
decision making, 95-96 student awards, 93-94
The Existential Pleasures of Engineering, teacher awards, 10, 113-114
117 teacher training, 59-60, 91-92
Future City Competition, 94, 133
Future Problem Solving Program, 133
F
Federal government, 2, 7, 63, 71, 84 G
see also Funding; Legislation; terms
beginning “Department of...” Gallup Organization, 64, 68, 71
automobile air bags, 27 Gender factors, 123, 141
Boston Central Artery and Tunnel, automobile air bags, 28
38-40 Society of Women Engineers, 131
defense applications, 41 student attitudes toward technology,
genetically modified organisms, 30 63
infrastructure projects, public Genetics
education, 9 genetically modified organisms, 14,
National Aeronautics and Space 18, 26, 29-32, 67
Administration, 57, 61, 67, public participation in decision
82, 124, 137, 138, 143, 144 making, 95
primary and secondary education, 8, Gordon Prize for Innovation in
82, 83, 104-105, 107, 130 Engineering and Technology
teacher awards, 10, 113-114 Education, 134
public participation in decision Government, 52
making, 7, 94-95, 97-98, see also Federal government; Political
110-112 factors; State government
vocational education, 83 civic decision making, 3-4, 7, 11, 12,
Federal Highway Administration, 39-40 21, 22, 23, 36-40, 65-66,
Fellowship programs, 10, 111-112 70-71, 86-87, 90, 94-98.
FIRST LEGO League, 132 103-104, 110-111
FIRST Robotics Competition, 93, 94, fellowship programs, 10, 111-112
133 leadership, 3-4, 9, 12, 16, 26, 70.
Food science, genetically modified 111-112, 114
organisms, 14, 18, 26, 29-32 Great Britain, see United Kingdom
Foreign countries, see International The Great Idea Finder, 117
perspectives Greatest Achievements of the 20th Century,
Foundations, 9, 91-93, 95, 111-112 117
see also National Science Foundation
Funding, 9, 58, 61, 62, 86
see also Contests and awards; H
Department of Education;
National Science Foundation Handbook of Science and Technology, 86
civic decision making, 94-95 Health and safety issues, 48, 52, 67
committee study sponsorship, vii, 2, see also Biomedical sciences
12 automobile air bags, 26-29
fellowship programs, 10, 112-113

150 INDEX
 genetically modified organisms, 14, Instructional materials, see Curriculum
18, 26, 29-32 and instructional materials
telecommunications legislation, 61 development
High Tech, High Touch: Technology and Integrated Mathematics, Science, and
Our Search for Meaning, 117 Technology, 123
Higher education, see Colleges and Integrating Technology Education Across
universities; Vocational the Curriculum, 123
education Intel International Science and
Hispanics, 42-43, 129 Engineering Fair, 93, 134
Historical perspectives, 3, 4, 6, 11-12, Intellectual Appropriation of Technology:
16, 22, 47-51, 80, 85-86, 105, Discourses on Modernity,
106, 142-143 1900-1939, 118
see also Legislation Interdisciplinary approaches, 104, 125-
automobile air bags, 27-28 126, 131
cultural literacy, 16, 18 engineering courses, 85-86
genetically modified organisms, 30 postsecondary education, general, 85
international test comparisons, 69 International perspectives, 68-70
Internet sites, 80, 116, 117, 118, 120, contests and awards, 135
121 foreign workers in U.S., 42, 61
museums, 2, 7, 9, 88-90, 98, 110, genetically modified organisms, 30
111, 128-129, 141 primary and secondary education,
primary and secondary education, 56, technology education, general,
59-60, 83-84, 105, 106 53-54
postsecondary education, 85-86 testing, 6, 104-105
resources for technological literacy public decision making, 95-97, 111
summarized, 115-121, 128- resources for technological literacy
129, 131 summarized, 121
social well-being, 44 science and technology centers,
urban transportation, 37 88-89
vocational education, 83-84 student attitudes, 63
How Stuff Works, 118 International Technology Education
Association, 7, 64, 71, 80-82,
87-88, 98, 108, 109, 114, 123,
I 127, 128, 139
Internet, 4, 5-6, 44, 110, 111, 118, 119,
Incentive programs 120-136 (passim)
contests and awards, 98 contests and awards, 131-136
students, 93-94, 131-135 digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138
teachers, 10, 113-114 historical perspectives on science, 80,
curriculum development, 10, 105 116, 117, 118, 120, 121
teachers, 9, 10, 59-60, 108, 113-114 mass media connections, 90
Informal education, 7, 88-94, 98-99, report at hand, website, vii, 2, 12
103, 104, 110, 111 teaching with technology vs teaching
see also Mass media about technology, 6, 58-59
museums, 2, 7, 9, 88-90, 98, 110, test comparisons, 6, 64, 68-70, 106
111, 128-129, 141 The Invention That Changed the World:
science and technology centers, 2, 7, How a Small Group of Radar
61, 88-90, 110, 111, 127 Pioneers Won the Second World
Institute of Electrical and Electronics War and Launched a
Engineers, 92, 122 Technological Revolution, 118

