Development and Validation of a Technological Literacy Survey

  • Jianjun Gu
  • Meidan Xu
  • Jonchao Hong


Technological literacy (TL) as the goal of technology education guides the construction of the technology education curriculum in China. Previous studies investigating technological literacy were limited to K-12 students and had some ambiguities in the definition of technology, theoretical framework, and assessed criterion, and a measurement instrument for use among the Chinese public is lacking. To address this need, the Technological Literacy Scale for the Chinese Public (TLSCP) was developed in this study. Based on DeVore’s infrastructure of technology and seven taxonomies of technologies proposed by the International Technology Education Association, the complexity, contents, and components of technology in the TLSCP were ensured. Combined with previous dimensions proposed by the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council and the goal of classification in the Chinese High School General Technological Curriculum Standards, a new classification of technological literacy incorporating technological attitude (TA), technological knowledge (TK), and technological capacity (TC) was developed. Through a 4-point Likert-type scale, Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives, and Quellmalz Taxonomy, the content of the items in the TLSCP can be evaluated objectively. Data obtained from 1117 people in 31 provinces and municipalities were included in a pilot test investigating the reliability, validity, difficulty and discrimination ability of the TLSCP. The three dimensions of the TLSCP were reliable [TA (α = 0.889), TK (α = 0.693), and TC (α = 0.726)], the content validity was verified by seven experts in the fields of technology education, machinery and materials, and psychological assessment, and the construct validity (λ > 0.5) was good. Moreover, the difficulty of the items (p between 0.35 and 0.67) was appropriate, and item discrimination (rpb between 0.30 and 0.67) was acceptable. The TLSCP was useful for addressing the deficiencies in TL measurement instruments in China and improving the theoretical basis of international TL evaluations. It may be a good template for others who want to develop such an instrument in a different culture.


Technological literacy Technology education Scale development and validation 

Supplementary material

10763_2019_9971_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 2132 kb)


  1. Avsec, S., & Jamšek, J. (2016). Technological literacy for students aged 6–18: A new method for holistic measuring of knowledge, capabilities, critical thinking and decision-making. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 26(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bame, E., Dugger, W., de Vries, M., & McBee, J. (1993). Pupils’ attitudes toward technology--PATT-USA. The Journal of Technology Studies, 19(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
  3. Benjamin, T. E., Marks, B., Demetrikopoulos, M. K., Rose, J., Pollard, E., Thomas, A., & Muldrow, L. L. (2017). Development and validation of scientific literacy scale for college preparedness in stem with freshman from diverse institutions. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 15(4), 607–623.Google Scholar
  4. Blikstein, P., Kabayadondo, Z., Martin, A., & Fields, D. (2017). An assessment instrument of technological literacies in makerspaces and fablabs. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(1), 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, B. S. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Journal of Nutrition Education, 16(15), 58–60.Google Scholar
  6. Çalik, M., & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. DeVore, P. W. (1980). Technology: An Introduction. Worcester, England: Davis Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Dyrenfurth, M. J., & Kozak, M. R. (1991). Technological literacy. Peoria, IL: Glencoe Division: Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenkraft, A. (2010). Retrospective analysis of technological literacy of K-12 students in the USA. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 20(3), 277–303.Google Scholar
  12. Gagel, C. W. (1997). Literacy and technology: Reflections and insights for technological literacy. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34, 6–34.Google Scholar
  13. Garmire, E., & Pearson, G. (2006). Tech tally: Approaches to assessing technological literacy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., Algina, J., & Coulson, D. B. (1978). Criterion-referenced testing and measurement: A review of technical issues and developments. Review of Educational Research, 48(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingerman, A., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 21(2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  17. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50–64.Google Scholar
  19. Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (1999). Measurement and assessment in teaching (8th ed.). Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Luckay, M. B., & Collier-Reed, B. I. (2014). An instrument to determine the technological literacy levels of upper secondary school students. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24(3), 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council (NAE & NRC). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington. DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 10(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross, A. (2019). Gartner: Top 10 data and analytics technology trends for 2019. Retrieval March 10, 2019 from
  25. Stiggins, R. J., Rubel, E., & Quellmalz, E. S. (1988). Measuring thinking skills in the classroom. Washington, DC: NAE, Professional Library.Google Scholar
  26. Wang, J. Y., & Ma, L. M. (2014). The dimensions and levels of high school students’ technological literacy: A survey in Beijing. Education Academic Monthly, 11, 93–101.Google Scholar
  27. Wang, X. H. (2005). Research on the current situation of high school students’ technological literacy and educational literacy (Unpublished master thesis). Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China.Google Scholar
  28. Wu, M. R. (2010). Questionnaire statistical analysis practices: SPSS operation and application. Chongqing, China: Chongqing University press.Google Scholar
  29. Wu, Y. S. (2014). An investigation on technological literacy of primary school students: A case study of Haidian District in Beijing (Unpublished master thesis). Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  30. Zhang, Z. P. (2018). An investigation on technological literacy of junior middle school student: A case study of Xuanwu District in Nanjing (Unpublished master thesis). Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education ScienceNanjing Normal UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Institute for Research Excellence in Learning SciencesTaiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations