September - Vol 70, No 1 - International Technology and ...

iteaconnect.org

September - Vol 70, No 1 - International Technology and ...

DESIGN SQUAD (NEW!) • SUPER MILEAGE PHOTOS • ROOFTOP GARDEN DESIGN CHALLENGE

September 2010

Volume 70 • Number 1

Preferences of Male and

Female Students for TSA

Competitive Events

AlSo:

Advancing STEM Education:

A 2020 Vision

www.iteea.org


I choose Mastercam because:

“Any person who has mastered solid design and CNC programming has

invested years to be truly productive. Mastercam for SolidWorks has reduced

that time line by 50%. It is the perfect marriage of technologies.”

– Dave Zamora, Program Director, Production Technology

Gateway Community College, Phoenix, Arizona

Get the best of both worlds today! Contact our Educational Division:

www.MCforSW.com | (800) ASK-MCAM

Mastercam is a registered trademark of CNC Software, Inc. SolidWorks is a registered trademark of DS SolidWorks Corporation. All rights reserved.


Contents

september • VOL. 70 • NO. 1

19

Preferences of Male and Female Students for

TSA Competitive Events

An explanation of why female students may be

avoiding TE courses, a presentation of research-tested

sets of tools for TE teachers to fix the problem, and a

suggested pathway towards technological literacy for

all students.

Charles R. Mitts and W. J. Haynie, III

Departments

1

2

4

ITEEA Web News

STEM News

STEM Calendar

9 Resources

in Technology

and

Engineering

16 Classroom

Challenge

27

Design Squad

(NEW!)

7

30

36

Features

Editorial: The Necessity of Change

Katie De la paz

Advancing STEM Education: A 2020 Vision

This article sets out to clarify the purpose of STEM education as well as address challenges

to its advancement.

Rodger W. Bybee

2010 Supermileage Competition Photos

Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE

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

Editor, Kathie F. Cluff

ITEEA Board of Directors

Gary Wynn, DTE, President

Ed Denton, DTE, Past President

Thomas Bell, DTE, President-Elect

Joanne Trombley, Director, Region I

Randy McGriff, Director, Region II

Mike Neden, DTE, Director, Region III

Steven Shumway, Director, Region IV

Greg Kane, Director, ITEEA-CS

Richard Seymour, Director, CTTE

Andrew Klenke, Director, TECA

Marlene Scott, Director, TECC

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE,

Executive Director

ITEEA is an affiliate of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science.

Technology and Engineering 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 and Engineering

Educators Association, 1914 Association Drive,

Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191. Subscriptions

are included in member dues. U.S. Library

and nonmember subscriptions are $90; $110

outside the U.S. Single copies are $10.00 for

members; $11.00 for nonmembers, plus shipping

and handling.

Technology and Engineering 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:

ITEEA 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. ITEEA

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: Technology and

Engineering Teacher, Address Change, ITEEA,

1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston,

VA 20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at

Herndon, VA and additional mailing offices.

Email: kdelapaz@iteea.org

World Wide Web: www.iteea.org


On the

ITEEA Website:

Now Available on the ITEEA Website:

THE TOP TEN ways ITEEA helps its members to stay connected with others who share

their interests and/or activities, keep up with the latest trends on STEM (Science,

Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education, identify and recognize leaders

in the field, stay relevant through professional development opportunities, and

much more.

1. Twitter is a real-time, short messaging service that works over multiple networks and

devices. Follow the sources most relevant to you and access information via Twitter as

it happens—from breaking world news to updates from friends. To receive “tweets”

pertaining to ITEEA and STEM education, go to http://twitter.com/iteea.

2. IdeaGarden is a listserv that generates real-time dialogues pertaining to educational

programs and events, future-focused research, and knowledge resources, as well as

identifying and showcasing new ideas and innovators in teaching and learning. Go to

“Members Only” to learn how to subscribe/unsubscribe, modify subscription settings,

and view archives online: www.iteea.org/Membership/membersonly.htm.

3. LinkedIn is an interconnected network of experienced professionals from around the

world. Through LinkedIn, you can find, be introduced to, and collaborate with qualified

professionals with whom you need to work to accomplish your goals. Join the “ITEEA

Educators” group at www.linkedin.com/groups?gid+1787786.

4. Facebook builds online social networks for communities of people who share interests

and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others.

ITEEA’s Facebook Page is a way that hundreds of ITEEA members find one another

and keep current with ITEEA events and resources. “Friend” ITEEA today at www.

facebook.com/itea.stem.

5. ITEEA’s Blog delivers timely news and commentary on subjects pertaining to

technological literacy. Maintained by ITEEA’s Editor, and through the use of “Guest

Bloggers,” ITEEA’s blog utilizes text, images, and links to other sources. Readers can

leave comments and participate in ongoing polling on various topics. Go to:

http://iteatide.blogspot.com.

6. STEM Connections is ITEEA’s cutting-edge electronic newsletter, delivering the latest

trends on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education:

www.iteea.org/Publications/STEMconnections/STEMconnections.htm.

7. Member on the Move features ITEEA member, Terrie Rust, as she chronicles her yearlong

experiences as an Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow:

www.iteea.org/Membership/mom.htm.

