Vol 66, No. 7 - International Technology and Engineering Educators ...

INTERDISCIPLINARY OVERLAP IN MANUFACTURING AND ALGEBRA I • DESIGNING AND BUILDING A CARDBOARD CHAIR 

Technology 

the 

TEACHER 

T h e V o i c e o f T e c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n 

April 2007 

Volume 66 • Number 7 

“Designer” Babies 

Also: 

Teaching Engineering at the K–12 Level: 

Two Perspectives 

2007 Directory of Institutional Members 

www.iteaconnect.org

Mastercam X got me my dream job! 

“Learning Mastercam in school got me into OCC. This is my dream job 

and I love it here, even though it gets pretty stressful with those big guys 

pushing to hit deadlines. Mastercam sure helps make my job easier.” 

– Ty Kropp, Machinist, Orange County Choppers 

Find out how Mastercam X works for Ty and 

Orange County Choppers. Visit www.mastercam.com/X/ty 

(800) 228-2877 in the US, (860) 875-5006 worldwide. Experience the Power of X

Take the Challenge. 

The Technology Challenge. 

Proving and improving computer skills. 

Sample Questions 

Open the attached document to 

find the 500 most commonly used 

baby names last year. Alphabetize 

the list and determine which name 

is 402nd on the list. 

How many words are in the 

Gettysburg Address? 

Determine which cell in the 

attached spreadsheet contains 

a formula. 

Reduce all the margins of the 

attached document to 1 inch. 

Does the text fit on one page? 

Which picture occupies the middle 

layer of the object stack in the 

attached document? 

Has the picture in the attached 

document been cropped? If so, 

uncrop it. What do you see? 

In the attached document, replace 

all occurrences of the word 

‘woman’ with the word ‘lady.’ How 

many changes were made? 

Sort the numbers in the attached 

document and determine which is 

the largest number. 

Search the Internet to determine 

the year Rachel Carson died. 

Change the orientation of the 

attached document from portrait 

to landscape. Does the text still fit 

on two pages? 

How many words are incorrectly 

spelled in the attachment? 

What is the alignment given to the 

paragraph in the attached? 

Format the number in cell C12 as 

a Date. What is the date shown? 

Determine the Flesch-Kincaid 

Readability Level of the attached 

document. 

Helping You Meet NCLB Mandates 

By spring of 2007, schools must begin assessing 8th grade student competencies 

in computer technology with tools that provide objective evidence of performance. 

A great new program, part of the Learn More Now, Do More Now, Earn More 

Later Student Credentialing System, is here to help you meet that mandate. 

It’s called the Technology Challenge and it offers students hundreds of questions 

in dozens of formative online exercises that will hone their word processing, 

spreadsheet, presentation and Internet skills. Teachers can watch students’ work 

online, real time. At the end of every exercise, the Challenge generates a 

diagnostic credential that details strengths and weaknesses that can be remediated. 

Challenge exercises are appropriate for students as young as seventh grade, and 

gradually become more difficult. The Challenge provides students with the 

opportunity to solve problems and find answers using the same computer skills 

they will need in college and work. 

In addition to formative exercises, the Technology Challenge also offers 

cumulative assessments for eighth grade students (and high school, too) that 

provide objective evidence of proficiency. With the skills students learn and 

demonstrate in the Technology Challenge, they will be better able to successfully 

and accurately complete technology-based projects in their academic classes. 

The combination of skills-based Challenge exercises and assessments, and the use 

of those skills in authentic learning situations, provides the perfect combination 

for schools that aspire to equip their students with knowledge and skills that go 

beyond mere compliance with federal or state mandates and ensure students have 

deep cognitive understanding of technology and its use. 

Students like taking the Challenge. It’s fun. It’s motivating. And it’s very 

inexpensive. A full year district license for all available Challenges is only 50 

cents per student. New Challenges are introduced almost every month. 

The Technology Challenge questions are unique, and ask students to demonstrate 

what they know how to do, not just what they know. Performance-based questions 

use carefully designed attachments that require students to implement some action. 

After students implement the action, the reaction, or the way the document 

responds, provides the proof of user skills. 

The Technology Challenge is a great teacher training tool, too. Districts are also 

using it to make hiring decisions for office personnel who need computer skills. 

For a limited time only, get a FREE month of access to the Technology Challenge. 

Visit www.technologychallenge.com or www.LearnDoEarn.org to find out more. 

The Technology Challenge is a 

product of Challenge Central LLC, 

a strategic partner of the

Contents 

APRIL • VOL. 66 • NO. 7 

6 

Work Measurements: 

Interdisciplinary Overlap in 

Manufacturing and Algebra I 

Describes a successful interdisciplinary 

activity that requires high school 

manufacturing and algebra students to 

take systematic work measurements and 

mathematically compare costs. 

MARY ANNette Rose 

Resources in 

Technology: 

Designer Babies: 

Eugenics Repackaged 

or Consumer Options? 

page 12 

Departments 

1 ITEA 

Online 

2 

5 

In the News 

and Calendar 

Y ou & ITEA 

12 

Resources 

in Technology 

17 

Classroom 

Challenge 

Features 

Teaching Engineering at the K–12 Level: Two Perspectives 

20 Perspectives of two leaders in the field on a variety of issues pertaining to integrating 

engineering education into our schools. 

KeNNetH L. SMItH AND DAVID BURGHARDt 

25 

Designing and Building a Cardboard Chair: Children’s Engineering at 

the TECA Eastern Regional Conference 

Recounts the latest TECA/Children’s Engineering competition, in which teams from 

universities up and down the East Coast were required to design and produce a functional 

cardboard chair. 

CHARles C. LINNell 

29 

Interview with Dr. William A. Wulf 

Dr. Wulf retires in July 2007 as the President of the National Academy of Engineers. 

32 

2007 Directory of ITEA Institutional Members 

35 

2007 ITEA Museum Member 

Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE 

Editor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la Paz 

Editor, Kathie F. Cluff 

ITEA Board of Directors 

Andy Stephenson, President 

Ken Starkman, Past President 

Len Litowitz, DTE, President-Elect 

Doug Miller, DTE, Director, ITEA-CS 

Scott Warner, Director, Region I 

Lauren Withers Olson, Director, Region II 

Steve Meyer, Director, Region III 

Richard (Rick) Rios, Director, Region IV 

Michael DeMiranda, DTE, Director, CTTE 

Peter Wright, DTE, Director, TECA 

Vincent Childress, Director, TECC 

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE, 

Executive Director 

ITEA is an affiliate of the American Association 

for the Advancement of Science. 

The Technology Teacher, ISSN: 0746-3537, 

is published eight times a year (September 

through June with combined December/January 

and May/June issues) by the International 

Technology Education Association, 1914 

Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 

20191. Subscriptions are included in 

member dues. U.S. Library and nonmember 

subscriptions are $80; $90 outside the U.S. 

Single copies are $8.50 for members; $9.50 

for nonmembers, plus shipping—domestic 

@ $5.00 and outside the U.S. @ $11.00 

(Airmail). 

The Technology Teacher is listed in the 

Educational Index and the Current Index to 

Journal in Education . Volumes are available on 

Microfiche from University Microfilm, P.O. Box 

1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. 

Advertising Sales: 

ITEA Publications Department 

703-860-2100 

Fax: 703-860-0353 

Subscription Claims 

All subscription claims must be made within 60 

days of the first day of the month appearing on 

the cover of the journal. For combined issues, 

claims will be honored within 60 days from 

the first day of the last month on the cover. 

Because of repeated delivery problems outside 

the continental United States, journals will be 

shipped only at the customer’s risk. ITEA will 

ship the subscription copy but assumes no 

responsibility thereafter. 

Change of Address 

Send change of address notification promptly. 

Provide old mailing label and new address. 

Include zip + 4 code. Allow six weeks for 

change. 

Postmaster 

Send address change to: The Technology 

Teacher, Address Change, ITEA, 1914 

Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 

20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at 

Herndon, VA and additional mailing offices. 

E-mail: kdelapaz@iteaconnect.org 

World Wide Web: www.iteaconnect.org 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Now Available on the 

ITEA Website: 

2007 Product G uide N ow A vailable 

ITEA’s 2007 Technological Literacy Product 

Guide is now available online. ITEA’s full line of 

publications and curriculum materials is listed in 

detail. See complete catalog online, with extensive 

information on: 

• Curriculum Development 

• Engineering byDesign 

• Center to Advance the Teaching of Technology 

and Science (ITEA-CATTS) 

• Human Exploration Project 

Go to: www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/productguide.htm 

A pply to Present in 2008! 


TEACHER 

T h e V o i c e o f T e c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n 

the 

Editorial Review Board 

Cochairperson 

Dan Engstrom 

California University of PA 

Steve Anderson 

Nikolay Middle School, WI 

Stephen Baird 

Bayside Middle School, VA 

Lynn Basham 

MI Department of Education 

Clare Benson 

University of Central England 

Mary Braden 

Carver Magnet HS, TX 

Jolette Bush 

Midvale Middle School, UT 

Philip Cardon 

Eastern Michigan University 

Michael Cichocki 

Salisbury Middle School, PA 

Mike Fitzgerald 

IN Department of Education 

Marie Hoepfl 

Appalachian State Univ. 

Laura Hummell 

Manteo Middle School, NC 

Cochairperson 

Stan Komacek 

California University of PA 

Frank Kruth 

South Fayette MS, PA 

Linda Markert 

SUNY at Oswego 

Don Mugan 

Valley City State University 

Monty Robinson 

Black Hills State University 

Mary Annette Rose 

Ball State University 

Terrie Rust 

Oasis Elementary School, AZ 

Yvonne Spicer 

Nat’l Center for Tech Literacy 

Jerianne Taylor 

Appalachian State University 

Greg Vander Weil 

Wayne State College 

Katherine Weber 

Des Plaines, IL 

Eric Wiebe 

North Carolina State Univ. 

Editorial Policy 

The Application to Present at ITEA’s 70 th Annual Conference in Salt 

Lake City, UT (February 21 - 23, 2008) is now available online at 

www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB225T6VQPX9B 

• Theme: Teaching “TIDE” with Pride! 

• Conference Theme Strands: 

• Strand 1: Developing Professionals 

• Strand 2: Realizing Excellence 

• Strand 3: Planning Learning 

• Strand 4: Measuring Progress 

www.iteaconnect.org 

As the only national and international association dedicated 

solely to the development and improvement of technology 

education, ITEA seeks to provide an open forum for the free 

exchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education. 

Materials appearing in the journal, including 

advertising, are expressions of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the official policy or the opinion of the 

association, its officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff. 

Referee Policy 

All professional articles in The Technology Teacher are 

refereed, with the exception of selected association 

activities and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles 

are reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board before 

publication in The Technology Teacher 

. Articles with bylines 

will be identified as either refereed or invited unless written 

by ITEA officers on association activities or policies. 

To Submit Articles 

All articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief, 

International Technology Education Association, 1914 

Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539. 

Please submit articles and photographs via email 

to kdelapaz@iteaconnect.org. Maximum length for 

manuscripts is eight pages. Manuscripts should be prepared 

following the style specified in the Publications Manual of 

the American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition. 

Editorial guidelines and review policies are available by 

writing directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteaconnect.org/ 

Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright 

© 2007 by the International Technology Education 

Association, Inc., 703-860-2100. 

• The Technology Teacher • April 2007

In the News & Calendar 

Product Endorsements A nnounced 

The States’ Career Clusters Initiative has announced a 

recent agreement with the following newly endorsed 

preferred product provider: International Technology 

Education Association (ITEA) is a professional educational 

association devoted to enhancing technology education 

through technology, innovation, design, and engineering 

experiences at the K–12 school levels. The Engineering 

byDesign (EbD) standards-based model program may 

be found in electronic format at www.teachstem.net. This 

program consists of a series of lessons for Grades K–5, and 

an articulated sequence of ten courses for middle and high 

school that are standards-based. In addition, the website will 

provide information regarding the Engineering byDesign 

Network of schools and teachers nationwide that are a 

community of learners working collaboratively to raise 

student achievement. 

N ational Building M useum Launches N ational 

Education I nitiatives 

The National Building Museum (NBM) has launched its first 

design education program to national audiences, offering 

a curriculum that provides math, science, and engineering 

curricula connections—disciplines that decidedly support 

America’s economic competitive edge in the changing 

international marketplace. 

The Museum’s Bridge Basics program is the first of several 

education initiatives the Museum is launching nationally. 

Bridge Basics teaches fifth through ninth graders about 

bridge engineering and design through creative lesson 

plans where students are challenged to solve transportation 

problems while balancing issues of materials, cost, geography, 

and aesthetics. The program helps students meet 

math standards in geometry, measurement, data analysis 

and probability, and problem solving. It also cultivates an 

understanding of scientific inquiry, the use and ability of 

technologies, and the attributes of design and engineering. 

The Museum is collaborating with the U.S. Department of 

Labor to introduce the Design Apprenticeship Program: 

Building Blocks (DAP) to students across the country. DAP 

presents high school students with a design challenge for 

which they conceive, develop, test, and construct a solution. 

The program fosters critical thinking, problem solving, and 

communication skills necessary for life and applicable in all 

settings. It meets national standards of learning in math, 

science, technology, social studies, and arts. The program 

has been successfully used at the Museum since 2000 and 

will be available nationwide in the summer of 2007. 

The national Bridge Basics and DAP launches will be 

followed by the development of national curricula for City 

By Design, an urban planning curriculum for kindergarten 

through sixth graders, and the proposed launch of Investigating 

Where We Live, a photography, creative writing, and 

exhibition design program for secondary students. 

The Museum’s programs have been supporting core 

education, professional development, and the building 

industries for over 25 years. Every year at the Museum, 

approximately 54,000 young people participate in design 

education, which integrates information with experience, 

links learning to living, emphasizes thinking, promotes 

socialization and cooperation, and is both inter- and multidisciplinary. 

As a cultural institution chartered by Congress, 

the National Building Museum is uniquely poised to create, 

foster, and bring added relevance to design education on a 

national level, strengthening student performance in schools 

across the country. 

Is Edu- G aming the Future of Scientific and 

Technological Education? 

Companies and organizations nationwide are worried 

about the dwindling pipeline of talent to replace the retiring 

scientists, engineers, and IT specialists of the baby boomer 

generation. There is widespread concern that the U.S. 

may be losing its edge in technology and the sciences to 

emerging giants like India and China. Positive exposure to 

science and technology through well-crafted educational 

content is key to creating lifelong interest in children. 