INDEX 151
 J computer technology, coverage of,
67, 90-91
Jefferson, Thomas, 11 fellowship programs, 10, 111-112
Jerome and Dorothy Lemelson Center news coverage of technology, 66-67,
for the Study of Invention and 90-91
Innovation, 128-129, 134 Mathematics, 4, 6, 122, 123, 125, 126,
Journal of Technology Education, 128 127
Junior Engineering Technical Society, characteristics of technologically
93-94, 129 literate person, see
“characteristics...” under
Technological literacy, general
K international test comparisons, 6, 64,
70
K-12, see Primary and secondary state standards, 8, 106
education Media influences, see Mass media
Medical sciences, see Biomedical
sciences
Methodology, 108-110
L
see also Definitional issues;
Leadership, 3-4, 9, 12, 16, 26, 59-63, Interdisciplinary approaches
111-112, 114 assessment of technological literacy,
Learning by Design, 123 9, 31, 63-72, 105, 107-110; see
Learning processes, 57-58 also Tests and testing
Legislation, 62, 111 committee study at hand, vii-x, 8,
California energy crisis, 32-36 12, 103
Carl D. Perkins Vocational National Science Foundation, 9, 58,
Education Act, 82 109, 110
educational, 59-62, 82, 84 Middle School Science and Technology, 79,
National Environmental Protection 124
Act, 38 Minorities, see Race/ethnicity
School to Work Opportunities Act, Misconceptions, 5, 50-53
84 More Work for Mother: The Ironies of
Lemelson Center for the Study of Household Technology from the
Invention and Innovation, Open Hearth to the Microwave,
128, 134 118-119
Loka Institute, 95, 129 Multidisciplinary approaches, see
Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Interdisciplinary approaches
Genius Who Solved the Greatest Museums, 2, 7, 9, 88-90, 98, 110, 111,
Scientific Problem of His Time, 128-129, 141
118 see also Science and technology
centers

M
N
Madison, James, 11
Man-Made World, 77-78 Naked City, 48
Manufacturing Is Cool!, 124 National Action Council for Minorities
Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks, 126 in Engineering, 129
Mass media, 3-4, 7, 14, 20, 90-91, 98, National Aeronautics and Space
110, 142 Administration, 57, 61, 67,
see also Informal education; Internet 82, 124, 137, 138, 143, 144
Boston Central Artery and Tunnel, National Assessment of Educational
39 Progress, 55, 106

152 INDEX
National Association for Science, P
Technology, and Society,
79-80 Paths of Innovation: Technological Change
National Center on Education and the in the 20th Century, 119
Economy, 56 PATT, see Pupils’ Attitude Toward
National Center for Education Technology
Statistics, 83 Pew Research Center, 67, 68
National Conference of State Physics in Context, 83
Legislatures, 62 Political factors, 8, 115, 129, 131
National Council for Accreditation of see also Government
Teacher Education, 87 civic decision making, 3-4, 7, 11, 12,
National Council of Teachers of 21, 22, 23, 36-40, 65-66,
English, 79 70-71, 86-87, 90, 94-98,
National Council of Teachers of 110-111
Mathematics, 126-127 Postsecondary education, see Colleges
National Engineering Design and universities; Vocational
Challenge, 93-94, 134-135 education
National Engineers Week, 92, 94 Presidential Awards for Excellence in
National Highway Transportation Mathematics and Science
Safety Administration, 27 Teaching, 113-114, 138
National Public Radio, 91 Presidential Awards for Excellence in
National Science Board, 66-68 Technology Teaching, 10,
National Science Education Standards, 78, 113-114
106, 126 Primary and secondary education, 5-7,
National Science Foundation 47, 53-57, 63-64, 71-72,
assessment tools, 9 77-84, 98-99, 104-107
committee study sponsorship, vii, 2, see also Curriculum and instructional
12 materials development;
digital divide, 61 Teacher education; Teachers;
history, philosophy, and sociology of Tests and testing
science, 86 committee report audience, 2
primary and secondary education, 105 computers and the Internet, 5-6, 44
curricula and instructional contests and awards, 93-94, 131-136
materials, 6-7, 8-9, 56, 57, 82, digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138
105, 107, 123, 141 engineering, 54, 81, 91-93, 108
teacher incentives, 10, 108, federal government, 8, 82, 83,
113-114 104-105, 107, 130
research on methods of learning, 9, funding, 6-7, 8-9, 56-57, 109
58, 109, 110 computer technology, 58-59, 61
state legislatures, 62 curricula and instructional
National Science Resources Center, 79, materials, 6-7, 8-9, 56, 57, 82,
130 91-92, 105, 109, 123-124
National Skill Standards Board, 84, 130 school-to-work partnerships, 84
Netherlands, 63, 96, 111 student awards, 93-94
teacher awards, 10, 113-114
teacher training, 59-60, 91-92
O historical perspectives, 56, 59-60,
83-84, 105, 106
Odyssey of the Mind, 135 international perspectives,
Office of Technology Assessment, 60 technology education, general,
Organization for Economic 53-54
Cooperation and testing, 6, 104-105
Development, 69-70 museums and science centers, 89

