Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Technological literacy is identified as a vital achievement of technology- and engineering-intensive education. It guides the design of technology and technical components of educational systems and defines competitive employment in technological society. Existing methods for measuring technological literacy are incomplete or complicated, unreliable, unstable and imprecise, time-consuming, and require large expenditures on resources. This paper presents a new method for valid and reliable measuring of technological literacy. The method encompasses three main components—knowledge, capabilities, and critical thinking and decision-making. It is centred on the standards for technological literacy issued by the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. It has three key features. (1) A construct-measure-result front-ended approach, where a construct consists of an object, attribute, and entity; which causes reduction of measure-induced distortion and error. (2) A broad test range definition that provides stable and accurate measuring of technological literacy for 6–18-year-old students. (3) A genuine design approach including a multiple choice test item form determination consisting of content, criterion and construct validity, item discrimination, difficulty index, and an intraclass correlation measure for time stability and scooping its heterogeneous nature. Only the method is described herein and its pilot test results are presented. It is moderately reliable over time (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68, p < 0.05), has high criterion-related validity (r xy < 0.4) and construct validity (h 2 > 0.7). High content validity evidence was ensured through a two-stage validation method, while test item discrimination coefficient values are acceptable (r pbis > 0.1). The method is time-efficient (measuring lasts 45 min), valid, stable, and enables holistic investigation of large sample sizes.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Avsec, S. (2012). Metoda merjenja tehnološke pismenosti učencev 9. razreda osnovne šole, Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. Retrived from: http://pefprints.pef.uni-lj.si/663
Bordens, K. S., & Abbott, B. B. (2011). Research design and methods: a process approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Castillo, M. (2010). Technological literacy: Designing and testing an instrument to measure eighth-grade achievement in technology education. The American society for engineering education. Louisville, KY: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London, NewYork: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.
Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N. (2001). An assessment model for a design approach to technological problem solving. Journal for Technology Education, 12(2), 5–20.
Dakers, J. R. (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRef
de Vries, M. J. (2006). Technological knowledge and artifacts: An analytical view. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 17–30). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DeMiranda, M. (2004). The grounding of a discipline: Cognition and instruction in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 61–77. CrossRef
Dugger, W. E., & Gilberti, A. F. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Virginia: International Technology Education Association (ITEA).
Eisenkraft, A. (2010). Retrospective analysis of technological literacy of K-12 students in the USA. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 277–303. CrossRef
Frank, M. (2005). A systems approach for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 19–34.
Gagel, W. C. (2004). Technology profile: An assessment strategy for technological literacy. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30(4), 38–44.
Garmire, E., & Pearson, G. (Eds.). (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Hayden, M. A. (1989). What is technological literacy? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 9, 228–233. CrossRef
Haynie, W. J. (2007). Effects of test taking on retention learning in technology education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 18(2), 24–36.
Hilton, J. K. (2006). The effect of technology on student science achievement. In E. Alkhalifa (Ed.), Cognitively informed systems: Utilizing practical approaches to enrich information presentation and transfer (pp. 312–333). Hershey: Idea Group Inc. CrossRef
Hodge, D., & Gillespie, D. (2007). Phrase completion scales: A better measurement approach than likert scales? Journal of Social Service Research, 33(4), 1–12. CrossRef
Ingerman, A., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. Intenatinal Journal for Technology and Design Education, 21, 137–148. CrossRef
International Technology and Engineering Education Association ITEEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering. Journal of Technology Education, 19, 50–64.
Kelley, T. R., & Wicklein, R. C. (2009). Examination of assessment practices for engineering design projects in secondary education (Second in a 3-part series). Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 46(2), 6–25.
Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2013). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practise. Hoboken, NJ: Willey.
Linacre, J. (2008). The expected value of a point-biserial (or similar) correlation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 22(1), 1154–1157.
Mawson, B. (2006). Factors affecting learning in technology in the early years at school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 253–269. CrossRef
McLaren, S. V. (2007). An international overview of assessment issues in technology education: Disentangling the influences, confusion and complexities. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 2007.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Miller, M. D., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2009). Measurement and assessment in teaching (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education ltd.
Odom, L. R., & Morrow, J. R. (2006). What’s this r? A correlational approach to explaining validity, reliability and objectivity coefficients. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(2), 137–145. CrossRef
Osterlind, S. J. (1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. CrossRef
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,. doi: 10.1007/s10798-010-9147-z.
Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35–52.
Rossiter, J. R. (2011). Measurement for the social sciences: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. New York: Springer. CrossRef
Shadish, W. S., Cook, T. C., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Co.
Shumway, S. L., Saunders, W., Stewardson, G., & Reeve, E. (2001). A comparison of classroom interpersonal goal structures and their effect on group problem-solving performance and student attitudes toward their learning environment. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(3), 6–24.
Stiggins, R., Rubel, E., & Quellmalz, E. (1988). Measuring thinking skills in the classroom. Washington, DC: NAE, Professional Library.
Stobaugh, R. (2013). Assessing critical thinking in elementary schools: meeting the common core. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Suen, H. K., & McClellan, S. (2003). Item construction principles and techniques. In N. Huang (Ed.), Encyclopedia of vocational and technological education (1st ed., pp. 777–798). Taipei: ROC Ministry of Education.
Taylor, J. S. (2006). Student perceptions of selected technology student association activities. Journal of Technology Education, 17(2), 56–71.
Tobin, K., & Capie, W. (1981). The development and validation of a group test of logical thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 413–423. CrossRef
Watson, G., & Glaser, E. M. (2009). Watson-glaser critical thinking apraisal manual. San Antonio: Pearson Inc.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231–240.
- Technological literacy for students aged 6–18: a new method for holistic measuring of knowledge, capabilities, critical thinking and decision-making
- Springer Netherlands
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
Neuer Inhalt/© Velodyne Europe, dSpace, FEV, Valeo Logo/© Valeo, TE Connectivity Corporation/© TE Connectivity Corporation, Und alles läuft glatt: der variable Federtilger von BorgWarner/© BorgWarner, TE Connectivity/© TE Connectivity, AVL/© AVL