Whyville.net, the leading virtual world for kids and young 

teenagers (ages 8 to 15), engages children in critical thinking 

and investigations in science and technology through 

edu-gaming. Leveraging the interactivity of the Internet, 

Whyville is filled with fun educational activities that foster 

curiosity and creativity. 

Sponsored by NASA, the latest edu-game within Whyville 

is the Spectroscopy Lab. Through a series of activities 

ranging from creating your own homemade spectroscope 

to reenacting the historical discovery of hydrogen, children 

learn about the electromagnetic spectrum, the concept that 

all materials have their own unique spectral “fingerprint,” 

and how this can be used by astronomers to discover what’s 

in a star from millions of miles away. Other educational 

games and activities in Whyville include those sponsored by 

the John Paul Getty Trust, the Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institute, NASA, and the University of Texas. 


Free Online R esources and Content From the 

N ational A cademy of Sciences 

A bone detective, space geologist, and robot designer, 

among others, inspire future scientists at www. 

iwaswondering.org. Created by the National Academy of 

Sciences, iwaswondering.org encourages young people, 

especially girls, to pursue an interest in science. Lia, the 

teenage cartoon character who hosts the site, guides visitors 

through interactive resources and activities designed for 

middle school students. The site also includes science labs, 

games, and a parent-teacher guide. Iwaswondering.org 

is the companion website to the Women’s Adventures in 

Science book series. The website and book series showcase 

the accomplishments of contemporary women in science 

and highlight the careers of some of today’s most prominent 

scientists. Visit www.iwaswondering.org and start inspiring 

future scientists today. 

are awarded for this three-day program. Attendees should 

be involved with industrial, contractor, or maintenance 

spray finishing applications, or spray equipment 

sales and distribution. To register or for additional 

information, contact Jaime Wineland at 800-466-9367 or 

sprayworkshop@netscape.net. Information is also available 

online at www.owens.edu/workforce_cs/seminars.html. 

June 2-6, 2007 An international technology education 

conference, Concepts and Standards of the Technology 

Education in Secondary Schools, will be held in Ulaanbaatar, 

Mongolia. Official languages of the conference are English 

and Mongolian. Contact Professor Z. Ulziikhutag, Head 

of Technology Education and Fine Art Department of the 

Mongolian State University of Education, at ulziikhutag@ 

msue.edu.mn for details. Or visit www.msue.edu.mn/ 

icte-ub2007.htm. 

Calendar 

April 6, 2 007 The Annual USM/TEAM Spring Conference 

will take place at the John Mitchell Center, University of 

Southern Maine, Gorham Campus. Contact this year’s 

organizers, Dr. Robert Nannay at nannay@usm.maine.edu 

or Mark Dissell at mdissell@fps.k12.me.us, for information. 

April 10-11, 2007 The Triangle Coalition for Science and 

Technology Education will host its annual legislative update 

conference at the Hilton Hotel in the heart of Old Town 

Alexandria, VA. General and reservation information may 

be obtained at www.hilton.com/en/hi/groups/personalized/ 

dcaothf_atc/index.jhtml. 

April 13-14, 2007 The Great Moonbuggy Race, sponsored 

by Northrop Grumman. Visit http://moonbuggy.msfc.nasa. 

gov/index.html for information, or contact Coordinator, 

Durlean Bradford, at 256-961-1335 or durlean.bradford@ 

msfc.nasa.gov. 

May 3-4, 2007 The 2007 TEANJ Technology Conference 

& Expo, Enhancing Technology, Engineering, Science, 

and Mathematics, will be held at the Teaneck Marriott 

at Glenpointe. Workshop descriptions and registration 

information can be found at www.teanj.org/conference/ 

TEANJ/index.htm. All NJ teachers, counselors, supervisors, 

administrators, and other professionals are welcome and 

encouraged to attend. 

May 16-18, 2007 DeVilbiss, Binks and Owens Community 

college will present a Spray Finishing Technology 

Workshop in Toledo, OH. Two continuing education units 

June 15, 2007 Deadline for applications to present at 

the 70 th Annual ITEA Conference, February 21-23, 2008. 

The conference theme is “Teaching TIDE With Pride.” 

Information is available on the ITEA website at www. 

iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent.htm. 

June 21-27, 2007 The PATT-18: Pupils’ Attitudes 

Towards Technology, International Design and Technology 

Education Conference, “Teaching and Learning Technological 

Literacy in the Classroom,” will be held in 

Glasgow, Scotland. For further information about the 

conference or presentation opportunities, contact the 

Conference Director, John Dakers, at jdakers@educ. 

gla.ac.uk. 

June 24-28, 2007 The 29 th Annual National TSA 

Conference, TSA, Breaking Down the Boundaries, 

will be held at the Gaylord Opryland Resort 

and Convention Center in Nashville, TN. The 

conference will feature high school and middle 

school competitive events, a one-day Education 

Fair, and the DuPont Leadership Academy. Visit 

www.tsaweb.org/content.asp?contentid=407 

for complete information. Or contact Donna 

Andrews, TSA Conference Manager, at: 

dandrews@tsaweb.org; 703-860-9000 (ex. 15); 

703-758-4852 fax. 

June 29-July 3, 2007 The sixth CRIPT 

International Primary Design and Technology Conference 

will be held in Birmingham, England. It brings together 


educators from all continents to discuss 

the latest developments in this worldwide 

developing area. Papers for publication 

must be sent by March 31, 2007. Contact 

Professor Clare Benson at clare.benson@ 

uce.ac.uk for further details or visit www. 

ed.uce.ac.uk/cript. 

July 8-13, 2007 The World Conference 

on Science and Technology Education, 

hosted by the International Council 

of Associations for Science Education 

(ICASE) and the Australian Science 

Teachers Association (ASTA), will be held 

in Perth, Western Australia. Information 

can be found at www.worldste2007.asn.au/. 

July 16-19, 2007 The Texas CTE 

Professional Development Conference 

for the Clusters of Science, Technology, 

Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) 

and Manufacturing—“AchieveTexas, 

Embracing The Challenge”—will be held 

at the Wyndham Arlington-DFW Airport 

South Hotel in Arlington, Texas. For more 

information, visit www.ingenuitycenter. 

com or contact Julie Moore at 903-566- 

7378 or juliemoore@ingenuitycenter.com. 

July 25-28, 2007 The National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards’ NBPTS 

National Conference & Exposition, Making 

Connections: Linking Teaching and 

Leadership, will take place at the Hilton 

Washington Hotel in Washington, DC. 

Details are available at www.nbpts.org/ 

about_us/events. 

October 11-13, 2007 The state of 

New Hampshire will host the NEATT 

conference in Worcester, MA. For 

immediate updates, check the TEAM 

website at http://maineteched.org. 

List your State/Province Association Conference 

in TTT and TrendScout (ITEA’s 

electronic newsletter). Submit conference 

title, date(s), location, and contact information 

(at least two months prior 

to journal publication date) to kcluff@ 

iteaconnect.org. 


You & ITEA 

M ark Y our Calendar N ow for I TE A ’s 70 

th 

A nnual Conference! 

Plan to attend this historic 70 th ITEA Conference in 

beautiful Salt Lake City, Utah. Conference dates are 

February 21-23, 2008. The conference theme is Teaching 

“TIDE” with Pride! Technology, Innovation, Design, 

Engineering—four simple words forming the acronym 

TIDE. TIDE indicates that technology education is not just 

about computers. The concepts and principles underlying 

TIDE, while not designed as preparation for any one 

specific career or area of future study, articulate the content 

and strategies included in the study of technology and 

engineering. These concepts and principles provide a base 

for the pursuit of a wide range of future endeavors that 

utilize the TIDE knowledge, skills, and attitudes. 

Now is also the time to consider presenting at the Salt Lake 

Conference—the deadline for submission of the Application 

to Present is June 15, 2007. The form can be accessed from 

the ITEA website at http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/ 

survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB225T6VQPX9B. 

When developing presentation proposals for the 2008 

ITEA Conference, applicants should focus on the TIDE 

concept as they address one of the following conference 

theme strand areas: 

• Strand 1: Developing Professionals 

• Strand 2: Realizing Excellence 

• Strand 3: Planning Learning 

• Strand 4: Measuring Progress 

ITE A Council Leadership 

Current officers for the ITEA Councils: 

Council for Supervisors 

Greg Kane 

Lynn Basham 

Barry Burke, DTE 

Council on Technology Teacher Education 

Richard Seymour 

Marie Hoepfl 

Brian McAlister 

Phillip Reed 

Michael DeMiranda 

Technology Education for Children Council 

Jared Berrett 

Janis Churchill 

Wendy Ku 

Terri Varnado 

Sharon Brusic 

President 

Past-President 

Secretary/Treasurer 

President 

Vice President 

Treasurer 

Secretary 

Past President 

President 

Secretary 

Treasurer 

VP Communications 

VP Program 


Work Measurements: Interdisciplinary 

Overlap in Manufacturing and Algebra I 

By Mary Annette Rose 

Carefully planning, estimating, 

and controlling manufacturing 

costs requires engineers to 

employ a variety of algebra 

concepts and skills. 

Students analyzed drilling procedures by measuring the 

performance time and calculating the labor costs 

associated with three different drilling tools. 

anufacturing and pre-engineering curricula help 

M 

students develop knowledge and skills directly 

relevant to the roles and responsibilities of industrial 

and manufacturing engineers. According to the 

Occupational Outlook Handbook (Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2005), 

…industrial engineers determine the most 

effective ways to use the basic factors of 

production—people, machines, materials, 

information, and energy—to make a product or 

to provide a service… To solve organizational, 

production, and related problems efficiently, 

industrial engineers carefully study the product 

requirements, use mathematical methods to 

meet those requirements, and design manufacturing 

and information systems. They 

develop management control systems to aid in 

financial planning and cost analysis, and design 

production planning and control systems to 

coordinate activities and ensure product quality 

(Nature of the Work, p.16). 

Curricular content within high school manufacturing 

courses familiarize students with many of the techniques 

that engineers use to optimize productivity while minimizing 

costs, such as designing fixtures, planning work 

flow, and taking work measurements. The knowledge and 

skills required to mathematically model and analyze data 

generated from these activities are taught within high school 

algebra curriculum. This timely coincidence presents an 

opportunity for technology and algebra teachers to plan and 

coordinate interdisciplinary learning activities that reinforce 

mutual goals for their students. 


Interdisciplinary Project 

The following interdisciplinary learning activity was 

originally implemented as a Tech Prep project at Norview 

High School, Norfolk, Virginia. The project occurred over 

three days within 1 ½-hour blocks; total activity time was 

4 ½ hours. This cooperative learning project required 

students enrolled in Manufacturing Technology and Algebra 

I to share their technical and mathematical expertise 

for the purpose of demonstrating how this knowledge 

and skill applies in real-world contexts. As with other 

interdisciplinary projects (Wicklein & Schell, 1995, for 

example), the goal was to require students to actively apply 

their content knowledge outside their respective disciplinary 

boundaries, and thereby increase their interest in studying 

manufacturing and algebra. 

Initial discussions between the manufacturing and algebra 

teachers generated a substantial list of key opportunities to 

apply algebra concepts within the manufacturing technology 

curriculum. Consideration of students’ developing expertise 

and a comparison of semester calendars quickly identified 

a window of opportunity to mutually enhance curricular 

goals by solving equations relevant to methods, planning, 

and work-measurement tasks of manufacturing engineers. 

Specifically, groups of students compared the performance 

and cost characteristics of three increasingly sophisticated 

manufacturing processes by using symbolic representation 

and algebraic processes. For example, students analyzed 

drilling processes by measuring the performance time and 

calculating the labor costs associated with three different 

drilling tools, including a human-powered hand drill, a 

portable electric drill, and a drill press. 

Learning Objectives 

Upon completion of the interdisciplinary activity, Manufacturing 

Technology and Algebra I students were able to: 

1. Identify and discuss the responsibilities of manufacturing 

engineers regarding methods, planning, and work 

measurement. 

2. Safely perform manufacturing processes using three 

different tools that vary in their level of technical 

sophistication. 

3. Organize real-time data gathered through work 

measurements of manufacturing processes into matrices. 

4. Apply formulae and solve equations and inequalities. 

5. Discuss the interconnected nature of manufacturing 

engineering and algebra. 

6. Draw conclusions about the appropriateness of tool 

selection based on the results of work measurements. 

Standards for Technological Literacy 

(ITEA, 2000/2002) 

Standard 12. Students will develop the abilities 

to use and maintain technological products 

and systems. 

Standard 19. Students will develop an understanding 

of and be able to select and use 

manufacturing technologies. 

Selected Expectations from Standards for 

School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) 

In Grades 9-12 all students should— 

• Recognize and apply mathematics in contexts 

outside of mathematics 

• Communicate their mathematical thinking 

coherently and clearly to peers, teachers, and 

others 

• Use symbolic algebra to represent and explain 

mathematical relationships 

• Develop fluency in operations with real numbers, 

vectors, and matrices, using mental computation 

or paper-and-pencil calculations for simple cases 

and technology for more complicated cases 

Figure 1. Alignment to national standards. 

As indicated in Figure 1, these objectives reflect Standards 

for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000/2002) and Standards 

for School Mathematics (NCTM, 2000). 

Planning the A ctivity 

Preparing for this activity involved several logistical 

concerns, such as planning the optimal sequence of content, 

evaluating safety precautions, and envisioning efficient and 

understandable strategies for coordinating 40 students. The 

most time-consuming aspect of planning, however, was 

preparing multiple workstations to accommodate groups 

of four to five students within the manufacturing lab. Each 

workstation included the tools, tooling, and materials to 

perform an operation, such as drilling or irregular sawing. 

Three workstations were aligned to demonstrate three 

different levels of sophistication of the same process; Table 1 

illustrates five such combinations of tools. In addition, each 

workstation included a stopwatch for measuring process 

time, safety glasses and safety guards, a calculator, and a 


time-analysis sheet that incorporated prompts for student 

names and a 3 x 3 table for recording the operation cycle 

time for three tools. A customized methods instruction 

or operation sheet was included at each station. As 

illustrated in Table 2, methods sheets included step-by-step 

instructions taken to perform a specific process. 

D ay 1—Building Expertise 

Instruction on the first day of the activity occurred within 

separate classrooms. The two teachers independently: 

(1) introduced the interdisciplinary learning activity; (2) 

enhanced students’ knowledge, skills, and confidence 

within their own content domain; and (3) assigned students 

to roles. Within the manufacturing class, this meant that 

students were assigned to the role of methods engineer, 

industrial trainer, and maintenance supervisor. As methods 

engineers, students prepared and tested the tooling 

(fixtures or templates) for three interrelated workstations. 