INDEX 153
 National Science Foundation, 105 civic decision making, 3-4, 7, 11, 12,
curricula and instructional 21, 22, 23, 36-40, 65-66,
materials, 6-7, 8-9, 56, 57, 82, 70-71, 86-87, 90, 94-98.
105, 107, 123, 141 103-104, 110-111
teacher incentives, 10, 108, genetically modified organisms, 29,
113-114 30, 31
overemphasis on, 58-59 misconceptions, 5, 50-53
problem solving, 56, 92, 133 technology, general, viii, 4, 5, 6, 10,
resources for technological literacy 109, 132
summarized, 121-126, 128- Public Radio International, 91
129, 130 Pupils’ Attitude Toward Technology, 63
school-to-work partnerships, 84, 105
standards, 7, 8, 9, 55-56, 78-79,
80-82, 98, 104-105, 106-107, R
108, 126-127, 139-140,
143-144, 145 Race/ethnicity
Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 78, black persons, 42, 43, 129, 138, 143
106, 126 digital divide, 42-44, 45, 61, 138,
national standards, 9, 78-79, 80, 143
104, 105, 106-108, 126-127 Hispanics, 42-43, 129
state standards, 8, 9, 126 National Action Council for
vocational, 84 Minorities in Engineering, 129
state government, 8, 9, 53, 60, 62, Rathenau Institute, 96
82-83, 104-107 Reform of education, 2, 8
school-to-work partnerships, 84, The Religion of Technology: The Divinity
105 of Man and the Spirit of
standards, 8, 9, 126 Invention, 119
student attitudes toward technology, Religious issues, 117, 119
63-64, 71 Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental
teacher awards, 10, 113-114 Projects That Changed The
vocational education, 7, 53-55, 58, Modern World, 119
77, 82-84 Research methodology, see Methodology
teacher education, 54-56, Resources for Science Literacy, 108, 124
124-125 Risk assessment, 4, 17, 19, 32
Principles and Standards for School see also Cost and cost-benefit factors
Mathematics, 106, 126 automobile air bags, 22, 26-29
Principles of Technology, 82-83 civic decision making, 37
Prizes, see Contests and awards genetically modified organisms, 14,
Problem solving, 13, 23, 57-58, 129, 18, 26, 29-32
135, 141 RI/SME Student Robotic Engineering
see also Decision making Challenge, 135
everyday skills, 4, 17, 20, 49-50, 116,
118-119
job skills, 4-5, 40-42, 45, 49-50 S
primary and secondary education, 56,
92, 133 Safety, see Health and safety issues
Programme for International Student Salvadori Center, 130-131
Assessment, 70 SAT test, 55
Project 2061, 124, 130 School to Work Opportunities Act, 84
Public Broadcasting System, 91 Science and Engineering Indicators, 66-68
Public opinion Science and technology centers, 2, 7, 61,
see also Mass media 88-90, 110, 111, 127
Boston Central Artery and Tunnel, 40 see also Museums

