banner Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework for the 2014 NAEP


American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st century learner. Available from

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5.

Brundtland Commission. (1987). Report of the Brundtland Commission: Our common future. London: Oxford University Press.

Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005). Assessing elementary school students' conceptions of engineering and technology. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR.

Dolan, R. P., Rose, D. H., Burling, K. S., Harms, M., & Way, W. (2007). The universal design for computer-based testing framework: A structure for developing guidelines for constructing innovative computer-administered tests. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Dugger, W. (2005). A historical perspective of ITEA's Technology for All Americans Project. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association. Available from

Dugger, W. (2007). The status of technology education in the United States. The Technology Teacher, 67(1), 14-20.

European Communities. (2007). Key competencies for lifelong learning: European reference framework. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569-598.

International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans. Reston, VA: Author.

International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Reston, VA: Author.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational technology standards for students (NETS-S) and performance indicators for students. Washington, DC: Author.

Koehler, C., Faraclas, E., Giblin, D., Kazerounian, K., & Moss, D. (2006). Are concepts of technical & engineering literacy included in state curriculum standards? A regional overview of the nexus between technical & engineering literacy and state science frameworks. Proceedings of 2006 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL, Paper No. 2006-1510, June 18-21.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Lennon, M., Kirsch, I., Von Davier, M., Wagner, M., & Yamamoto, K. (2003). Feasibility study for the PISA ICT literacy assessment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media: Childhood and the changing media environment. London: Sage.

Livingstone, S., Van Couvering, E., & Thumin, N. (2008). Converging traditions of research on media and information literacies: Disciplinary, critical, and methodological issues. In D. J. Leu, Jr., J. Coiro, M. Knowbel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2009). MCAS question search. Available at

McAnear, A. (2009). Cool tools for problem solving and critical thinking. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37(3).

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. (2008). Video games and violence. Retrieved July 21, 2009 from

Minnesota Department of Education. (2009). Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment – II science items. Available from

Metiri Group. (2006). Technology in schools: What the research says. Paper commissioned by Cisco Systems. Available from

Metiri Group. (2009). National trends report: Enhancing education through technology (EETT) Round 6, Fiscal Year 2007. Washington, DC: The State Educational Technology Directors Association.

National Academy of Engineering. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Science Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). NAEP inclusion policy. The Nation's Report Card. Retrieved August 21, 2009, from

National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). Highlights From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001 revised). Washington, DC: Author.

National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, & Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world class education. Available from

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearning opportunity and challenge. Washington, DC: Author.

National Science Teachers Association. (2006). NSTA handbook. Arlington, VA: Author.

Neugebauer, O. (1969). The exact sciences in antiquity. New York: Dover Publications.

The New Media Consortium. (2009). The horizon report: 2009 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium in collaboration with the Consortium for School Networking. Retrieved from:

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). PISA CBAS-item viewer-1.4.4. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Are students ready for a technology-rich world? Paris: Author.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: Author.

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. (No. ED423654). Reston, VA: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Projects.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21st century skills framework. Available from

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Framework for 21st century learning. Available from

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st century education system. Available from

Quellmalz, E. S., & Haertel, G. D. (2008). Assessing new literacies in science and mathematics. In D. J. Leu, Jr., J. Coiro, M. Knowbel, & C. Lankshear (Eds.) Handbook of research on new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Quellmalz, E. S. & Kozma, R. (2004). Coordinated, innovative designs for international information communication technology assessment in science and mathematics education: Final report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, Center for Technology in Learning.

Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2009). Using science simulations to support powerful formative assessments of complex science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Resnik, D. B. (2007). What is ethics in research and why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from

Ripley, M. (2009). Assessment examples. Presentation at the April 2009 meeting of the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills project.

Rose, L. & Dugger, W. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD Press.

Shakrani, S. M. & Pearson, G. (2008). NAEP 2012 technological literacy framework and specifications development: Issues and recommendations. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.

Solano-Flores, G. (2009). The testing of English language learners as a stochastic process: Population misspecification, measurement error, and overgeneralization. In K. Ercikan & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizing from Educational Research. New York: Routledge.

Solomon, G. & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education.

Spark, N. (2006). A history of Murphy's law. Los Angeles, CA: Periscope Film.

Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Malouf, D. (2004). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology, 6(1), 1-15. Retrieved from

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2003). TIMSS 2003 8th grade science concepts and science items. Available at

Van De Mieroop, M. (1999). Cuneiform texts and the writing of history. London & New York: Routledge.

Yager, R. E. & Akcay, H. (2008). Comparison of student learning outcomes in middle school science classes with an STS approach and a typical textbook dominated approach. Research in Middle Level Education Online 31(7). Retrieved from