As trainers, students prepared to teach their algebra 

peers how to safely perform three operations according 

to the methods instruction sheet. Students also served as 

maintenance supervisors by learning how to repair and 

return workstations to preoperation setups. 

Concurrently, algebra students were informed that they 

would apply their new algebraic understanding of variables 

and inequalities to real-time data that would be acquired 

during a joint project with manufacturing students. To 

prepare for this activity, algebra students: 

1. Reviewed the formula and variables for computing a 

mathematical average or mean. 

2. Identified the variables, equations, and inequalities 

employed for this time and cost activity. 

3. Reviewed axioms for transforming equations and solving 

inequalities. 

4. Applied the rules for organizing a matrix (e.g., each 

variable forms a column) to the variables of this activity. 

In addition, algebra students were informed that during 

the activity they would assume the role of a workstation 

operator, time analyst, or cost estimator. Workstation 

operators would learn how to safely perform an operation 

from a manufacturing student, and then perform this 

operation a minimum of three times. Time analysts 

would measure the time it takes to complete three cycles 

(performances) of an operation, then demonstrate how to 

represent and calculate the average time it takes to complete 

an operation. Cost estimators would teach manufacturing 

students how to organize data into a matrix and how to 

solve for an unknown variable using a formula (is that 

inequality) for comparing the cost of capital investment in 

tools to the costs of labor. 

Time analysts would measure the time it takes to complete 

three cycles of an operation. 

Technological Sophistication Level 

Process Low Moderate High 

Drilling a hole Hand Drill Power Drill Drill Press 

Driving a screw Screwdriver Brace and Bit Screw Shooter 

Irregular cutting Coping Saw Saber Saw Band Saw 

Crosscutting Hand Saw Back Saw - Miter Box Radial Arm Saw 

Ceramic cutting Tile Saw Roto-Zip Spiral Saw Circular Tile Saw 

Table 1. Process stations. 


Operation Drill hole in Spacer Tool Drill Press 

Part Name and Number Spacer, F-3 Tool Cost $399.00 

Part Description 

Tooling 

Safety Rules 

¾" x 2" x 4" pine with centered 1/8" hole 

1/8" Twist Drill Bit 

Fixture (positions stock on table) 

1. Always wear eye protection. 

2. Secure long hair, necklaces, and dangling objects away from the chuck. 

3. Secure the stock to the table before drilling. 

4. Stay at the drill press until all parts have reached a dead stop. 

Step Number and Description 

1. With the power on, select standard stock and secure stock against the fixture. 

2. Rotate the crank handle to move the drill bit completely through the stock. 

3. Reverse the crank handle to extract the bit from the hole. 

4. Remove the workpiece. 

Table 2. Example of methods instruction or operation sheet. 

D ay 2—Work M easurements 

On the second day of the activity, all students met in 

the manufacturing lab for an overview of the roles and 

responsibilities of manufacturing engineers, especially as 

they relate to methods engineers, planning specialists, and 

time standard analysts. Koenig (1994) differentiates these 

roles: 

Methods engineers create the broad-based 

sequence for producing the part. The planning 

specialists then create the detailed instruction 

sheet from which the operator will do the 

work. The time standard analysts work with the 

method sheets to determine the time it should 

take to perform each operation. (p. 171) 

It was further explained that the manufacturing students 

had performed several tasks of the methods engineer in 

preparation for this interdisciplinary activity. Specifically, 

manufacturing students made and tested tooling (e.g., 

fixture or template), which helped workstation operators 

produce consistent results (size and shape). An example of 

a methods instruction sheet was presented and its elements 

were discussed. It was noted that a primary function of a 

methods instruction sheet was to standardize the conditions 

of an operation, thus facilitating the measurement of 

performance and the coordination of many operations. 

The orientation concluded by challenging students to work 

in cooperative groups to conduct time analyses of three 

operations in order to determine the average cycle time it 

takes for a trained worker to complete an operation. A cycle 

was defined as a chronological sequence of steps for a single 

operation outlined on the methods instruction sheet. 

At this time, students were directed to move to their colorcoded 

workstations. Upon arrival, they were directed to 

introduce themselves to their group and record their names 

on the group’s time analysis sheet. After quickly reviewing 

their roles, the students assumed their responsibilities. 

Specifically, manufacturing students alternated between 

roles as the industrial trainer and maintenance supervisor. 

The trainer demonstrated the proper and safe performance 

of an operation according to the methods instruction 

sheet and monitored the performance of the operator. 

After completion of the operation, the trainer served as 

maintenance supervisor and reorganized the workstation 

to a startup condition for the next group. Algebra students 

alternately served as workstation operators and time 

analysts. The operator learned the operation from the 

trainer and then safely performed the step-by-step operation 

through three complete cycles. The time analyst used a 

stopwatch to accurately time and record three cycles of 

the operation on the time analysis sheet. Student groups 

continued this sequence until time measurements had been 

conducted on three tools. 

After time measurements were complete, algebra students 

were directed to present and explain the formula for 

computing an arithmetic average or mean: 

M = ( ∑ T ) / N 

where M = mean, ∑ = the sum of, T = time of operation, 

and N = number of operation cycles. Under the guidance 

of the algebra students, the manufacturing students applied 

the formula to solve and record the average operation time 

for all three operations. It was emphasized that the value of 

calculating the average time to complete an operation was 

to generate data that a manufacturing engineer could use 

for further mathematical analyses that could inform cost 


estimates and decisions about tool purchases, workstation 

design, and production flow. 

D ay 3—Estimating Costs U sing A pplied A lgebra 

An overview of the final day’s activities included a review 

of manufacturing engineering roles and an examination 

of how algebra skills are used to inform cost-related 

decisions in manufacturing engineering. The review 

consisted of questions that guided group discussion, 

including: 

1. What are the primary goals of a manufacturing engineer? 

How do the responsibilities and skills of a methods 

engineer, planning specialist, and time analyst differ? 

2. What strategies do engineers use to ensure the 

consistent and efficient manufacture of products? 

Discuss tooling (fixtures and templates) and a methods 

instruction sheet. 

3. What algebra concepts and procedures do time analysts 

employ? Discuss symbolic representation, variables, 

and equations. 

After ample time for discussion, students were reminded 

that a primary goal of a manufacturing company is to sell 

their manufactured products to make a profit. Typically, 

the finance department of a company oversees the balance 

of costs (e.g., materials, energy, labor, and equipment), 

market price, and profits. However, estimating, reducing, 

and controlling the costs of manufacturing a product lie 

within the purview of manufacturing engineers. So, in 

addition to the technical aspects of processing materials, 

engineers must possess the skill to apply many mathematical 

processes (e.g., capacity or break-even analysis) to inform 

cost decisions. For instance, the decisions engineers make 

about which equipment will be purchased for a workstation 

directly impact the cost of the labor required to perform the 

operation. Carefully planning, estimating, and controlling 

manufacturing costs requires engineers to employ a variety 

of algebra concepts and skills, including using symbolic 

expressions to represent costs, organizing costs into 

matrices, and solving equations to estimate costs. 

At this point, workstation groups were offered the following 

challenge: Conduct a cost analysis of three tools that could 

be selected for a manufacturing operation. Specifically, 

this analysis should determine at what point (i.e., number 

of cycles) the cost of labor is greater than the cost of the 

tool, then offer recommendations about the purchase of 

equipment or the process of conducting a cost analysis. 

Students were reminded to assume the role of cost 

estimators. Specifically, algebra students explained and 

demonstrated how to identify the variables of the problem, 

assign symbols to all variables, organize the data into a 

matrix, represent the problem as an inequality, and then 

solve the inequality. Manufacturing students constructed 

a matrix, recorded proper values, and then calculated the 

solution to the problem as represented in Table 3. 

Upon completion of the calculations, each group discussed 

and responded to the following questions: 

1. When might a manufacturing engineer select a less costly 

or more costly tool for an operation? 

2. What workstation costs were not included in this cost 

analysis? Discuss costs related to the characteristics 

Tool 

Operation 

Time 1 

(T) 

(in secs) 

Labor Rate 2 

(R) 

(per hour) 

Labor Cost 3 

(L) (per sec) 

Labor Cost 

(LC) (per 

operation) 

Tool Cost 

(TC) 

When is Labor Cost 

≥ Tool Cost? 

1 

2 

3 

R / 3600 

L x T 

LC(N) ≥ TC 

N = # of operations 

1 

Time = Average or mean time of three trials 

2 

Labor Rate = Minimal Wage 

3 

3600 seconds = 60 minutes = 1 hour 

Table 3. Matrix of process time, labor costs, and tool costs. 

10 • The Technology Teacher • April 2007

of the tool, including reliability (maintenance costs), 

learnability (training costs), and energy efficiency 

(energy costs). 

3. How might the inequality change to account for these 

other cost factors? 

A ssessment 

Student learning was assessed using three strategies: a group 

performance assessment, a group product assessment, 

and an individual objective test. The performance of 

workstation groups was assessed using a rubric. The rubric 

included criteria for each major responsibility related to 

student roles, i.e., methods engineer, industrial trainer, 

maintenance supervisor, workstation operator, time analyst, 

and cost estimator. For instance, the explanations and 

demonstrations offered by the manufacturing students 

during their stints as industrial trainers were assessed for 

the accurate and complete description of the procedure 

to safely operate a specific tool. The workstation group 

was also assessed on the accuracy and completeness of its 

matrix (see Table 3), as well as the group’s response to the 

discussion questions. Finally, newly formed understandings 

of manufacturing (e.g., tooling and cycle time) and algebra 

concepts (e.g., matrix and variables) and procedures (solving 

inequalities) were assessed through an objective test 

implemented separately within their respective classrooms. 

Conclusion 

Manufacturing engineering provides a relevant context from 

which to envision interdisciplinary learning experiences 

because engineers integrate their knowledge and skills of 

manufacturing and algebra processes in order to plan the 

efficient manufacture of products. The interdisciplinary 

activity described here required manufacturing and algebra 

students to alternately share (teach) their disciplinary 

expertise and apply this new skill directly to an engineering 

scenario. This project enabled manufacturing and algebra 

students to take systematic measurements of manufacturing 

operations and then analyze this data using algebraic 

processes. 

Casting students in the role of teachers appeared to have 

a positive influence upon the students’ motivation and 

achievement. For instance, manufacturing students who had 

previously demonstrated apathy toward course goals rose 

to the challenge of teaching algebra students how to safely 

operate equipment. Undoubtedly, this positive teaching 

experience boosted self-confidence and contributed to 

manufacturing students’ willingness to accept instruction 

from other students as well as their persistence in learning 

how to accurately apply algebraic processes. 

Although there were several learning benefits to 

implementing this interdisciplinary project, there were 

also challenges. Planning interdisciplinary projects 

requires additional planning time to negotiate a mutually 

agreeable learning activity with mathematics teachers. 

Familiarizing oneself with the algebra curriculum prior to 

initial discussions will facilitate this process. Additional 

time is also needed to prepare instructional materials and 

make adjustments in the learning environment to safely 

accommodate increased class size. 

Interdisciplinary learning activities are well worth the 

effort because they offer excellent opportunities to enhance 

student learning while positioning the technology program 

as a strong advocate for mathematics education. 

R eferences 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 

(2005). Engineers. Occupational outlook handbook, 2006- 

07 Edition. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from www.bls.gov/ 

oco/ocos027.htm. 

International Technology Education Association. 

(2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content 

for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. 

Koenig, D.T. (1994). Manufacturing engineering: Principles 

for optimization, 2 nd ed. Washington, DC: Taylor & 

Francis. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). 

Principles and standards for school mathematics: An 

overview. Reston, VA: Author. 

Wicklein, R.C. & Schell, J.W. (1995). Case studies of 

multidisciplinary approaches to integrating mathematics, 

science, & technology education. Journal of Technology 

Education, 6(2). Retrieved May 20, 2006, from http:// 

scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v6n2/wicklein.jtev6n2.html 

Mary Annette Rose, Ed.D., is an assistant 

professor in the Department of Technology 

at Ball State University, Muncie, IN. She 

can be reached via email at arose@bsu.edu. 

Special thanks are extended to Risa Gatlin, 

algebra teacher, who jointly implemented 

this project with the author. 

This is a refereed article. 


Resources in Technology 

Designer Babies: 

Eugenics Repackaged or Consumer Options? 

By Stephen L. Baird 

The forces pushing humanity towards 

attempts at self-modification, through 

biological and technological advances, 

are powerful, seductive ones that we 

will be hard-pressed to resist. 

lmost three decades ago, on July 25, 1978, Louise 

A 

Brown, the first “test-tube baby” was born. The world’s 

first “test-tube” baby arrived amid a storm of protest 

and hand-wringing about science gone amok, humananimal 

hybrids, and the rebirth of eugenics. But the voices 

of those opposed to the procedure were silenced when 

Brown was born. She was a happy, healthy infant, and her 

parents were thrilled. The doctors who helped to create her, 

Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards, could not have been 

more pleased. She was the first person ever created outside 

a woman’s body and was as natural a baby as had ever 

entered the world. Today in vitro fertilization (IVF) is often 

the unremarkable choice of tens of thousands of infertile 

couples whose only complaint is that the procedure is too 

difficult, uncertain, and expensive. What was once so deeply 

disturbing now seems to many people just another part of 

the modern world. Will the same be said one day of children 

with genetically enhanced intelligence, endurance, and other 

traits? Or will such attempts—if they occur at all—lead to 

extraordinary problems that are looked back upon as the 

ultimate in twenty-first century hubris? (Stock, 2006.) 

Sugar 

Phosphate 

Backbone 

Base pair 

Nitrogeous 

base 

Artist Darryl Leja 

Courtesy of National Human Genome Research Institute (NNGRI) 

www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/dna.html 

Figure 1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The chemical inside 

the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions, or blueprints, 

for making all the structures and materials the body needs 

to function. 

Soon we may be altering the genes of our children to 

engineer key aspects of their character and physiology. 

The ethical and social consequences will be profound. 

We are standing at the threshold of an extraordinary, yet 

troubling, scientific dawn that has the potential to alter the 

very fabric of our lives, challenging what it means to be 

human, and perhaps redesigning our very selves. We are fast 

approaching the most consequential technological threshold 

in all of human history: the ability to alter the genes we 

pass to our children. Genetic engineering is already being 

carried out successfully on nonhuman animals. The gene 

that makes jellyfish fluorescent has been inserted into mice 


embryos, resulting in glow-in-the-dark rodents. Other mice 

have had their muscle mass increased, or have been made to 

be more faithful to their partners, through the insertion of 

a gene into their normal genetic make-up. But this method 

of genetic engineering is thus far inefficient. In order to 

produce one fluorescent mouse, several go wrong and are 

born deformed. If human babies are ever to be engineered, 

the process would have to become far more efficient, as 

no technique involving the birth of severely defective 

human beings to create a “genetically enhanced being” will 

hopefully ever be tolerated by our society (Designing, 2005). 

