Report on Draft 4 of the Standards October 28, 1999 (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards
Report on Draft 4 of the Standards
Pages 1-10
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
This report gives a brief history of the ITEA standards project, describes the NRC committee review process, summarizes the committee's review of draft 3 of the standards, and provides detailed observations, conclusions, and recommendations related to draft 4, the most recent version. The committee would like to note the seriousness of purpose and integrity that staff at ITEA and the Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP)
|
From page 2... ...
Framework Development Committee Prior to the NRC committee review of the standards, NRC and ITEA agreed it would be useful to take a careful look at the overall organization of Draft 3 of the standards document. To this end and with the agreement of ITEA, on February 3, 1999, NRC convened a Framework Development Committee (FDC)
|
From page 3... ...
With respect to the standards, the committee reviewed each one and made suggestions for clarifying the language in a number of them. According to information presented by TfAAP, the major concerns about Draft 3 fell into five broad areas and reflect input from a variety of sources, including the NAB Technology Standards Review Committee, TfAAP's own outside advisory panel' and many individuals.
|
From page 4... ...
Finally, the committee notes that in the afternoon of August 25, it made a series of chapter-specific suggestions. The committee strongly encourages TfAAP to review those suggestions with an eye toward making changes consistent with the thrust of the broader recommendations spelled out below.
|
From page 5... ...
are appropriate to cognitive abilities of the intended grade-level age group. Third, the standards document provides no clear rationale for the benchmarks, particularly as they relate to current thinking about how people learn.
|
From page 6... ...
Achieving the proper tone wall be vital to the credibility of the standards document and how it is received by the intended audiences. In the committee's view, the current tone of the document wall discourage some readers from taking the substance of the standards seriously.
|
From page 7... ...
that it is the responsibility of these groups to adopt or promote the standards. The committee believes, however, that it is TTEA that has primary responsibility for convincing stakeholder groups that it is in their self-interest to advocate for the standards Recommendation #7: Revise the document, particularly Chapter ~ (Call to Action)
|
From page 8... ...
This failure to emphasize connections may reinforce the incorrect impression that the artificial divisions among related aspects of the study of technology, created by TfAAP to organize the document's content, reflect the nature of technology in the real world Recommendation #9: The "principles" oftechnology identified in Chapter 3 should be reflected clearly in the specific technologies described in Chapter 7, and the relationship between design (including engineering design) as a "knowing" standard in Chapter 5 and its portrayal as a "doing" standard in Chapter 6 should be strengthened.
|
From page 9... ...
Without a firmer understanding ofthe human-made world around them, K-12 students will grow up poorly equipped, as many adults are today, to ask intelligent questions about the direction and shape of our increasingly technological society. Carefully developed educational standards are seen by many as a critical tool in promoting systemic educational improvement.
|
From page 10... ...
The NRC Standards Review Committee urges ITEA and TfAAP to seriously consider the recommendations in this report, and it looks forward to reviewing the next draft of the standards.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.