FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W310093240> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W310093240 startingPage "28" @default.
• W310093240 abstract "The 2000 publication of Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002) was a critical point in the history of technology education. The standards defined, for the first time, a systematic and intellectually rich approach for the study of technology. Though not abandoning completely the field's industrial arts roots, the standards were a clear statement that the old ways no longer were sufficient to maintain, let alone grow, the profession. Declining graduation rates and a national technology teacher shortage seemed to validate this view. Also motivating the standards effort was the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) leadership's desire to create a stronger identity for the field within U.S. education and bring needed attention to the issue of technological literacy. Of course, the standards by themselves will not remake the profession or push technological literacy into the mainstream. A host of other pressure points within the education system will need attention, including teacher preparation, curriculum development, and assessment, to name just the most obvious components. Teachers must learn to teach to the standards; curricula must be designee that are based on the standards; and testing must reflect what the standards suggest students should know and be able to do. This article focuses on the last of these interrelated elements of reform: assessment. Beginning shortly after the ITEA content standards were published, the National Academies under the leadership of National Academy of Engineering (NAE) President Bill Wulf, undertook its own examination of technological literacy. After nearly two years of deliberations and data gathering, the Committee on Technological Literacy published Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More About Technology (Pearson and Young, 2002). The report argued that citizens of a modern nation like ours, so dependent on technology, ought to be more conversant with it. To make the argument a compelling one, the committee wanted to be able to point to evidence of technological illiteracy. Surely, committee members thought, there are data that could shine a light on the tremendous gap between what we know as a society and what we ought to know. After much digging, however, the committee concluded that there were almost no such data. With a few notable exceptions, education researchers simply had not delved into the assessment of technological literacy. Although it made writing the report much tougher, this was one of the most important findings of the Technically Speaking project. Recognition of the data void prompted the committee to urge the National Science Foundation (NSF) to 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 (p. 109). In the fall of 2002, the NAE and the National Research Council's Board on Testing and Assessment received funding from NSF to explore the question of how literacy about technology might be measured. The Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy began meeting in early 2003 and expects to publish a report in late 2004. The 16-person group is chaired by NAE member and former Dartmouth engineering dean, Elsa Garmire. Like most panels at the National Academies, it is a diverse group. Rod Custer, who was also a member of the committee that produced Technically Speaking, is the technology education representative on the panel. (More detailed information about the committee and its work can be obtained by searching the Academies Current Projects system, www4.nationalacademies.org/cp.hsf.) The focus of the current project is not the development of an actual assessment instrument. Rather, the committee is charged with determining the opportunities and obstacles to developing one or more scientifically valid and broadly useful assessment instruments for technological literacy in three target populations: students, teachers, and out-of-school adults. …" @default.
• W310093240 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W310093240 creator A5071986669 @default.
• W310093240 date "2004-04-01" @default.
• W310093240 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W310093240 title "Assessment of Technological Literacy: A National Academies Perspective: The Committee on Assessing Technological Literacy Began Meeting in Early 2003 and Expects to Publish a Report in Late 2004" @default.
• W310093240 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W310093240 type Work @default.
• W310093240 sameAs 310093240 @default.
• W310093240 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W310093240 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W310093240 hasAuthorship W310093240A5071986669 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C129004444 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C2779529714 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C41458344 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C47177190 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C547231352 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C547764534 @default.
• W310093240 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C127413603 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C129004444 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C144024400 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C17744445 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C19417346 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C199539241 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C2779529714 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C39549134 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C41458344 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C47177190 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C547231352 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C547764534 @default.
• W310093240 hasConceptScore W310093240C78519656 @default.
• W310093240 hasIssue "7" @default.
• W310093240 hasLocation W3100932401 @default.
• W310093240 hasOpenAccess W310093240 @default.
• W310093240 hasPrimaryLocation W3100932401 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W111544103 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W1526922655 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W1540827035 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2028239362 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2037476729 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2043624746 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2044054148 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W206758113 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2080250221 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2120721694 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W213587742 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W21628984 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2291382132 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W245077367 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2499825071 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W2738705621 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W293052693 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W299685077 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W306077266 @default.
• W310093240 hasRelatedWork W72935778 @default.
• W310093240 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W310093240 isParatext "false" @default.
• W310093240 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W310093240 magId "310093240" @default.
• W310093240 workType "article" @default.