Once humans begin genetically engineering their children 

for desired traits, we will have crossed a threshold of no 

return. The communities of the world are just beginning 

to understand the full implications of the new human 

genetic technologies. There are few civil society institutions, 

and there are no social or political movements, critically 

addressing the immense social, cultural, and psychological 

challenges these technologies pose. 

Until recently, the time scale for measuring change in the 

biological world has been tens of thousands, if not millions 

of years, but today it is hard to imagine what humans may 

be like in a few hundred years. The forces pushing humanity 

toward attempts at self-modification, through biological 

and technological advances, are powerful, seductive ones 

that we will be hard-pressed to resist. Some will curse these 

new technologies, sounding the death knell for humanity, 

envisioning the social, cultural, and moral collapse of 

our society and perhaps our civilization. Others see the 

same technologies as the ability to take charge of our own 

evolution, to transcend human limitations, and to improve 

ourselves as a species. As the human species moves out of 

its childhood, it is time to acknowledge our technological 

capabilities and to take responsibility for them. We have 

little choice, as the reweaving of the fabric of our genetic 

makeup has already begun. 

The Basic Science 

Biological entities are comprised of millions of cells. Each 

cell has a nucleus, and inside every nucleus are strings of 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA carries the complete 

information regarding the function and structure of 

organisms ranging from plants and animals to bacterium. 

Genes, which are sequences of DNA, determine an 

organism’s growth, size, and other characteristics. Genes 

are the vehicle by which species transfer inheritable 

characteristics to successive generations. Genetic 

engineering is the process of artificially manipulating these 

inheritable characteristics. 

Genetic engineering in its broadest sense has been around 

for thousands of years, since people first recognized that 

they could mate animals with specific characteristics to 

produce offspring with desirable traits and use agricultural 

seed selectively. In 1863, Mendel, in his study of peas, 

discovered that traits were transmitted from parents to 

progeny by discrete, independent units, later called genes. 

His observations laid the groundwork for the field of 

genetics (Genetic, 2006). 

Modern human genetic engineering entered the scientific 

realm in the nineteenth century with the introduction 

of Eugenics. Although not yet technically considered 

“genetic engineering,” it represented society’s first attempt 

to scientifically alter the human evolutionary process. The 

practice of human genetic engineering is considered by some 

to have had its beginnings with in vitro fertilization (IVF) 

in 1978. IVF paved the way for preimplantation genetic 

diagnosis (PGD), also referred to as preimplantation genetic 

selection (PGS). PGD is the process by which an embryo 

is microscopically examined for signs of genetic disorders. 

Several genetically based diseases can now be identified, such 

as Downs Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Sickle Cell Anemia, 

Cystic Fibrosis, and Huntington’s disease. There are many 

others that can be tested for, and both medical and scientific 

institutes are constantly searching for and developing new 

tests. For these tests, no real genetic engineering is taking 

place; rather, single cells are removed from embryos using 

the same process as used during in vitro fertilization. These 

cells are then examined to identify which are carrying the 

genetic disorder and which are not. The embryos that have 

the genetic disorder are discarded, those that are free of 

the disorder are implanted into the woman’s uterus in the 

hope that a baby will be born without the genetic disorder. 

This procedure is fairly uncontroversial except with those 

critics who argue that human life starts at conception 

and therefore the embryo is sacrosanct and should not be 

tampered with. Another use for this technique is gender 

selection, which is where the issue becomes slightly more 

controversial. Some disorders or diseases are genderspecific, 

so instead of testing for the disease or disorder, the 

gender of the embryo is determined and whichever gender 

is “undesirable” is discarded. This brings up ethical issues 

of gender selection and the consequences for the gender 

balance of the human species. 

A more recent development is the testing of the embryos for 

tissue matching. The embryos are tested for a tissue match 

with a sibling that has already developed, or is in danger of 

developing, a genetic disease or disorder. The purpose is 

to produce a baby who can be a tissue donor. This type of 


procedure was successfully used to cure a six-year-old-boy 

of a rare blood disorder after transplanting cells from his 

baby brother, who was created to save him. Doctors say the 

technique could be used to help many other children with 

blood and metabolic disorders, but critics say creating a 

baby in order to treat a sick sibling raises ethical questions 

(Genetic, 2006). 

The child, Charlie Whitaker, from Derbyshire, England, 

was born with Diamond Blackfan Anemia, a condition that 

prevented him from creating his own red blood cells. He 

needed transfusions every three weeks and drug infusions 

nearly every night. His condition was cured by a transplant 

of cells from the umbilical cord of his baby brother Jamie, 

who was genetically selected to be a donor after his parents’ 

embryos were screened to find one with a perfect tissue 

match. Three months after his transplant, Charlie’s doctors 

said that he was cured of Diamond Blackfan Anemia, and 

the prognosis is that Charlie can now look forward to a 

normal quality of life (Walsh, 2004). Is this the beginning of 

a slippery slope toward “designer” or “spare parts” babies, or 

is the result that there are now two healthy, happy children 

instead of one very sick child a justification to pursue 

and continue procedures such as this one? Policymakers 

and ethicists are just beginning to pay serious attention. 

A recent working paper by the President’s Council on 

Bioethics noted that “as genomic knowledge increases and 

more genes are identified that correlate with diseases, the 

applications for PGD will likely increase greatly,” including 

diagnosing and treating medical conditions such as cancer, 

mental illness, or asthma, and nonmedical traits such as 

temperament or height. “While currently a small practice,” 

the Council’s working paper declares, “PGD is a momentous 

development. It represents the first fusion of genomics and 

assisted reproduction—effectively opening the door to the 

genetic shaping of offspring (Rosen, 2003). 

In one sense PGD poses no new eugenic dangers. Genetic 

screening using amniocentesis has allowed parents to test 

the fitness of potential offspring for years. But PGD is poised 

to increase this power significantly: It will allow parents 

to choose the child they want, not simply reject the ones 

they do not want. It will change the overriding purpose of 

IVF, from a treatment for fertility to being able to pick and 

choose embryos like consumer goods—producing many, 

discarding most, and desiring only the chosen few. 

The next step in disease elimination is to attempt to refine a 

process known as “human germline engineering” or “human 

germline modification.” Whereas preimplantation genetic 

diagnosis (PGD) affects only the immediate offspring, 

germline engineering seeks to affect the genes that are 

carried in the ova and sperm, thus eliminating the disease or 

disorder from all future generations, making it no longer 

inheritable. The possibilities for germline engineering go 

beyond the elimination of disease and open the door for 

modifications to human longevity, increased intelligence, 

increased muscle mass, and many other types of genetic 

enhancements. This application is by far the more 

consequential, because it opens the door to the alteration of 

the human species. The modified genes would appear not 

only in any children that resulted from such procedures, but 

in all succeeding generations. 

The term germline refers to the germ or germinal cells, i.e., 

the eggs and sperm. Genes are strings of chemicals that 

help create the proteins that make up the body. They are 

found in long coiled chains called chromosomes located 

in the nuclei of the cells of the body. Genetic modification 

occurs by inserting genes into living cells. The desired gene 

is attached to a viral vector, which has the ability to carry 

the gene across the cell membrane. Proposals for inheritable 

genetic modification in humans combine techniques 

involving in vitro fertilization, gene transfer, stem cells, and 

cloning. Germline modification would begin by using IVF 

to create a single-cell embryo or zygote. This embryo would 

develop for about five days to the blastocyst stage (very early 

embryo consisting of approximately 150 cells. It contains 

the inner cell mass, from which embryonic stem cells are 

derived, and an outer layer of cells called the trophoblast 

that forms the placenta. (It is approximately 1/10 the size of 

the head of a pin.) At this point embryonic stem cells would 

be removed. (Figure 2) These stem cells would be altered by 

adding genes using viral vectors. Colonies of altered stem 

cells would be grown and tested for successful incorporation 

of the new genes. Cloning techniques would be used to 

transfer a successfully modified stem cell nucleus into an 

enucleated egg cell. This “constructed embryo” would then 

be implanted into a woman’s uterus and brought to term. 

The child born would be a genetically modified human 

(Inheritable, 2003). 

Proponents of germline manipulation assume that once 

a gene implicated in a particular condition is identified, it 

might be appropriate and relatively easy to replace, change, 

supplement, or otherwise modify that gene. However, 

biological characteristics or traits usually depend on interactions 

among many genes and, more importantly, the 

activity of genes is affected by various processes that occur 

both inside the organism and in its surroundings. This 

means that scientists cannot predict the full effect that 

any gene modification will have on the traits of people or 

other organisms. 


Artist Darryl Leja 

Courtesy of National Human Genome Research Institute (NNGRI) 

www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/blastocyst.html 

Sperm 

There is no universally accepted ideal of biological 

perfection. To make intentional changes in the genes that 

people will pass on to their descendants would require 

that we, as a society, agree on how to classify “good” and 

“bad” genes. We do not have the necessary criteria, nor 

are there mechanisms for establishing such measures. 

Any formulation of such criteria would inevitably reflect 

particular current social biases. The definition of the 

standards and the technological means for implementing 

them would largely be determined by economically and 

socially privileged groups (Human, 2004). 

Summary 

Egg (ovum) 

Fertilized egg 

Inner cell 

mass 

Blastocyst 

in cross section 

Figure 2. A preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by 

cell division following fertilization. The blastocyst is a sphere made 

up of an outer layer of cells (the trophoblast), a fluid-filled cavity 

(the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the inner 

cell mass). 

“Designer babies” is a term used by journalists and 

commentators—not by scientists—to describe several 

different reproductive technologies. These technologies have 

one thing in common: they give parents more control over 

what their offspring will be like. Designer babies are made 

possible by progress in three fields: 

1. Advanced Reproductive Technologies. In the decades 

since the first “test tube baby” was born, reproductive 

medicine has helped countless women conceive and 

bear children. Today there are hundreds of thousands 

of humans who were conceived thanks to in vitro 

fertilization. Other advanced reproductive technologies 

include frozen embryos, egg and sperm donations, 

surrogate motherhood, pregnancies by older women, and 

the direct injection of a sperm cell into an egg. 

2. Cell and Chromosome Manipulation. The past decade 

has seen astonishing breakthroughs in our knowledge 

of cell structure. Our ability to transfer chromosomes 

(the long threads of DNA in each cell) has led to major 

developments in cloning. Our knowledge of stem cells 

will make many new therapies possible. As we learn more 

about how reproduction works at the cellular level, we 

will gain more control over the earliest stages of a baby’s 

development. 

3. Genetics and Genomics. With the mapping of the 

human genome, our understanding of how DNA affects 

human development is only just beginning. Someday 

we might be able to switch bits of DNA on or off as we 

wish, or replace sections of DNA at will; research in that 

direction is already well underway. 

Human reproduction is a complex process. There are 

many factors involved in the reproduction process: the 

genetic constitution of the parents, the condition of the 

parents’ egg and sperm, and the health and behavior of the 

impregnated mother. When you consider the enormous 

complexity of the human genome, with its billions of DNA 

pairs, it becomes clear that reproduction will always have 

an element of unpredictability. To a certain extent we have 

always controlled our children’s characteristics through 

the selection of mates. New technologies will give us more 

power to influence our children’s “design”—but our control 

will be far from total (Designer, 2002). 

Since the term “designer babies” is so imprecise, it is difficult 

to untangle its various meanings so as to make judgments 

about which techniques are acceptable. Several different 

techniques have been discussed, such as screening embryos 

for high-risk diseases, selecting the sex of a baby, picking 

an embryo for specific traits, genetic manipulation for 

therapeutic reasons, and genetic manipulation for cosmetic 

reasons. Although, to date, none of these techniques are 

feasible, recent scientific breakthroughs and continued 

work by the scientific community will eventually make each 

a possibility in the selection process for the best possible 

embryo for implantation. 

A rguments for D esigner Babies 

1. Using whatever techniques are available to help prevent 

certain genetic diseases will protect children from 

suffering debilitating diseases and deformities and reduce 

the financial and emotional strain on the parents. If we 

want the best for our children, why shouldn’t we use the 

technology? 

2. The majority of techniques available today can only be 

used by parents who need the help of fertility clinics to 

have children; since they are investing so much time and 

money in their effort to have a baby, shouldn’t they be 

entitled to a healthy one? 

3. A great many naturally conceived embryos are rejected 

from the womb for defects; by screening embryos, we are 

doing what nature would normally do for us. 


4. Imagine the reaction nowadays if organ transplantation 

were to be prohibited because it is “unnatural”—even 

though that is what some people called for when 

transplantation was a medical novelty. It is hard to see 

how the replacement of a defective gene is any less 

“natural” than the replacement of a defective organ. 

The major difference is the entirely beneficial one that 

medical intervention need occur only once around the 

time of conception, and the benefits would be inherited 

by the child and its descendants. 

A rguments A gainst D esigner Babies 

1. We could get carried away “correcting” perfectly 

healthy babies. Once we start down the slippery slope 

of eliminating embryos because they are diseased, what 

is to stop us from picking babies for their physical or 

psychological traits? 

2. There is always the looming shadow of eugenics. This was 

the motivation for some government policies in Europe 

and the United States in the first half of the twentieth 

century that included forced sterilizations, selective 

breeding, and “racial hygiene.” Techniques that could 

be used for designing babies will give us dangerous new 

powers to express our genetic preferences. 

3. There are major social concerns—such as: Will we breed 

a race of super humans who look down on those without 

genetic enhancements? Will these new technologies only 

be available to the wealthy—resulting in a lower class that 

will still suffer from inherited diseases and disabilities? 

Will discrimination against people already born with 

disabilities increase if they are perceived as genetically 

inferior? 

4. Tampering with the human genetic structure 

might actually have unintended and unpredictable 

consequences that could damage the gene pool. 

5. Many of the procedures related to designing babies 

involve terminating embryos; many disapprove of this on 

moral and religious grounds. 

As our technical abilities progress, citizens will have to 

cope with the ethical implications of designer babies, and 

governments will have to define a regulatory course. We will 

have to answer some fundamental questions: How much 

power should parents and doctors have over the design of 

their children? How much power should governments have 

over parents and doctors? These decisions should be made 

based on facts and on our social beliefs. 

