Report on Draft 4 of the Standards October 28, 1999 (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix F: Discussion Summary, May 21-22 Meeting of the NRC Standards Review Committee
Appendix F: Discussion Summary, May 21-22 Meeting of the NRC Standards Review Committee
Pages 93-100
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 93... ...
Karin Borgh Rodney Custer Elsa Garmire Franzie L,oepp James Rutherford Scott Warner Jane Wheeler Staff: Rodger Bybee Gail Pritchard Greg Pearson, NAE Lisa Vandemark DeVonne Robertson Sonja Atkinson Guests: Bill Dugger, Director, Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) Pam Newberry, TfAAP Robert Pool, freelance writer for TfAAP fill Russell, University of Nebraska, and external evaluator for TfAAP Melissa Smith, TfAAP Kendall Starkweather, Executive Director, ITEA Bridget Valesy, ITEA Arvid Van Dyke, ITEA *
|
From page 94... ...
Draft Standards William Dugger, Jr., principal investigator of the Technology for All Americans Project, presented background information on TfAAP, and the rationale behind the current framework and draft Standards. He identified five major problems that the series of reviews had identified: Major Concerns on Draft IlI: · Organizers and Framework of the Standards (Universals and Dimensions)
|
From page 95... ...
Category #l, "The Nature of Technology, " and #2, "Technology and Society. " Some members considered whether 1.3, "The Relationships Between Technology and Other Fields of Study," would also capture the relationship between technologies or the influence of preceding technologies on subsequent technologies but decided not to wordsmith the Standards excessively to avoid diluting the power of them or else making them too dense or unrealistically ambitious.
|
From page 96... ...
Members generally agreed that understanding design was difficult, so segregating it from the act of designing encouraged substantial discussion before students moved into designing. One member thought category 4 as it was originally organized was a clear description of pedagogy, but whose outcomes would be conceptual-another instance of actions leading to understanding, and the mixing of ends and means.
|
From page 97... ...
, but adding warfare, entertainment, and transportation, thereby building on an already-published and widely disseminated document. Another member commented that she could support a disciplinary division - biological sciences, chemical sciences, informational sciences, physical sciences.
|
From page 98... ...
Wrap-Up · Members concluded that they preferred the category focused on applications approaches' but there was room for negotiation on this point as ITEA developed the accompanying benchmarks. However, the recommended structure would be more favorably received by the engineering community; it could encourage career connections more clearly, and perhaps make developing benchmarks easier.
|
From page 99... ...
The committee discussed other ongoing NRC projects related to this project, i.e., the NAE's Committee on Technological Literacy and the National Science Education Standards Science and Technology Addendum and recommended that staff collaborate to be sure projects collectively send a coherent message.
|
From page 100... ...
As any discussion draft watt be available to the general public through out public access office, members reminded ITEA to write DRAFT on each page. RWB thanked the members, on behalf of Bill Wulf, for their work, cooperation, and candor, which helped to clarify the framework and therefore improved 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.