see the attached

The following lecture will provide an overview of the class, and illustrate the differences in how science, technology, and engineering are utilized in a contemporary society. This lesson illustrates the various interpretations of how modern technology is viewed in a contemporary society.

Ways (1959) and Toffler (1970, 1980) have indicated that the accelerating rate of change is a result of science and technology. According to Ways and Toffler, such change can be documented by reviewing the rapid rate of: depletion of nonrenewable resources, industrialization and population growth.

Ferkiss (1969), Mendlovitz (1975), and Naisbitt (1982) have referred to the interconnectedness of society in the twentieth century. They wrote that people of the world are dependent upon each other by virtue of their use of the environment, resources, trade practices, and technical knowledge. These authors also maintained that this interconnectedness was being established by the advent of the computer and networking between nations, state and local governments, businesses, and individuals. Naisbitt, referring to this interconnectedness, has stated that the United States had made a 'megashift' from an industrial society to an information society by the 1970s.

Ramo wrote:

Our century might also be labeled the 'century of technology' although obviously the twentieth will not stand out as the only century affected by technological advance. Technology has been with us since before the invention of the wheel, and the future society certainly will find itself under the spell of far more scientific discovery and technological development than we have so far known. But ours may go down as the century of technology because . . . in the 1900s society did more than incorporate its share of technological advances - it became a technological civilization. (p. 3)

Ferkiss (1969) noted that there was a connection from the industrial society to the technological society. For Ferkiss, the technological civilization developed from the industrial society. Ferkiss wrote:

Just as the technology of industrial society has provided the jumping-off point for the technology of postindustrial society, just as industrial man is both the elder brother and the father of emergent technological man, so the intellectual foundations of industrial civilization also provide part of the intellectual underpinnings of technological civilization. (p. 42)

Ferkiss further noted that although science and technology had changed the industrial society to the technological society, the previously established social and political ideals of the nineteenth century remained the dominant organizing elements of the twentieth century. These social and political ideals were nationalism, liberalism, capitalism, and

the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness and welfare. These ideals, however, were being challenged through the new uses of science and technology, and a changing value system concerning personal and environmental welfare.

Authors such as Cornish (1977), Drucker (1969), Floreman (1981), Toffler (1980), and Winner (1977) have all furnished optimistic perspectives about the future development of science and technology. Rifkin (1987) wrote:

Science and technology have become the new means of obtaining salvation. In times of crisis we look to science and to the technological products of science to rescue a fallen humanity from the foibles and follies that so often intrude on our efforts to eke out a safe domain. Modern science and technology are the secular messiahs in a materialist world. They are the guarantors of our security and, ultimately, our immortality. Through science and technology we will extend our control over the future, the forces of nature, and our own bodily duration. We will live better, live longer, enjoy the good life, and enter into an earthly Eden of our own making where material abundance will provide a fortress against the ravages of time and the onslaught of death. (p. 143)

Engle and Longstreet (1978) stated:

Once, technological progress would have meant the hope of something better to come. Now though vestiges of hope remain, the progress of technology seems to have become the unfolding of an inexorable human tragedy. . . . We have lost control of technology and, in the process, of ourselves as well. This is the critical reality we must confront before we will again be capable of directing the future. Our loss of control has been an immensely subtle process, beginning quite slowly and sporadically at first, then growing exponentially. (p. 226)

In addition, there have been numerous reports that have focused on the 'dismal' condition of the world because of science and technology. Three such reports; The Limits of Growth (Meadows & Meadows & Randers & Behrens, 1972), Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World (Meadows et al., 1973), and The Global 2000 Report to the President (Global Report) (Council on Environmental Quality & United States Department of State, 1980a, 1980b, 1981a, 1981b) concluded that the quality of human life was deteriorating, and many of the biological systems that provide resources for human needs were eroding.

Making reference to these deteriorating factors the Global Report indicated the potential for progressive impoverishment, if present world trends continue. Specifically the Global Report (1981b) noted that:

The next 20 years may see a decline in the earth's capacity to support life while rapid population growth continues; a steady loss of croplands, fisheries, forests, and plant and animal species; and degradation of the earth's water and atmosphere (p. iii).

The report further indicated that as many as twenty percent of all animal and plant species on earth would be irretrievably lost as their habitats vanished.

Thus, we have a fundamental problem with how many people view technology in human affairs. This perspective does have implications for how people interact with and use modern technology in human affairs. The questions that are important for us are:

 Are people afraid of modern technology?  Do people understand the uses of technology in modern affairs?  Are people literate of technology and how it influences society?  How well are people prepared to make informed decisions regarding technology?

Shen (1975) wrote: "There is little disagreement that, in today's highly technological world, the public at large would find it profitable to become more scientifically literate, thus enabling them to take better advantage of science's many benefits while avoiding its many pitfalls" (p. 46).

Hellman (1976) indicated that a technologically literate populace was needed in order to avoid extremist views. Hellman reported:

Like it or not this is a technological world, and it requires at least some technological literacy. Our homes are filled with electrical appliances. Permitting people who have no basic understanding of electricity to plug into the electrical system is wrong and dangerous, and may explain a large part of the thousand or so electrocutions and the many more electrically caused fires that take place each year. . . . Technological illiteracy can just as easily lead to a blind, uncomprehending reverence for science and technology as to an anti-intellectual fear of them. Both - and we have had too much of both - are equally bad. (pp. xiii-xiv)

Hellman further noted that the need for technological literacy stemmed from the fact that science and technology have become imbedded in the economic, political, and social fabric of society.

Wright (1980) also emphasized the need for a sociocultural literacy of technology. Wright indicated:

It may be correct to suggest that people are technologically illiterate - that is - they do not know enough about technology and its general characteristics to make factual and sound personal judgements concerning the intelligent use and control of technically related problems and solutions. . . .

Technology is the study of all technique and the ways in which it affects the world. Understanding technology can help people to cope with rapid change and to become knowledgeable consumer/decision makers in the future. (pp. 35, 37)

Beginning in the late 1960s the topic of technological literacy was brought to public attention by political activists, scientists, social scientists, and technologists (cf. Brungs, 1987; Miller, 1987 for religious concerns for scientific and technological literacy).

Miller (1983) noted that the concern about the public's knowledge of various scientific or technological public policy issues began around 1968. Environmental groups, he noted, found that some minimal level of scientific knowledge was necessary if citizens were to understand issues concerning the environment, nuclear power, and the use of Laetrile. Other authors have maintained that society had individuals suffering from 'future shock,' 'technophobia,' or 'technological illiteracy' (viz., Hellman, 1976; Hersh, 1983a, 1983b; Snow, 1959; Suzuki, 1984; Toffler, 1970). Hellman (1976) and Toffler (1970) wrote that these individuals represent the illiterate sector of society, illiterate because they cannot cope with technological change.

Leaders in the field of education and government have also maintained that the United States was becoming a society of technological illiterates. Bowden (1982) noted: "We

are poorly prepared to make the political, economic, and social decisions that science and technology present and impose on us" (p. 5). Saxon (1983) stated: "The pervasive lack of understanding of science and technology throughout American society is, just about everyone agrees, a major problem. That our technological illiteracy extends even to those most educated of Americans - our college graduates - verges on a national scandal" (p. 12).

Press wrote:

As we enter an era influenced greatly by public interests and public pressures, we urgently need an enlightened public - one capable of understanding our complex socio-technological relationship and of realizing what we can and cannot do, able to evaluate technological change in terms of its costs and benefits, its environmental and economic impact, and the social change it may bring. Our success in doing this could determine the degree to which our society controls its own destiny or is the victim of the circumstances it unknowingly creates. (p. 51)

In a statement similar to Press, DeVore (1986) wrote:

The constant danger is that the complexities of our technical means today not only raise the level of comprehension and know-how required of the average citizen; they also increase the possibility of less involvement by citizens if they are not literate in and about the technologies and the relation of technical means to human affairs and social purpose. Technological illiteracy will promote the

demise of democracy and place in control an elite group of people who, by their knowledge and know-how control the technical systems and who, by default, control the processes of public and private life (p. 9).

Statements such as these and the noted need to reform public education to include more science and technology (e.g., Adler, 1982, 1983, 1984; Boyer, 1983; Brunschwig & Breslin, 1982; Hurd, 1984; National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1983; Shamos, 1982; Shen, 1975; Task Force on Education for Economic Growth, 1983; the Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986) has as DeVore (1986) and Waks & Prakash (1985) indicated, led to a focusing on the need for scientific or technological literacy in education.