A ctivity 

What better place to expose our students to a developing 

technology that could eventually change the genetic makeup 

of the human species and affect the dynamics of politics, 

economics, morals, and cultural beliefs of our society than 

the technology education classroom? 

Winoa Morrissette-Johnson, a high school teacher in 

Alexandria, Virginia has designed an excellent two-day 

lesson plan that will allow students to: 

1. Discover ethical issues surrounding the practice of 

genetic engineering in reproductive medicine. 

2. Understand key terms and concepts related to the science 

of genetic engineering. 

This lesson plan can be accessed at: http://school.discovery. 

com/lessonplans/programs/geneticengineering/ 

R eferences 

Designer Babies. (2002). The Center for the Study of 

Technology and Society. Retrieved September 14, 2006 

from www.tecsoc.org/biotech/focusbabies.htm 

Designing Babies: The Future of Genetics. (2005). BBC News. 

Retrieved September 22, 2006 from http://news.bbc. 

co.uk/1/hi/health/590919.stm 

Genetic Engineering and the Future of Human Evolution. 

(2006). Future Human Evolution Organization. Retrieved 

September 19, 2006 from www.human-evolution.org/ 

geneticbasics.php 

Human Germline Manipulation. (2004). Council for 

Responsible Genetics. Retrieved October 18, 2006 from 

www.gene-watch.org/programs/cloning/germlineposition.html 

Inheritable Genetic Modification. (2003). Center for 

Genetics and Society. Retrieved October 05, 2006 from 

www.gene-watch.org/programs/cloning/germlineposition.html 

Rosen, C. (2003). The New Atlantis. A Journal of Technology 

and Society. Retrieved October 14, 2006 from www. 

thenewatlantis.com/archive/2/rosen.htm 

Stock, G. (2005). Best Hope, Worst Fear. Human Germline 

Engineering. Retrieved October 05, 2006 from http:// 

research.arc2.ucla.edu/pmts/germline/bhwf.htm 

Walsh, F. (2004). Brother’s Tissue “Cures” Sick Boy. BBC 

News. Retrieved September 27, 2006 from http://news. 

bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3756556.stm 

Stephen L. Baird is a technology education 

teacher at Bayside Middle School, Virginia 

Beach, Virginia and adjunct faculty member 

at Old Dominion University. He can be 

reached via email at Stephen.Baird@ 

vbschools.com. 


Classroom Challenge 

The Jet Travel Challenge 

By Harry T. Roman 

Changing the basis of the process or 

product itself is called 

innovation, or a paradigm shift. 

revolutionary 

Introduction 

The foundation for all creative efforts is a real problem that 

needs to be solved. “Necessity is the mother of invention,” 

says the old bromide. 

Here is a real-world problem that tends to grate on every 

airplane traveler’s nerves. Who has not been dismayed by 

the long lines and seemingly chaotic activities that precede 

boarding a full airplane? How many of you have wondered if 

there might not be a better way to do all this? Surely, the one 

who can solve this problem is going to make many travelers 

happy. So why not challenge your students to create some 

alternatives to this now frustrating routine? 

In this challenge, the students should be open to: 

• Learning about airliner operation, and why and how the 

boarding process got to be the way it is. 

• Changing the way this boarding process is currently 

performed. 

• Developing new ideas for how airports are organized and 

run to promote a quicker, less frustrating way to board 

passengers. 

Who has not been dismayed by the…seemingly chaotic activities 

that precede boarding a full airplane? 

Essentially, the students are absolutely free to design a whole 

new way to board airline passengers. They can make the 

following assumptions: 

• Airport security rules will not be affected by their new 

process. 

• Passenger safety is not diminished in any way by changes. 

G etting Started 

Students should first understand why the loading of 

airliners is done the current way so as to gain perspective 

about how the process evolved and why. Is the passengerloading 

process the same for all airlines and different types 

of airplanes? 


e the same). Variations, modifications, or incremental 

improvements to an existing process or product is called 

evolutionary innovation. Changing the basis of the process 

or product itself is called revolutionary innovation, or a 

paradigm shift. Electric ranges were evolutionary changes 

to cooking on stoves. Microwave ovens were paradigm shifts 

to cooking. 

Students might consider redesigning the interior of the 

jetliner. 

Can the students speak to airline professionals or aeronautical 

engineers to learn about passenger-loading 

processes? Perhaps it may be possible to invite one or 

more such individuals into the classroom to talk about 

airplane design, operation, loading, and exiting. A visit 

to a local airport is also a possibility to observe airline 

operations firsthand. 

Might information be available from airplane manufacturers? 

Perhaps contacting the manufacturers might 

disclose relevant information about how airliners are 

designed and operated. Is there a college nearby that offers 

aeronautical engineering courses where professors and 

students might be able to provide additional information? 

For instance, why not let the students also consider: 

• Having passengers board the plane from multiple entry 

points on the plane. 

• Redesigning the interior of the jet airliner itself to 

accommodate easier passenger access and loading. 

• Designing the boarding process for these changes. 

How might the considerations above affect the traditional 

boarding process now used to convey passengers to the 

plane entrance? There was a time when passengers boarded 

an airliner by walking directly onto the airplane parking area 

and climbed up a steel boarding stair ramp. What might 

multiple loading points for boarding passengers mean in 

terms of where and how they board the airliner? Does this 

mean a redesign of existing airports? Can such massive and 

expensive redesigns of airports be minimized through an 

elegant solution to this problem? 

To further stimulate your thinking, what might happen to 

airplane design and operation if the plane was an empty 

shell, loaded with separate floors/sections for cargo, luggage, 

Are the problems that boarding passengers experience due 

to the need to store carry-on bags efficiently; or is it the 

need to load the plane from back to front, so folks won’t 

block each other if they board in random fashion? Is the 

need to check each and every passenger’s ticket the real 

problem? It is important to get to the heart of the problem, 

the root cause of the time delay. 

Information is also likely to be found on the Internet, your 

school library, and industry periodicals and magazine 

articles. These additional sources should be referenced. 

A thorough search of the literature should be conducted. 

This will yield some ideas and preliminary recommendations 

for changes. 

Breaking the Paradigm 

Don’t be reticent about pushing the envelope of this 

challenge. It should not be restricted to simply improving 

an established boarding process (because that is the way 

it has always been and everyone assumes it will always 

Solving this problem would make many passengers happy. 


about taking on this challenge? How do you envision solving 

this very real, very practical problem? 

What a great segue for learning about airplanes, airports, 

aeronautical engineering, and the science of moving people 

efficiently and safely through time and space. 

and people? Is there anything similar to this concept, say, 

from the railroads, trucking, and freight hauling industries 

that might be borrowed or adapted? Can the loading 

of passengers be modularized? What might happen if a 

passenger and his/her seat are already a distinct module 

before they even get on the plane? Could the seat and 

person sitting in it simply move to the proper location on 

the plane…automatically? Maybe your carry-on 

baggage is stored under the seat you are sitting in, and no 

overhead storage is allowed at all. Can you visualize what 

this change in perspective might do to airliner design and 

loading efficiency? 

Harry T. Roman recently retired from his 

engineering job and is the author of a variety 

of new technology education books. He can 

be reached via email at htroman49@aol. 

com. 

Think about this: A train is nothing more than a collection 

of cars that are connected together for a specific purpose 

and for a certain length of time. The train is assembled 

in a modular and somewhat automated fashion, and 

disassembled the same way. Can this concept be adapted to 

the airline industry? 

What might happen to the layout of airports if such 

sweeping changes were made to airplane design? How 

do you think this might affect the way that aeronautical 

engineers design airplanes? What would you be concerned 

about if the plane came in separate sections that could be 

preassembled and then loaded or slid into place just 

before takeoff? 

This is a multi-dimensional problem challenge that 

everyone in the class can identify with, and should be able 

to reasonably consider. It is certainly a challenge that would 

lend itself to a team-based approach. 

Maybe the solution set here is to first improve the existing 

process and then redesign the modern jet airliner. I wonder 

what airline companies have on the drawing board. Airliners 

originally only had one level, and now the super jumbo 

variety have multiple levels. They once only had a single 

aisle; and now they have multiple aisles on wide-body 

models. Reality often starts with dreams that are eventually 

made technically, economically, environmentally, and 

socially acceptable. So what do you and your students think 

• The Technology Teacher • april 2007

Teaching Engineering at the K–12 Level: 

Two Perspectives 

By Kenneth L. Smith and David Burghardt 

There must be a more direct 

infusion of appropriate 

mathematics and science 

with the unique technological 

content (tools, machines, 

materials, processes) for an 

effective engineering education 

program to exist. 

1. A major shift seems to be occurring in the amount 

of interest and action being given by the engineering 

community to teaching about engineering at the 

K–12 level. Please describe what you see happening. 

SMITH: I believe the shift has come from technology 

education professionals who have held a long-time belief 

that we missed the opportunity to pursue a national focus 

on engineering education as part of the Technology for All 

Americans Project. While that initiative was a major challenge 

and excellent work, it should have been our call to arms 

for launching a set of national standards for Engineering 

Education for All Americans. 

The arguments for such a movement have been clearly 

presented for the past ten years or more. Engineering as a 

valuable part of general education for all children is as easily 

defended as the science community defending their mantra, 

“think like a scientist” as a noble skill. Well, science, until 

applied to enhance the designed world through engineering 

processes and techniques, has limited value in my opinion. 

Knowledge is a good thing; however, knowing how to apply 

such knowledge skillfully to improve human existence is a 

more worthy goal. 

The confusion over what technology education offers remains. 

There is great work being accomplished by the CATTS 

organization. Standards-based resources are being created 

that address content in technology education, mathematics, 

and science (MST). But I believe that the individuals who are 

calling for strong support for a national engineering education 

program, which I fully support, are correct and offer the next 

phase in the evolution of this dynamic content area. 

BURGHARDT: There seem to be several organizations 

that are becoming important to this effort—the ASEE 

K–12 division, the National Center for Technological Literacy 

at the Boston Museum of Science, the National Center for 

Engineering and Technology Education (an NSF-supported 

center), the National Academy of Engineering, and Project 

Lead the Way. Within the engineering education community, 

more faculty are becoming interested in engineering education 

at the K–12 and college levels. This is in contrast to their 

emphasis on content disciplinary interests in years past. For 

instance, I have been teaching elementary and middle school 

teachers engineering design problem-solving methodology 

for the past ten years as part of a master’s degree in STEM 

education at Hofstra University. Engineers in industry are 

also very interested in having a voice, in participating in the 

K–12 educational process. We have had excellent support 

from corporate engineers on a number of grants for middle 

and high school teachers. This support ranges from serving 

on advisory boards to actually participating in workshops 

with teachers and students. There is a tremendous desire to 


help, and in the process of learning to help, the engineering 

community (academic and corporate) is beginning to become 

aware of the multiple demands placed on teachers. I believe 

the desire to help has a multiplicity of sources, some stemming 

from the wish that more students would consider engineering 

as a career choice, others from the desire that students become 

more technologically able and literate whether or not they 

intend to be future engineers. There is a move in some states, 

such as Massachusetts, to have (and assess) engineering and 

technology standards K–12. The Boston Museum of Science 

is creating engineering curriculum materials for elementary 

school teachers. Certainly curriculum materials exist for 

middle and high school teachers that have an engineering 

influence, such as the middle school text Mike Hacker and 

I coauthored, Technology Education—Learning by Design. 

Project Lead the Way has taken a strong role in providing 

engineering/technology education curriculum material at the 

high school and now middle school levels. 

2. There is an ongoing discussion about what constitutes 

engineering education and what constitutes 

technology education. What is your quick perspective 

of the commonalities and differences? 

SMITH: The technological literacy standards project offers 

two significant features that serve both fields well. That is, the 

standards have been written to address what students should 

know and be able to do. This approach is solid and should 

be cherished. 

I strongly feel that Chapters 5 and 6 in the standards document 

(Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of 

Technology (STL) [ITEA, 2000/2002]) offer the most direct 

connection to engineering education. These chapters focus 

on the concept of design and the abilities to apply the design 

process to create new products and systems. This is what the 

engineering community does for us. The process of design and 

engineering delivers the valuable resources humans use each 

day as defined in Chapter 7, the designed world technologies. 

Both fields require a fundamental understanding of 

technological development and the impact that it has created 

for society. However, engineering education takes the issue of 

authentic application of science and mathematics to a much 

more sophisticated and real level. That is, the “engineering 

process” requires a deeper understanding and sophistication 

of mathematics and scientific principles in order to effectively 

design and construct a useful product or system. I suggest 

that the work done in Maryland as part of the 1993 Maryland 

Curricular Framework for Technology Education be explored 

further with respect to nine fundamental “core technologies” 

identified by the engineering community at that time. 

These nine core technologies offer a sound foundation of 

study throughout a K–12 engineering program. These core 

technologies could be included easily with Standard 2 in the 

STL document—The core concepts of technology. 

These fundamental technologies include: mechanical, 

structural, fluid, electrical, electronics, optical, thermal, 

biotechnical, and materials. 

This rigor in engineering education, especially in mathematics 

and science, would require a very different approach to teacher 

preparation. That presents the most significant difference 

between the two programs. Currently, technology education 

teachers are “unarmed” with respect to delivering a quality, 

rigorous, and challenging engineering program. 

There must be a more direct infusion of appropriate 

mathematics and science with the unique technological 

content (tools, machines, materials, processes) for an 

effective engineering education program to exist. I believe 

the CATTS materials being developed using the Engineering 

byDesign approach have established a strong foundation for 

a new program—engineering education. The use of national 

standards in mathematics, science, and technology to develop 

instructional materials is essential for a successful engineering 

education initiative along with a fundamental course exploring 

the nine core technologies as described above. 

BURGHARDT: I believe there are tremendous 

commonalities that lie in the study of the human-made 

world, such as the impact of technology on society and 

how it transforms society, technological literacy, and with 

design as a problem-solving technique. However, there has 

not been enough thought given to engineering design from 

a pedagogical perspective. I believe this problem-solving 

strategy can be effectively used from kindergarten to high 

school, though not all engineering educators may share this 

view. The major difference between the two disciplines relates 

to mathematics; not math as a content area, but as a way of 

modeling systems. In general, technology education practice 

has a “build and test” approach to design, while engineers 

want to develop physical models of the actual physical system, 

then create mathematical models that describe the physical 

models. This is much of what engineering education focuses 

on—engineering analysis, the creation of physical models, and 

expressing these models in mathematical terms. This allows for 

predicting system behavior and understanding the factors that 

affect performance. The actual physical design is tested, just as 

in the technology education approach, and its performance is 

compared to the theoretical model. 