154 INDEX
Science for All Americans, 78, 108 State government, 2, 111-112
Science shops, 96 California energy crisis, 32-36
Science T.R.A.C.S., 79 governors, 62-63
Secondary education, see Primary and legislatures, technical capabilities, 60,
secondary education 62, 71, 111
Sightseer’s Guide to Engineering, 119 primary and secondary education, 8,
Smithsonian Institution, 79, 80, 128-130 9, 53, 60, 62, 82-83, 104-107
Social factors, 4, 7, 8, 18, 20, 23, school-to-work partnerships, 84,
138-139 105
see also Cultural factors; Political standards, 8, 9, 126
factors; Public opinion State Science, Engineering and
museums and science centers, 89-90 Technology program, 62
postsecondary education, 85, 86-87 Systems, understanding of, 17
primary and secondary education
curriculum, 78, 80, 81, 82,
91-92, 105, 106, 108 T
resources for technological literacy
summarized, 115-117, 118, Teacher education, 9, 54-55, 59-60,
120, 128-129, 131 87-88, 107-108, 130-131, 140
technological determinism, 51, see also Curriculum and instructional
52-53, 115, 116 materials development
well-being, 44-45 incentive programs, 9, 10, 59-60,
Society for Automotive Engineers, 91 108, 113-114
Society for the History of Technology, International Technology Education
80, 131 Association, 7, 64, 71, 80-82,
Society of Women Engineers, 131 87-88, 98, 108, 109, 114, 127,
The Soul of a New Machine, 119-120 128, 139
Standards, 130 museums and science centers, 89
benchmarks for literacy, 55-56, 78, professional organizations,
105, 106, 126-127 cooperation with, 91-92,
dimensions of literacy, 3, 14-16, 23, 130-131
26, 29, 32, 35, 36, 69, 81, 98 standards, 7, 79, 80, 87-88
engineering design process, 13, 18 vocational, 54-56, 124-125
primary and secondary education, 7, Teachers, 2, 8, 108
8, 9, 55-56, 78-79, 80-82, contests and awards, 10, 113-114
98, 104-105, 106-107, 108, International Technology Education
126-127, 139-140, 143-144, Association, 7, 64, 71, 80-82,
145 87-88, 98, 108, 109, 114,
Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 126-127, 128, 139
78, 106, 126 Technical competency, general, 7, 21-22
national standards, 9, 78-79, 80, everyday skills, 4, 17, 20, 49-50, 116,
104, 105, 106-108, 126 118-119
state standards, 8, 9, 126 Technological Literacy, 120
vocational, 84 Technological literacy, general
resources for technological literacy characteristics of literate person, 4,
summarized, 125-127 17-21
teacher education, 7, 79, 80, 87-88 air bags, 29
Standards for Technological Literacy: Boston Central Artery and
Content for the Study of Tunnel, 40
Technology, 7, 79, 80, 88, California energy crisis, 35, 36
106, 108, 127, 128 genetically modified foods, 32
see also International Technology defined, 3, 4, 14-21, 120
Education Association

INDEX 155
 dimensions of, 3, 14-16, 23, 26, 29, high-speed rail, 61
32, 35, 36, 69, 81, 98 resources for technological literacy
Technology, defined, vii, 2-3, 13-14 summarized, 116
Technology and Culture, 120 TSM Connection Activities, 125
Technology and the Future, 120
Technology Literacy Challenge, 58-59
Technology Teacher Magazine, 125, 128 U
Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to
Technology, 120 The Unbound Prometheus: Technological
Telecommunications, 14, 48, 57(n.1) Change and Industrial
see also Internet; Mass media Development in Western Europe
adult understanding of, 65 from 1750 to the Present, 121
curriculum standards, 81 United Kingdom, 69
wireless communication, legislation, Universities, see Colleges and universities
61 Urban areas, 37-40, 48, 94, 95-96, 133
Tests and testing, 8, 55, 63, 104-105,
106, 128-129
see also Assessment of technological V
literacy; Contests and awards
international test comparisons, 6, 64, Views On Science, Technology, and
68-70, 106 Society, 68-69
National Assessment of Educational Virtual Center for Science and Technology,
Progress, 55, 106 121
National Science Foundation, Vocational education, 7, 53-55, 58, 77,
literacy assessment tools, 9 82-84
Tests of Engineering Aptitude, school-to-work partnerships, 84, 105
Mathematics, and Science, 93 teacher education, 54-56, 125, 127
Textbooks, 77-78, 105-106
Third International Math and Science
Study, 64, 106 W
TIES Magazine, 125
To Engineer Is Human: The Role of Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the
Failure in Successful Design, 120 Revenge of Unintended
Toshiba/NSTA Exploravision Awards, Consequences, 121
135-136 World in Motion series, 92, 125-126
Transportation services, 37-40, 48, 49 World Wide Web, see Internet
curriculum standards, 81

156 INDEX