Gies (1982) noting the differences between science and technology wrote:

Technology is not to be confused with science. Science is what the universe, macrocosm, and microcosm, consists of - stars, planets, galaxies, cells, atoms, particles. Technology is tools, machines, power, instrumentation, processes, techniques. Science is knowledge discovered, and being discovered, by man. Technology is knowledge created, and being created by man. (p. 17)

Hurd (1984) also illustrated the differences between science and technology. For Hurd, the purpose of science was to discover new knowledge, while technology applied knowledge for a social need. Hurd described these differences:

Through science and technology act as an integrated system, they are not synonymous in meaning. Science is a way of knowing; it is a breeder of new knowledge. Scientists who pursue knowledge for its own sake, are motivated by their curiosity to learn how and why nature behaves as it does. Their satisfaction arises from discovering new facts, formulating new theories, and developing predictive laws that their peers consider significant in advancing a science discipline. The results of scientific research are judged on the basis of their integrity, not their usefulness in practical ways. . . .

Technology, on the other hand, is a process that seeks new uses of knowledge. Technologists work with a definite purpose in mind, such as designing a more fuel-efficient airplane, an intelligent robot, improved cancer therapy, safer roads for travel, synthetic insulin, and communication satellites in outer space. The work of the technologist responds to industrial and social needs and whatever product or process people might find useful. (pp. 6-7)

Cutcliffe (1985) noted that science is viewed as that body of theoretical knowledge that is concerned with natural phenomena. As such, individuals involved with scientific research attempt to provide a coherent account of physical and biological objects and events by way of observation and experimentation. Since a variety of authors appear to agree as to the meaning of science; for the purposes of this study, science will be taken to mean: That knowledge base which is concerned with the theoretical understanding of the physical and biological world. This knowledge base has or appears to have a factual, objective, systematic, or methodological basis.

Cutcliffe (1985) wrote:

Traditionally, definitions of technology center around the end-products of engineering problem-solving, with, in [sic] the last hundred years, direct input from scientific research as well. Increasingly, however, scholars of the social impact of 'technology' have taken the term to refer to the complex of social, value-based processes through with the work of the engineer is channeled into society through society's financial, legal, and political institutions, and as a general rule with little input from engineers themselves. Thus, technology is different from engineering, a term that refers to the specific activity that generates particular artifacts and technologies. It is also much more than applied science, although it certainly draws upon scientific knowledge and methodology. (p. 11)

The different perceptions of technology are largely dependent on a person's background, the amount of study and reflection about technology, and the personal experiences one has had with technology. Viewpoints of technology range from technology as a tool, to technology as a major component of the human adaptive system. It has been defined as skill, craftpersonship, hardware, artifacts, technique, work or a system of means, an effect, and other similar constructs (DeVore, 1980; Kline, 1986). The following definitions illustrate the variety of interpretations of technology.

Bugliarello (1982) wrote that technology was:

The enhancement of our biological reach through artifacts, both tangible and intangible - is an exquisitely human phenomenon. It extends the power of our muscles, our senses and our brain, it lessens our dependence on the environment and it makes it increasingly possible for us to modify the biological processes within our own body and to influence evolution. (pp. 1-1)

DeVore (1980) indicated that:

As a discipline technology is used to denote a field of study in the same way that biology, psychology or anthropology is used. Technology: the study of the creation and utilization of adaptive systems including tools, machines, materials, techniques and technical means and the relation of the behavior of these elements and systems to human beings, society and the civilization process. (p. 4)

Kranzberg and Pursell (1967) wrote:

Technology is man's effort to cope with his physical environment - both that provided by nature and that created by man's own technological deeds, such as cities - and his attempts to subdue or control that environment by means of his imagination and ingenuity in the use of available resources. (pp. 4-5)

Winner stated: "It [technology] is now used in ordinary and academic speech to talk about an unbelievably diverse collection of phenomena - tools, instruments, machines, organizations, methods, techniques, systems and the totality of all these and similar things in an experience" (p. 8). Winner additionally concluded that there was nothing unusual in the discovery that an important term lacks precision in meaning. What was important was an understanding of its concepts and uses within society.

