The committee begins sections three by examining the role of computer programming in technology education. The advocating for programming knowledge in order to permit a more full understanding of technology and the customization for personal needs of off-the-shelf products is in my view an important goal. Technology should never exist for its own sake, but the acquisition of even a basic understanding of programming concepts opens numerous intellectual "doors" for computer users in the course of their interaction with these mathematical processors.
I was reminded of Seymour Papert's LOGO programming language and the attempt to make algorithm study an integral part of learning through the use of the LOGO language; I still feel LOGO or a LOGO-like package has its place in a child's education.
As to how all these technological, social and cognitive skills will be acquired, the answer is through project-based learning tasks.
What quality teachers have been doing for years is finally being recommended for wide-scale deployment. One only needs to examine the exponentially-expanding WebQuest-like projects available on the Internet and their growing popularity in all aspects of learning, ranging from kindergarten to adult learners. The premise we learn by doing is back with a vengeance.
As to the difficult task of infusing K-12 and higher education with the skills to enable students to acquire these skills, the report provides several examples of implementation models. The changing of curriculum delivery to incorporate technology skills is difficult for all concerned; this should not be surprising. What is of relief to me is that this report provides some impetus as to why we should bother in the first place.