3. Is there enough difference in what the engineering 

community is doing that would create a need for 

K–12 engineering standards that are different from 

Standards for Technological Literacy? Why or 

why not? 

SMITH: Again, I think the most direct solution for a 

meaningful and appropriate engineering education program 

is to generate a national standards document that blends 

“selected” standards in mathematics (NCTM), science 

(AAAS), and technology (STL) at all grade levels to ensure an 

appropriately rigorous and sophisticated program that helps 

students “think like an engineer.” It is the process of DESIGN 

that engineers perform in their work that has such significant 

value for all Americans, even though most will not pursue 

a career in engineering. Most Americans do not pursue a 

career in mathematics or science, yet we have established the 

knowledge and skills in these domains as essential, especially at 

higher levels of sophistication. I ask, “Why?” 

I believe it is more valuable to establish a content area that 

offers a reason to know how to apply appropriate mathematics 

and science in the solution of authentic and challenging 

problems facing humanity, not just continued acquisition of 

knowledge about the natural world. There must be a place 

in general studies that allows students to “put it all together.” 

Such a place would be the engineering education classroom/ 

laboratory. 

BURGHARDT: I realize there is an effort within the 

engineering education community to develop K–12 

engineering standards. I do not think this is wise. While the 

Standards for Technological Literacy document fails to address 

all the concerns of the engineering education community, 

it does address many of them. I think this could be an ideal 

time to revise Standards for Technological Literacy. STL does 

not address the engineering modeling concerns, does not link 

to math or science standards (as AAAS Project 2061 does), 

and there are inconsistencies in the organizational format 

that could be improved. The differences and commonalities 

could be melded into one document that would unite the 

engineering and technology education communities to build a 

broader base of support. 

4. Series of courses are now evolving that are 

mathematics-, science-, and technological literacybased 

for the elementary through secondary level. 

Are those courses needed to stimulate and give 

practice to students thinking about being future 

engineers, technologists, architects, and more—or is 

some other type of course work needed? 

SMITH: I strongly believe that the current effort by the 

CATTS consortium, using the Engineering byDesign process, 

is a viable solution for instructional resources in engineering 

education. These materials have blended national standards in 

mathematics, science, and technology at appropriate levels of 

understanding. I have had the opportunity to participate as an 

author and reviewer of these new documents and find them 

to be worthy of critical review by professionals in engineering 

and education to determine the instructional value for a new 

program—engineering education. I believe this body of work 

to have significant merit. 

These courses, when completed, could offer the best possible 

collection of materials to deliver a more rigorous, challenging, 

and exciting program for students in our schools. Of 

course, there is always room for editing and refinement of 

such materials, with constant updates as appropriate. I also 

encourage the use of ABET guidelines in the creation of these 

or future instructional materials. 

BURGHARDT: I do not believe there is a research base to 

support the contention that K–12 STEM courses are needed 

to encourage students to consider careers as engineers and 

technologists, no matter how intuitive that appeal may appear. 

Certainly such research is needed, but in previous generations 

students considered these career paths without specialized 

courses. I would argue for teachers learning and having 

students use the engineering design approach to problem 

solving as a way of thinking. This allows for a link to core 

academic disciplines—math, science, and language arts—and 

a continuous connection to the designed, human-made world. 

This can be incorporated into the existing K–5 school day, a 

day already overcrowded with push-ins, pull-outs and nonacademic, 

though important, agenda items. There is a lot of 

repetition in children’s educational experience, especially when 

teachers use test prep questions as curriculum. Design can be 

introduced as a pedagogical strategy. At the middle and high 

school levels, integrative engineering and technology STEM 

courses could be useful in providing contextualization of 

mathematical and scientific concepts. The more engineering 

and technology education courses that are STEM-based, the 

broader will be the support base for these courses. 

5. How would you compare the student outcomes 

expected from engineering courses with what you 

would expect from a technological literacy course in 

our schools? 

SMITH: Student outcomes would be based on performance 

from the standards that would be established. As I mentioned, 

a new set of standards that combines mathematics, science, 


and technology has been used in the new CATTS documents. 

Assessment limits along with unit and end-of-course 

assessments have also been created with these resources. 

Student expectations and performance would be based on this 

new collection of standards as identified in the various units 

found in each course. These units have been developed using 

the Planning Learning document from ITEA, which provides 

excellent direction for the “Big Ideas” in each unit. Continued 

use of the current ITEA Planning Learning resources combined 

with “selected” standards at appropriate grade levels from 

mathematics, science, and technology education would present 

a clear and direct description for student outcomes in a new 

engineering education program, K–12. 

Currently, technology education programs in our schools 

reflect the STL standards only. I view this as a significant 

limitation. A viable engineering education program will 

require a math, science, technology (MST) synthesis with 

ABET guidelines from standards, instruction, and assessment 

of student work. 

BURGHARDT: I think of these as two different types of 

courses; both are very useful and important educationally. 

I would describe technological literacy courses as ones 

discussing the history of technology in society, the impacts, 

good and bad, that technology has had, and discussing 

technologies from a “how it works” perspective. An 

engineering course could include “how it works” information, 

but in general would address technical content from a design 

and modeling approach. Engineering analysis would be an 

important element to the course, and there would be strong 

connections to math and science. There is a particularly strong 

connection to mathematics because of the modeling aspect. 

6. Would you expect the background of a person 

equipped to teach engineering-oriented courses to 

be any different than for technological literacy 

courses? Why? 

There is no doubt that if a math, science, and technology-based 

engineering education program were developed, the preservice 

and inservice requirements for instructors would have to 

change. I have always agreed with my colleagues who have felt 

our technology education teachers are not prepared to teach 

a comprehensive engineering education program. They are 

simply unarmed for the task. I have lobbied for a long time that 

our teacher preparation institutions rethink their approach and 

course offerings for preparing technology education teachers. 

This would be especially true if these institutions were to 

prepare engineering education instructors. 

I believe a new model has to be developed. There are a few 

universities that are exploring this need. Johns Hopkins in 

Baltimore has an active group working to survey and move 

forward with a program description for Engineering Education 

as part of their Engineering School. In effect, this would 

offer individuals interested in engineering the opportunity to 

complete a rigorous new program with significant emphasis 

in mathematics and science abilities, combined with dynamic 

courses in materials, fluids, optical, structural, and mechanical 

systems (similar to the core technologies discussed earlier). 

Development of these courses would be based around 

standards in mathematics, science, and technology. The 

current STL standards would be used and valued, but the 

inclusion of mathematics (NCTM) and science (AAAS) must 

be addressed as well. 

I continually encourage my current technology education 

teachers to pursue additional core subject endorsements via 

the Praxis II examination or course work at a local college for 

mathematics and/or science. I strongly believe this is essential 

for delivery of a rigorous and challenging program, certainly 

in technology education, but especially a new program in 

engineering education. 

The benefits of multiple certifications for teachers in our fields 

are quite evident. As our nation tries to ensure highly qualified 

instructors in all content areas as part of NCLB legislation, 

every local school district must strive to encourage teachers 

to obtain as many certifications as possible, especially in the 

core subject fields. For technology education or engineering 

education, that must include mathematics and/or science 

endorsements. Hopefully, our teachers will realize this need 

and respond. I also hope our teacher preparation institutions 

will review their programs and make appropriate changes. 

We have so much to gain through this one strategy—more 

education and certification. 

BURGHARDT: Yes, based on the differences in student 

learning outcomes as noted previously. The teacher needs a 

good analytical background so he/she is comfortable with 

modeling and predictive analysis. The overlap in teacher 

technology education and engineering curriculum is strong 

in the technological literacy area. However, the academic 

background of many technology education teachers does 

not include engineering predictive analysis, the background 

needed for modeling. There would need to be an increase 

in the mathematics requirements for technology education 

teachers as, in general, the current math requirements are not 

sufficient to teach them predictive modeling analysis. 


Conclusion: 

SMITH: There are many educators around the country who 

feel strongly that engineering education is a content area 

whose time has come and has been long overdue. I want to 

mention one such person, who presented his ideas in a recent 

article in Science Magazine, Vol. 311, March 2006. His name is 

Ioannis Miaoulis. He has a science background, but presents 

his interest in engineering education with great passion. I too 

share this passion. 

Ioannis has led the way for engineering standards to be 

developed and adopted in Massachusetts. His campaign has 

moved to a national effort. He has led the way for a National 

Center for Technological Literacy, a non-profit organization 

with substantial funds to date, and has developed an 

elementary school curriculum and an engineering course for 

high school students. Ioannis states that his dream is “to have 

the human-made world be a part of the curriculum in every 

school in the country within the next decade.” I share this 

passion and dream. 

INDUSTRY AND 

TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT 

Graphic Communications 

and Digital Imaging Technology 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe substantial work has been accomplished towards this 

goal. However, much work remains to be done. I only hope 

a national focus will be embraced and fast-tracked into our 

schools. The dividends will be enormous for our place in a 

highly competitive global economy. 

BURGHARDT: As we analyze the differences and 

similarities of engineering and technology education, the 

real focus needs to be on students and how we can improve 

their understanding of and appreciation for the technological 

world while deepening their knowledge in mathematics and 

science. A tall order, but one I think STEM-based engineering/ 

technology education can meaningfully contribute to. 

Kenneth L. Smith is Instructional Supervisor 

for Career and Technology Education at St. 

Mary’s County Public Schools, Leonardtown, 

Maryland. He can be reached at klsmith@ 

smcps.org 

M. David Burghardt, Ph.D. is a professor of 

Engineering and Co-Director of the Center for 

Technological Literacy at Hofstra University, 

Hempstead, NY. He can be reached via email 

at M.D.Burghardt@Hofstra.edu. 

Ad Index 

Autodesk.........................................................C-4 

CNC Mastercam...........................................C-2 

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher...................... 19 

Pitsco, Inc......................................................... 38 

Kelvin Electronics..............................................4 

Learn. Do. Earn. .................................................i 

Millersville University.................................... 24 

Old Dominion University............................. 31 

SolidWorks.....................................................C-3 


Designing and Building a Cardboard Chair: 

Children’s Engineering at the TECA Eastern Regional 

Conference 

By Charles C. Linnell 

Introduction 

Being able to design and build 

a cardboard chair in four hours 

that will support a student, 

be ergonomically correct, and 

include in the design the five 

forces that affect engineered 

structures is no simple feat. 

In February of 2006 the Technology Education Collegiate 

Association (TECA) held its annual eastern regional 

conference in Virginia Beach, VA. One event that has 

seen growing interest and participation is the elementary 

competition. It is sponsored by the Technology Education 

for Children Council (TECC), an affiliate council of ITEA. 

For the last four years the elementary competitions have 

all been different and challenging, usually based on an 

elementary design theme. These elementary competitions 

are important for future technology education teachers 

because they allow them to transfer and adapt the 

technological content and skills they are learning in their 

universities to a unique venue: the elementary classroom. 

Normally, technology education teachers are assigned to a 

middle or high school; rarely do they have an opportunity 

to work with elementary students or their teachers. These 

competitive elementary events promote the inclusion 

of the Grades K–2 and 3–5 Standards for Technological 

Literary: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 

2000/2002) and their benchmarks. This gives the preservice 

teachers, who may be interested in teaching technology to 

children, an opportunity to explore age-appropriate teaching 

strategies and techniques. 

Almost all children, at one time or another, have used 

cardboard to make an imaginary house, fort, vehicle, 

furniture, or even a space station. A new appliance usually 

comes shipped in a nice cardboard box. Children often use 

the discarded cardboard box for designing and making just 

about every kind of structure they can imagine. Children 

can also use the cardboard to make usable furniture, such as 

tables, shelves, and chairs that they can actually sit on. 

A good design-and-build activity for an elementary 

classroom would have cooperative groups or individual 

children making cardboard chairs. This activity could 

be used to incorporate: the design process, measuring 

and mathematics, safely using tools, group processing at 

the beginning and end of the project, and a discussion 

of different manufacturing processes. As teachers would 

observe students’ progress they could ask questions such 

as: What makes some cardboard structures stronger than 

others? Why do other designs support more weight? What’s 

the best way to orient, combine, and join the cardboard for 

maximum strength? How do you design a chair that you 

can lean back on? What’s the best way to hold the different 

parts of the chair together? How do you keep the chair from 

wobbling and twisting when you sit on it? How do you keep 

the seat or back from tearing and breaking? These are some 

of the questions that the teams of technology education 

students from nine different universities had to solve as they 

were designing and building cardboard chairs at the 2006 

TECA Eastern Regional elementary competition. 


Teams from nine universities competed to produce a functional 

cardboard chair. 

Each team began by developing a plan of procedure with idea sketches. 

The latest competition required the teams (four or five to 

a team) from universities up and down the East Coast to 

design and produce a functional cardboard chair. The chair 

needed to be strong enough to support a college student and 

designed using basic ergonomic principles. The competitors 

were to explain how the five forces that affect engineered 

structures were considered when designing and building 

their chairs. The five forces are: compression, tension, 

bending, shear, and torsion (Hutchinson and Karsnitz, 

1994). These forces are shown in Figure 1. 

The Competition 

Teams were given four hours to complete the project, so, 

in order to finish the chair and follow the guidelines of the 

competition, time management was important. Each team 

began by developing a plan of procedure with idea sketches, 

which progressed to more detailed measured drawings. 

They started by analyzing the materials and tools provided. 

Each team was provided with ten sheets of 40" x 50", single 

wall, 5/32" thick, standard corrugate material. 

Each team had a large table for a work surface and was 

supplied with the necessary tools, including an X-acto® 

knife, metal yardstick, markers, white glue, hot glue gun, 

double-stick tape, and regular masking tape. Time was a 

factor, and the teams had to work fast and efficiently. They 

delegated certain tasks to students, or groups of students, 

who had strengths in areas such as design and fabrication. 

Each team began brainstorming ideas for getting maximum 

support from a minimum amount of corrugate material. 

Compression is when the load is 

applied to the top of a structure. 

Tension is load applied along the 

structure in a pulling action. 

Here are the five forces that 

designers need to consider when 

building an engineered structure. 

Bending is like a bookshelf loaded 

down with heavy books. 

Shear is when forces are exerted on 

the same plane but opposite. 

Torsion describes forces that try to 

twist the structure apart. 

Figure 1 


Teams needed to capitalize on the strength of the cardboard 

by combining it and/or forming it into different shapes. 

All the teams seemed to realize that in order to support the 

weight of a student, they would need to capitalize on the 

strength of the cardboard by combining it and/or forming it 

into different shapes, structural beams, or columns. 

The teams also had to consider the five forces affecting the 

structure in their design. When the chair was to be tested, 

how would they keep it from twisting (torsion)? How 

would the chair keep from pulling apart (tension)? What 

would keep the parts of the chair from sagging or tearing 

(bending and shear)? What would keep it from collapsing 

when a student sat on it (compression)? Many of these 

structural design questions were tested through trial and 

error, and through a process of elimination each team 

selected what it considered its optimum design and began 

building. 

Elementary A pplications 

The K–2 and 3–5 STL elementary standards and 

benchmarks are excellent for providing guidelines for 

teachers to introduce design and technological content 

into their daily instruction. Teaching that all human-made 

things have to be designed and that there is a difference 

between the natural world and the human-made world 

is important for providing a foundation of technological 

understanding for children and their teachers. Middle 

school and high school technology classrooms and labs 

are common. However, elementary teachers who include 

design and technological activities in their curriculum 

are rare. This is probably because the standard preservice 

elementary curriculum is already packed with teaching 

methods and elementary subject-specific courses, i.e., 

mathematics, language arts, reading, science, social studies, 

health, and more. There are some schools and organizations 

in the USA that are promoting and teaching elementary 

technology education. For example, in Virginia there is a 

thriving Children’s Engineering Educators organization 

of elementary teachers and administrators who provide 

excellent inservice opportunities as well as an annual 

Teams selected what they considered their optimum design 

and began building. 

Children’s Engineering Convention held each year in 

Richmond (Children’s Engineering Educators, LLC, 2006). 

Having helped facilitate the elementary competition at 

the TECA Eastern regional, the author has observed 

growing enthusiasm in preservice technology education 

teachers for elementary/children’s engineering and design 

activities. During the competition, the level of creativity 

and innovation visibly increases as the university students 

adapt elementary applications from their own experiences 

and from the K–2 and 3–5 STL standards. Traditionally, the 

technology education students are “learn by doing” types 

who like to design solutions to problems by using tools 

and techniques. It is also important for them to see the 

relevance of including design and technological activities 

in the elementary curriculum, letting children experience 

that all human-made things first have to be designed, and 

then people have to use tools and skills to make what was 

designed. But, this is nothing new in elementary education. 

In the early twentieth century boys and girls were taught 

about industry and learned about tools and their uses in the 

elementary classroom by teachers who were predominantly 

female (Zuga, 1996). 

Completing the Competition 

Being able to design and build a cardboard chair in four 

hours that will support a student, be ergonomically 

correct, and include in the design the five forces that 

affect engineered structures is no simple feat. It required 

teamwork and communication among the participants. 

The finished products were all very impressive. Some were 


Some chairs did not withstand the rigorous testing. 

The finished products were all very impressive. 

designed with function as the primary goal. These chairs 

were very solid and structurally sound. Some were designed 

to be first aesthetically pleasing, and second structurally 

sound. Some of these chairs did not withstand the rigorous 

testing. All of the technology education students who 

participated in the competition completed their chairs and 

left with another way to align technology education with 

elementary education. 

R eferences 

Children’s Engineering Educators, LLC, (2006). About 

CEE. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from Children’s 

Engineering Educators, LLC Web site www. 

childrensengineering.com/aboutus.htm 

Hutchinson, J. and Karsnitz, J. (1994). Design and problem 

solving in technology. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers Inc. 

International Technology Education Association (ITEA) 

(2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content 

for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. 

Zuga, K. F. (1996). Reclaiming the voices of female and 

elementary school educators in technology education. 

Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(3), 23-43. 

Charles C. Linnell, Ed.D., is an associate 

professor of Teacher Education at Clemson 

University, Clemson, SC. He can be reached 

via email at linnelc@clemson.edu. 

Some chairs were very solid and structurally sound. 


Interview with Dr. William A. Wulf 

illiam A. Wulf has served as President of the National 

W 

Academy of Engineers since 1996. His second term 

will be completed in July, 2007, at which time he will 

return to the faculty at the University of Virginia. 

He has built a reputation as NAE’s “education president” 

because of the changes that he has brought about in staffing, 

emphasizing education in all parts of engineering, and his 

careful guidance in leading by example. Dr. Wulf was the 

cochair of the NAE Task Force charged with conducting 

a formal review of Standards for Technological Literacy: 

Content for the Study of Technology. During his tenure with 

the academies, Dr. Wulf has overseen hundreds of projects 

and reports that have provided guidance to our country in 

technology and engineering initiatives. Dr. Wulf agreed to 

respond to the following interview questions. 

The formal review of Standards for Technological 

Literacy was completed in the year 2000. Having had 

time to reflect upon the standards and watch changes 

occurring in engineering and education, how do you feel 

about the quality and direction of those standards? 

I had the occasion to reread the standards just a few 

weeks ago in connection with a personal project 

to define a college-level course on technological 

literacy for liberal arts majors. It was a pleasant 

reminder of both the content of the standards and 

the process ITEA and the NAE used to refine them. 

To answer your question—I still feel very good 

about them. 

There seems to be confusion between what constitutes 

engineering at the K–12 level versus what constitutes 

technological literacy at that same level. What is your 

perspective related to the terminology and work being 

completed using these terms? 

Let me start by clarifying what I mean by 

“engineering” and “technology” when I am being 

precise, although I realize that the general public 

doesn’t make a clear distinction and I’m not always 

as precise as I should be. 

First, note that scientists use the word “science” to 

mean two quite different things. Sometimes they 

mean the process, the scientific method, by which 

we they establish truth about the natural world. 

At other times they mean the body of knowledge 

resulting from that process—Newton’s Laws, the 

Germ Theory of Disease, etc. 

Engineering is the process that we use to design 

artifacts to satisfy human wants and needs. 

Technology is the collection of artifacts and 

the associated knowledge that results from 

that process. 

Some of both are needed in K–12—indeed are 

needed by the general public! Students and citizens 

don’t need to be engineers or know how every 

artifact works in detail. However, we live in the 

most technologically dependent society of all time, 

and a degree of technological literacy is essential 

to simply being a citizen capable of informed 

discussion of many of the major issues facing 

our democracy. 

What are the larger engineering challenges that you see 


Scientists use the word “science” to mean two quite 

different things. 

facing us as a society in the years ahead? 

Perhaps it is simply because I have been at the 

NAE for over ten years, and hence at the nexus of 

engineering and public policy—but, more than 

anything else, I see a strong need for engineers and 

engineering thinking to be more involved in the 

formation of public policy. 

The number of critical public policy issues that 

involve technology is huge—consider energy policy 

(including a hydrogen economy), climate change, 

plans to remediate the Everglades, exploration of 

space, national and homeland security, etc. In each 

of these cases a critical question is whether or not 

we can engineer technology to solve one or more 

aspects of the problem. 

Unfortunately both our policymakers and the 

public are technologically illiterate. In many cases 

they are easily duped by simplistic descriptions of 

“solutions” that are actually technical nonsense. 

The number of critical public policy issues that involve 

technology is huge. 

I remember when we were working on Standards 

for Technological Literacy, I said many times that 

it would be nice to have technological literacy 

courses, but I would be happiest if technology were 

in existing civics classes, history classes, etc. I feel 

even more strongly about that now. 

“I would be happiest 

if technology were in 

existing civics classes, 

history classes, etc.” 


What would you like to see happen at the K–12 level of 

education in order to address these challenges? 

I think I answered this above, but to reiterate, 

my ideal would be for technological literacy to 

diffuse into the entire K–12 curriculum—in effect 

mirroring the way that engineering and technology 

impact all aspects of modern life. 

NAE has completed projects that have researched and 

reported work in publications such as Technically 

Speaking, The Engineer of 2020, and Tech Tally. What 

do you see as the next major effort needed to advance the 

study of technological literacy? 

In the short run, we are planning to do a couple of 

things. One is to translate the standards into more 

concrete suggested curriculum and supporting 

materials. The other is to create and test an 

instrument for measuring technological literacy. I 

think of both as exploratory feasibility 

demonstrations, not final definitive 

ones. We are not the right people to 

do the latter. 

Citizens of a democracy need to understand the issues facing 

them in order to be wise stewards of that democracy. 

. 

In the longer run, we will have to 

nurture this field in ways that I 

cannot predict; we’ll just have to see 

what is needed at each moment. The 

important thing to keep in mind is 

that this is going to be a decadeslong 

effort. Moreover, we need to 

expand beyond K–12 to include, for 

example, undergraduate and informal 

education. 

Thomas Jefferson said that we could 

not have a democracy without an 

informed citizenry—that is, citizens 

of a democracy need to understand 

the issues facing them in order to be 

wise stewards of that democracy. I am 

afraid that is not the case now, and 

our democracy is at risk as a result. 

This is simply too important to think 

that any short-term action is going to 

fix the problem. 

Graduate Study 

M.S. and Ph.D. Programs 

Darden College of Education 

Courses Available Via Televised and Video-Streamed 

Distance Technologies 

Technology Education 

Career and Technical Education 

Human Resources - Training 

For more information: 

Benefits to students: 

Dr. John M. Ritz 

World-Class Teaching 

757-683-4305 Cutting-Edge Innovation 

jritz@odu.edu 

Course Accessibility 

http://education.odu.edu/ots/ International Perspectives 

Inspiring Leaders 


2007 Directory of ITEA Institutional Members 

For further information, contact the 

faculty member listed. 

LEGEND 

Degrees 

1 Bachelor’s Degree 

2 Master’s Degree 

3 Fifth Year Program 

4 Sixth Year Program 

5 Advanced Standing Certificate 

6 Doctoral Degree 

7 Continuing Education Seminars/ 

Workshops/Conferences 

Financial Aid Offered 

A Undergraduate Scholarships 

B Research Assistantships 

C Teaching Assistantships 

D Scholarships 

E Fellowships 

F Other 

ARKANSAS 

1,2,3,5,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

University of Arkansas 

Dept. of Curriculum & Instruction/ 


214 Peabody Hall 

Fayetteville, AR 72701 

4758-4758-4758 • FAX 479-575-3319 

http://vaed.uark.edu/3668.htm 

mkd03@uark.edu 

Dr. Michael Daugherty 

AUSTRALIA 

1,2,6,7 

Griffith University 

School of Education and Professional 

Studies 

Mt Gravatt Campus 

170 Kessels Road 

Nathan Queensland 4111 

Australia 

www17.griffith.edu.au/cis 

m.pavlova@griffith.edu.au 

Dr. Margarita Pavlova 

GEORGIA 

1,2,4 A 

Georgia Southern University 

Dept. of Teaching and Learning 

PO Box 8134, College of Education 

Statesboro, GA 30460-8134 

912-871-1549 

http://studentorg.georgiasouthern. 

edu/techedu 

calexand@georgiasouthern.edu 

Dr. N. Creighton Alexander, DTE 

1,2,6,7 B,C,D,E 

The University of Georgia 

Dept. of Workforce Education, 

Leadership and Social Foundations 

223 River’s Crossing Building 

Athens, GA 30602-4809 

706-542-4503 • FAX 706-542-4054 

www.uga.edu/teched/index.html 

wickone@uga.edu 

Dr. Robert Wicklein, DTE 

ILLINOIS 

Chicago State University 

Technology and Education 

9501 S. King Drive, ED 203 

Chicago, IL 60628 

773-995-3807 

www.csu.edu/CollegeofEducation/ 

TechnologyEducation 

s-gist@csu.edu 

Sylvia Gist 

Eastern Illinois University 

School of Technology 

600 Lincoln Avenue 

Charleston, IL 61920-3099 

217-581-3226 

mizadi@eiu.edu 

Dr. Mahyar R. Izadi 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D 

Illinois State University 

Dept. of Technology 

210 Turner Hall , Campus Box 5100 

Normal, IL 61790-5100 

309-438-7862 • FAX 309-438-8628 

www.tec.ilstu.edu 

cpmerri@ilstu.edu 

Dr. Chris Merrill 

INDIANA 

1,2 A,B,C,D 

Ball State University 


Applied Technology Building Rm 131 

Muncie, IN 47306-0255 

765-285-5641 • FAX 765-285-2162 

www.bsu.edu/technology 

jwescott@bsu.edu 

Dr. Jack W. Wescott, DTE 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

Indiana State University 

Industrial Technology Education 

College of Technology 

Terre Haute, IN 47809 

800-468-5236 • FAX 812-237-2655 

http://web.indstate.edu/ite/home.html 

agilberti@isugw.indstate.edu 

Dr. Anthony F. Gilberti 

1,2,6 A,B,D,C,E 

Purdue University 

Dept. of Industrial Technology 

401 N. Grant Street, Knoy Hall 

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2021 

765-494-1101 

www.tech.purdue.edu/it 

latif@purdue.edu 

Dr. Niaz Latif 

IOWA 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D 

University of Northern Iowa 


1222 West 27 th Street 

Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0178 

319-273-2561 • FAX 319-273-5818 

www.uni.indtech.edu 

mohammed.fahmy@uni.edu 

charles.johnson@uni.edu 

Dr. Mohammed Fahmy 

Dr. Charles Johnson 

KANSAS 

1,2,7 A,B,D 

Fort Hays State University 

Technology Studies Department 

600 Park Street 

Hays, KS 67601-4099 

785-628-4315 • FAX 785-628-4267 

www.fhsu.edu/tecs 

fruda@fhsu.edu 

Dr. Fred Ruda 


1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D 

Pittsburg State University 

Dept. of Technology Studies 

1701 S. Broadway 

Pittsburg, KS 66762 

620-235-4371 • FAX 620-235-4020 

www.pittstate.edu/tst 

jiley@pittstate.edu 

Dr. John L. Iley 

KENTUCKY 

1 A,D,F 

Berea College 

Dept. of Technology and Industrial 

Arts 

CPO 2188 

Berea, KY 40404 

859-985-3033 x5501 • FAX 859-986-4506 

www.berea.edu/tec/tec.home.html 

Gary_Mahoney@Berea.edu 

Dr. Gary Mahoney 

1,2,3 A,B,D 

Eastern Kentucky University 


521 Lancaster Avenue 

307 Whalin Technology Complex 

Richmond, KY 40475-3102 

859-622-3232 • FAX 859-622-2357 

www.technology.eku.edu 

ed.davis@eku.edu 

Dr. William E. Davis 

MAINE 

1,2,7 A,D 

University of Southern Maine 

Department of Technology 

37 College Avenue 

Gorham, ME 04038-1088 

207-780-5440 • FAX 207-780-5129 

walker@usm.maine.edu 

Dr. Fred Walker 

MARYLAND 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

University of Maryland Baltimore 

County 

1000 Hilltop Circle 

E 210/ME Department 

Baltimore, MD 21250 

410-455-3308 • FAX 410-455-1052 

www.umbc.edu 

aspence@umbc.edu 

Dr. Anne Spence 

1,2,5,6,7 A,C,D 

University of Maryland-Eastern 

Shore 


11931 Art Shell Plaza-UMES Campus 

Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299 

410-651-6468 • FAX 410-651-7959 

www.umes.edu/tech 

llcopeland@umes.edu 

Dr. Leon L. Copeland, Sr. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

1,2,7 A,B 

Fitchburg State College 


160 Pearl Street 

Fitchburg, MA 01420-2697 

978-665-3255 

www.fsc.edu 

jalicata@fsc.edu 

Dr. James Alicata 

1,2,3,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

Lemelson-MIT Program 

Lemelson-MIT InvenTeams 

MIT School of Engineering 

77 Massachusetts Avenue, E60-215 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

617-253-3352 

www.web.mit.edu/invent 

inventeams@mit.edu 

Joshua Schuler 

MICHIGAN 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

Eastern Michigan University 

School of Technology Studies 

122 Sill Hall 

Ypsilanti, MI 48197 

734-487-1161 • FAX 734-487-7690 

www.emich.edu 

jboyless@emich.edu 

John Boyless, Director 

MINNESOTA 

1,2,5,7 A,B 

St. Cloud State University 

Environmental & Technological 

Studies 

720 – 4 th Ave. S. Headley Hall 203 

St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 

320-308-3235 • FAX 320-654-5122 

www.stcloudstate.edu/ets 

schwaller@stcloudstate.edu 

Dr. Anthony E. Schwaller, DTE 

MISSISSIPPI 

1,2,3,7 A,B 

Alcorn State University 

Dept. of Advanced Technologies 

1000 ASU Drive #360 

Fayette, MS 39096-7500 

601-877-6493 

addaed@lalcorn.edu 

Dr. David K. Addae 

MISSOURI 

1,2,7 A,B,C,D 

University of Central Missouri 

Dept. of Career and Technology 

Education 

120 Grinstead Building 

Warrensburg, MO 64093-5034 

660-543-4304 • FAX 660-543-8031 

www.cmsu.edu/x58257.xml 

byates@ucmo.edu 

Dr. Ben Yates, DTE 

MONTANA 

1,2 A,C 

Montana State University 

Dept. of Education 

118 Cheever Hall 

Bozeman, MT 59717 

406-994-3201 • FAX 406-994-6696 

www.montana.edu/wwwad 

sedavis@montana.edu 

Scott Davis 

NEBRASKA 

1,2 A,C,D 

Wayne State College 

Dept. of Technology and Applied 

Science 

1111 Main Street 

Wayne, NE 68787-1600 

402-375-7279 • FAX 402-375-7565 

www.wsc.edu 

julindb1@wsc.edu 

Dr. Judy Lindberg 

NEW JERSEY 

1,2,7 A,D,F 

The College of New Jersey 

Dept. of Technological Studies 

PO Box 7718 

Ewing, NJ 08628-0718 

609-771-2543 • FAX 609-771-3330 

www.tcnj.edu/~tstudies/ 

karsnitz@tcnj.edu 

Dr. John Karsnitz 


NEW YORK 

7 F 

Hofstra University 

Center for Technological Literacy 

113 HU Gallon Wing Room 243 

Hempstead, NY 11549-1130 

6482-6482-6482 • FAX 516-463-4430 

www.hofstra.edu/Academics/ 

SOEAHS/TEC/ 

M.D.Burghardt@hofstra.edu 

Dr. David Burghardt 

1,2,5 A,D,F 

The College of Saint Rose 

Dept. of Applied Technology 

Education 

432 Western Avenue 

Albany, NY 12203-1490 

518-454-5279 

www.strose.edu 

plowmant@strose.edu 

Dr. Travis Plowman 

1,2 C 

NY State University at Oswego 


Washington Blvd. 209 Park Hall 

Oswego, NY 13126-3599 

315-312-3011 

www.oswego.edu/tech 

gaines@oswego.edu 

Philip Gaines 

NORTH CAROLINA 

1,2,7 A,B,D 

Appalachian State University 


Kerr Scott Hall, ASU Box 32122 

Boone, NC 28608-2122 

828-262-6352 

www.tec.appstate.edu/te/technology_ 

education.html 

taylorjs@appstate.edu 

Dr. Jerianne Taylor 

1,2,6,7 B,C 

North Carolina State University 

Mathematics, Science & Technology 

Education 

Box 7801 

Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 

919-515-1748 • FAX 919-515-6892 

http://ced.ncsu.edu/mste/tech_index. 

html 

jim_haynie@ncsu.edu 

Dr. William J. Haynie 

NORTH DAKOTA 

1,2,7 A,C,D 

University of North Dakota 


PO Box 7118 

Grand Forks, ND 58202-7118 

701-777-2249 

yearwood@und.nodak.edu 

Dr. Dave Yearwood 

1,2,7 A,D 

Valley City State University 


101 College St SW 

Valley City, ND 58072 

701-845-7444 • FAX 701-845-7245 

http://teched.vcsu.edu 

teched@vcsu.edu 

Dr. Don Mugan 

OHIO 

1,2,7 A,B,C 

Kent State University 

College of Technology 

PO Box 5190 

Kent, OH 44242-0001 

330-672-2040 

www.tech.kent.edu/tech 

lzurbuch@kent.edu 

Dr. Lowell S. Zurbuch 

1,2,3,6 A,B,C,D,E 

The Ohio State University 


1100 Kinnear Road, Room 100 

Columbus, OH 43212-1152 

614-292-7471 • FAX 614-292-2662 

www.teched.coe.ohio-state.edu 

post.1@osu.edu 

Dr. Paul E. Post 

1,7 A,D 

Ohio Northern University 

Dept. of Technological Studies 

Room 208 Taft Memorial Building 

Ada, OH 45810 

419-772-2170 • FAX 419-772-1932 

www.onu.edu/a+s/techno/ 

d-rouch@onu.edu 

Dr. David L. Rouch 

OKLAHOMA 

1,2,7 A,C,D,F 

Southwestern Oklahoma State 

University 

Dept. of Industrial and Engineering 


100 Campus Drive 

Weatherford, OK 73096-3098 

580-774-3162 • FAX 580-774-7028 

www.swosu.edu/academics/tech/ 

tech@swosu.edu 

Dr. Gary Bell 

OHIO 

1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D,E 

Bowling Green State University 

Dept. of Visual Communication & 


260 Technology 

Bowling Green, OH 43402 

419-372-2437 

www.bgsu.edu 

lhatch@bgnet.bgsu.edu 

Dr. Larry Hatch 

PENNSYLVANIA 

1,2,5,7 A,B,D 

California University of 

Pennsylvania 

Applied Engineering & Technology 

250 University Avenue 

California, PA 15419 

724-938-4085 • FAX 724-938-4572 

www.cup.edu/eberly/aet/ 

komacek@cup.edu 

Dr. Stanley Komacek 

1,2,7 A,F 

Millersville University 

Dept. of Industry & Technology 

PO Box 1002 

Millersville, PA 17551-0302 

717-872-3316 • FAX 717-872-3318 

http://muweb.millersville.edu/~itec 

itec@millersville.edu 

Dr. Perry R. Gemmill 

RHODE ISLAND 

Johnson & Wales University 

School of Technology 

138 Mathewson Street 

Providence, RI 02903 

401-598-2500 

Heidi Januszewski 


1,2,7 A,D 

Rhode Island College 

Dept. of Educational Studies/ 

Technology Education Program 

600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue 

Providence, RI 02908-1991 

401-456-8783 

www2.ric.edu/educationalStudies/ 

technology_bs.php 

cmclaughlin@ric.edu 

Dr. Charles H. McLaughlin, Jr. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

1 

Clemson University 

Dept. of Teacher Education 

207 Tillman Hall 

Clemson, SC 29634-0705 

864-656-7647 • FAX 864-656-4808 

www.hehd.clemson.edu 

wpaige@clemson.edu 

Dr. William D. Paige, DTE 

SWEDEN 

Linkoping University 

Centre School Technology Education 

Campus Norrkoping 

Norrkoping SE60174 

thomas.ginner@cetis.liu.se 

Thomas Ginner 

TEXAS 

1,2,7 A,D 

The University of Texas at Tyler 

Dept. of HRD and Technology 

3900 University Blvd. 

Tyler, TX 75799 

903-566-7310 • FAX 903-566-4281 

www.uttyler.edu/technology 

callen@uttyler.edu 

Dr. W. Clayton Allen 

UNITED KINGDOM 

Edge Hill University 

St. Helens Road 

Ormskirk 

Lancashire L39 4Qp 

obrienc@edgehill.ac.uk 

Charles O’Brien 

UTAH 

1,2,7 A 

Brigham Young University 

Technology Teacher Education 

Room 230 SNLB 

Provo, UT 84602 

801-422-6496 

www.et.byu.edu/tte/ 

steve_shumway@byu.edu 

Dr. Steven Shumway 

1,2,6 A,B,C,D,E 

Utah State University 

Engineering and Technology 

Education 

6000 Old Main Hill 

Logan, UT 84322-6000 

435-797-1795 

www.ete.usu.edu 

kbecker@cc.usu.edu 

Dr. Kurt H. Becker 

VIRGINIA 

1,2,5,6,7 B,C,E,F 

Old Dominion University 

Occupational and Technical Studies 

228 Education 

Norfolk, VA 23529-0001 

757-683-4305 • FAX 757-683-5227 

http://education.odu.edu/ots/ 

jritz@odu.edu 

Dr. John M. Ritz, DTE 

WASHINGTON 

1,2,7 A,B,C,D,F 

Central Washington University 

Dept. of Industrial and Engineering 


Hogue Technology 

400 E. University Way 

Ellensburg, WA 98926-7584 

3218-3218-3218 • FAX 509-963-1795 

www.cwu.edu/~iet/programs/ie/ 

teched.html 

calahans@cwu.edu 

Dr. Scott Calahan 

WISCONSIN 

Milwaukee Area Technical College 

700 W. State Street 

Milwaukee, WI 53233-1443 

414-297-6711 

www.matc.edu/21cutep 

dulbergd@matc.edu 

Dale Dulberger 

1,2,7 A,B,C,D 

University of Wisconsin-Stout 

School of Education 

PO Box 790 

Menomonie, WI 54751-1441 

715-232-5609 • FAX 715-232-1441 

www.uwstout.edu/soe 

mcalisterb@uwstout.edu 

Dr. Brian McAlister 

WYOMING 

1 A,D 

University of Wyoming 

Casper College Center 

125 College Drive 

Casper, WY 82601 

307-268-2406 • FAX 307-268-2416 

www.uwyo.edu/uwcc 

rodt@uwyo.edu 

Dr. Rod Thompson 

2007 ITEA 

Museum Member 

For further information contact the 

staff member listed. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Museum of Science 

1 Science Park 

Boston, MA 02114 

617-589-0170 • FAX 617-589-0187 

www.mos.org 

Inga Laurila 

ilaurila@mos.org 


Engineering Design: A Standards-Based High 

School Model Course Guide 

Assists educators in teaching the learning process that students 

require in order to gain the problem-solving skills that they will 

need for life in the technologically complex twenty-first century. 

Original price: $29.50 

Special reduced price: $5.00 

Call today to order this essential tool for your classroom. 

703-860-2100. While supplies last! 

Mention code 0407 when ordering. 

Shipping charges apply.

T-Bot the robot 

Snap out and assemble the parts. Build this 

four axis, hydraulic powered robot. Learn all 

kinds of STEM principles. Success guaranteed. 

Shop online or call 1-800-835-0686 

ITEA’s ALL-NEW 2007-2008 

Technological Literacy Product Guide 

is now available online at 

www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/ 

productguide.htm 

Prefer a print copy? 

Call 703-860-2100 to request one. 

TECHNOLOGY 

IN CONTEXT 

www.pitsco.com/tbot 

Don’t miss out on this 

excellent resource for 

keeping up to date with 

what’s available to assist 

you in the quest to make 

all 

students 

technologically 

literate! 

Although the San Antonio conference is over, your opportunity to assist the 

Foundation for Technology Education continues! 

By making a $25 donation to FTE, in addition to 

helping to move the cause of educating technology 

teachers forward, you will also receive a 128MB 

USB flash drive, imprinted with the FTE logo. Flash 

drives are the fastest and easiest way to share 

files, data, presentations, and more! 

The Foundation for Technology Education (FTE) was established in 1986 as a nonprofit 

501 (c )(3) organization and initiated a program of 

giving in 1993, in which awards are presented during the ITEA 

Annual Conference. FTE awards support programs that will: make our children technologically 

literate; transfer industrial and corporate 

research into our schools; produce models of excellence in 

technology teaching; create public awareness regarding the nature of technology 

education; and help technology teachers maintain a 

competitive edge in technology. 

Call 703-860-2100 to make a donation today! 

Flash drive supplies are limited!

T-Bot the robot 

Snap out and assemble the parts. Build this 

four axis, hydraulic powered robot. Learn all 

kinds of STEM principles. Success guaranteed. 

Shop online or call 1-800-835-0686 

ITEA’s ALL-NEW 2007-2008 

Technological Literacy Product Guide 

is now available online at 

www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/ 

productguide.htm 

Prefer a print copy? 

Call 703-860-2100 to request one. 

TECHNOLOGY 

IN CONTEXT 

www.pitsco.com/tbot 

Don’t miss out on this 

excellent resource for 

keeping up to date with 

what’s available to assist 

you in the quest to make 

all 

students 

technologically 

literate! 

Although the San Antonio conference is over, your opportunity to assist the 

Foundation for Technology Education continues! 

By making a $25 donation to FTE, in addition to 

helping to move the cause of educating technology 

teachers forward, you will also receive a 128MB 

USB flash drive, imprinted with the FTE logo. Flash 

drives are the fastest and easiest way to share 

files, data, presentations, and more! 

The Foundation for Technology Education (FTE) was established in 1986 as a nonprofit 

501 (c )(3) organization and initiated a program of 

giving in 1993, in which awards are presented during the ITEA 

Annual Conference. FTE awards support programs that will: make our children technologically 

literate; transfer industrial and corporate 

research into our schools; produce models of excellence in 

technology teaching; create public awareness regarding the nature of technology 

education; and help technology teachers maintain a 

competitive edge in technology. 

Call 703-860-2100 to make a donation today! 

Flash drive supplies are limited!

Vol 66, No. 7 - International Technology and Engineering Educators ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?