You will likely notice that this definition of technology has many of the same components of those provided by a number of different authors. We will use this definition in our discussions for this class.

A secondary definition for literacy is "a well-informed educated person" (p. 762). Implicitly interwoven with reading and writing is comprehension. Since reading and writing includes composites of punctuation, sentence structure, spelling ability, and other dimensions, literacy is a multidimensional concept.

Having made these basic premises (i.e., literacy is a multidimensional concept; science and technology are different, with each maintaining their own knowledge base, methodologies of inquiry, and purposes), the curriculum areas of liberal arts, science, and technology education have been investigated to determine the common elements in technological literacy, its constructs, and instructional strategies used in teaching for this ideal. As previously noted, since science and technology literacy have often been described in conjunction with technological literacy, these components have, therefore, been included in this investigation. The first curriculum area to be reviewed is the liberal arts approach: science, technology, and society studies (STS).

These arts included thinking clearly and logically, speaking effectively, reading analytically, having knowledge of the world and human nature, and knowing the ways in which the universe operated. Mason wrote:

The purpose of such an education was not to prepare a man for some economic vocation, but to prepare him for the moral life in which he used his disciplined intelligence in making choices affecting his nation, his family, and himself. (p. 25)

These ideals in education can be traced to Plato's Republic where Socrates and his companions discussed the type of education suitable for the governors of the state, and

Aristotle's discussion on liberal and practical (i.e., mechanical) education in Politics. During the Middle Ages the liberal arts included the study of arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy, in addition to grammar, rhetoric, logic, and music. Griswold (1962) outlined the need and purpose of this education for the twentieth century:

Not only does it [liberal education] concern itself more directly and vitally than any other type of education with the good life that is the end of all political society; it also shows a like concern for the means whereby that society is to be governed and the good life achieved. . . . The purpose of liberal education is to expand to the limit the individual's capacity - and desire - for self-improvement, for seeking and finding enjoyment and meaning in everything he does. . . . The purpose of the liberal arts is not to teach business men business, or grammarians grammar, or college students Greek and Latin. . . . It is to awaken and develop the intellectual and spiritual power in the individual before he enters upon his chosen career, so that he may bring to that career the greatest possible assets of intelligence, resourcefulness, judgement, and character. (pp. vi-13)

The liberal arts tradition is also synonymous with that of general education. Thomas (1962) wrote: "The change in relative emphasis upon general and liberal [education] is especially interesting in view of the fact that there is almost no substantive change in the procedures by which the students fulfill the goals of liberal education" (p. 189). The concept of general education, which developed during the nineteenth century, consisted of a common core of disciplines considered essential to all liberally educated students. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the curriculum of the colleges was limited in scope and heavily weighted with classical studies. This was viewed as necessary as many of the college students were preparing for the professions of law, medicine, or the divinity. The range of disciplines studied was general, and lacked depth in most areas except classical languages and mathematics. College education was viewed as neither preprofessional or vocational. The colleges, however, were pressured to extend the scope of their course offerings to the interests of students not entering the profession of law, medicine, or the divinity. As modifications were made to the curricular offerings, there was a tendency to differentiate the disciplinary and cultural functions of education from numerous vocational functions (Thomas, 1962).

The idea of general education was therefore viewed as a way to meet the elements of the changing school and society. With a common core of disciplines and additional studies related to the student's vocational interests, the colleges were able to offer education to those not entering the traditional professions, while maintaining their ideals of liberal education. This type of curriculum was viewed as more liberal with its greater flexibility in course offerings and free electives than the classical curriculum. The concept of general education, however, was eventually questioned for weakening the cultural objectives of colleges. Thomas (1962) reported that institutions of higher learning began to ask "whether the colleges, in becoming more liberal in the service of individual interests, had not become less liberal in serving the common cultural needs of students" (p. 13).

Having now developed a foundation of what is meant by science and technology, our goal is to explore how technology and engineering are utilized by a contemporary society and how these uses influence our human values. The overall goal of this course is to help promote a greater understanding of technology development and promote technological literacy. Throughout this course we will be examining both the positive and negative consequences of technological development and how this development shapes our social, economic, legal, and cultural institutions.