Redefining What It Means to Be Technologically Literate

  • Christina M. Nash
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 16)


As technology is deeply entrenched in American culture, educational policy, standards and curricula, this chapter calls for K–12 educators to amend the definition of “technological literacy” to include an ecojustice perspective. It examines the cultural values inherent in the use of technology, as well as evaluates the nationally acclaimed International Technology Education and Engineers Association Standards for Technological Literacy. Through a pedagogical approach of encouraging ecojustice, teachers can help enable students to make technological and consumerist choices that take into account social and environmental costs. Though schools play only a marginal role in the development of students’ beliefs, values, and ethics, they still have a part of the greater cultural milieu responsible for the development of ecojustice sustainable consumerist practices. Additionally, it is also hoped that teachers will reflect on their own literacies, adjust their pedagogies, and model better choices for their students.


Ecojustice Technology Consumerism Literacy Curriculum 


  1. Bencze, J. L., & Carter, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669. doi: 10.1002/tea.20419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bencze, J. L., Carter, L., & Krstovic, M. (2014). Science and technology education for personal, social, and environmental wellbeing: Challenging capitalists’ consumerist strategies. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciêcias, 14, 39–56.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, C. A. (2001). Educating for eco–justice and community. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  5. Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2003). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy. Washington, DC: US Department of education, Office of Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Educational Testing Service. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of technology in U.S. schools. Retrieved from
  7. Enter, R. (2014, February 13). Roger’s recon: State of wireless union, part II. Retrieved from
  8. Fresno County Office of Education. (2012). Recommended digital literacy & technology skills to support the California Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
  9. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy. Retrieved from
  10. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Technology and engineering literacy framework: For the 2014 national assessment of educational progress. Retrieved from–technology–framework–abridged.pdf
  11. O’Connell, A. (2015, August 20). We’re spending $10 billion kids’ classroom technology–but does it help them learn. Fast Company. Retrieved from–forecast/were–spending–10–billion–on–kids–classroom–technology–but–does–it–help–them–le
  12. Pariser, E. (2011). The filer bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
  14. Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sparshott, J. (2016, May 31). U.S. consumer spending climbed at fastest pace in nearly seven years. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from–s–consumer–spending–jumps–1–in–april–1464697915
  16. Technology Literacy Assessment Project. (2008). Mission and goals. Retrieved from–9–7–08.pdf
  17. Travers, A., & Decker, E. (1999). New technology and critical pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy. Retrieved February 13, 2004, from
  18. Young, A. T., Cole, J. R., & Denton, D. (2002). Improving technological literacy. Issues in Science and Technology, 18(4), 73–79.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Green Mountain CollegePoultneyUSA

Personalised recommendations