8. ITEEA Journals, Technology and Engineering Teacher, Children’s Technology and

Engineering, and The Journal of Technology Education, will keep you up-to-date on

the direction of the field, what other teachers are doing, and more:

www.iteea.org/Publications/publications.htm.

9. ITEEA Annual Conference provides a comprehensive professional development

experience including leading-edge keynote presentations, specialized preconference

workshops, educational tours, learning sessions, exhibits, action labs, and social

networking opportunities. Visit www.iteea.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htm.

10. Grants/Scholarships/Awards Programs provide recognition of excellence in the field

of STEM education. Grants and Scholarships provide cash awards to recognize and

encourage STEM teaching. Go to www.iteea.org/Awards/awards.htm.

www.iteea.org

Editorial Review Board

Chairperson

Thomas R. Loveland

St. Petersburg College

Chris Anderson

Gateway Regional High

School/TCNJ

Steve Anderson

Nikolay Middle School, WI

Scott Bevins

UVA's College at Wise

Gerald Day

University of Maryland Eastern

Shore

Kara Harris

Indiana State University

Hal Harrison

Clemson University

Marie Hoepfl

Appalachian State University

Stephanie Holmquist

Plant City, FL

Laura Hummell

California University of PA

Oben Jones

East Naples Middle School, FL

Petros Katsioloudis

Old Dominion University

Odeese Khalil

California University of PA

Tony Korwin, DTE

Public Education

Department, NM

Linda Markert

SUNY at Oswego

Randy McGriff

Kesling Middle School, IN

Doug Miller

MO Department of Elementary

and Secondary Education

Steve Parrott

Illinois State Board of

Education

Mary Annette Rose

Ball State University

Terrie Rust

Oasis Elementary School, AZ

Bart Smoot

Delmar Middle and High

Schools, DE

Andy Stephenson, DTE

Southside Technical Center,

KY

Jerianne Taylor

Appalachian State University

Adam Zurn

Lampeter-Strasburg, High PA

Ken Zushma

Heritage Middle School, NJ

Editorial Policy

As the only national and international association dedicated

solely to the development and improvement of technology

and engineering education, ITEEA seeks to provide an open

forum for the free exchange of relevant ideas relating to

technology and engineering 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 ITEEA Headquarters staff.

Referee Policy

All professional articles in Technology and Engineering

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 Technology and Engineering

Teacher. Articles with bylines will be identified as either

refereed or invited unless written by ITEEA officers on

association activities or policies.

To Submit Articles

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

International Technology and Engineering Educators

Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA

20191-1539.

Please submit articles and photographs via email to

kdelapaz@iteea.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, Sixth Edition.

Editorial guidelines and review policies are available

by writing directly to ITEEA or by visiting www.iteea.org/

Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright

© 2010 by the International Technology and Engineering

Educators Association, Inc., 703-860-2100.

1 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


STEM News

Election Candidates

The 2010-2011 ITEEA Board of Directors election ballot

will be emailed to Professional and active Life Members in

September. The highly experienced field of candidates is

pictured here. Exercise your right to vote by completing your

ballot promptly! Ballots must be completed on or before

October 30, 2010.

President-Elect (Supervisor)

William F. Bertrand

Technological

Education Advisor

Pennsylvania

Department of

Education

Harrisburg, PA

Rory J. “R. J.” Dake

Technology Education

Program Consultant

Kansas Department of

Education

Topeka, KS

Region I Director (Supervisor)

Lynn Basham

Technology Education

Specialist

Virginia Department of

Education

Richmond, VA

Leon H. Strecker

Coordinator,

Technology Education,

K-6

Darien Public Schools

Darien, CT

Region III Director (Classroom Teacher)

Anthony R. Korwin, DTE

Workforce Education

Manager

Public Education

Department

Career-Technical and

Workforce Education

Bureau

Santa Fe, NM

Internationally Known STEM Next Generation

Workforce Expert to Speak at ITEEA’s Minneapolis

Conference

ITEEA is pleased to announce that one of the top

counseling and career development professionals in

the U.S., Dr. Rich Feller, will be the Program Excellence

General Session Speaker at the March 2011 International

Conference to be held in Minneapolis, MN. Dr. Feller is

an internationally known educator who is particularly well

versed in topics such as the Minneapolis Conference Theme,

“Preparing the STEM Workforce: The Next Generation.”

His extensive work in career development has resulted in

over 70 publications, seats on various Boards of Directors

and editorial boards, hundreds of professional presentations

and workshops, and countless committees and other service

activities. At the ITEEA General Session, he will address

the 21st Century Workforce and how technology and

engineering teachers can play a major role in shaping the

workforce of the future, new basics for the next generation,

and the sustainable workforce and environment. Dr. Feller’s

keynote presentation will be held on Thursday, March 24,

2011 at 9:00 am.

Minneapolis, known as the City of Lakes, is located directly

between both coasts, a meeting site that’s central for

everyone. It’s a world-class city, with fabulous shopping,

dining, and entertainment. Less than a three-hour flight

from most U.S. cities and just minutes from downtown

with access to light-rail transit, the Minneapolis-Saint

Paul International Airport (MSP) is served by 10 domestic

airlines and is home to Northwest Airlines. It’s not only easy

to fly into, but the light rail transit (LRT) system ensures

that the city is easy to navigate. No matter the weather,

you can travel easily between many hotels and attractions

using the glass-enclosed skyways that provide comfortable,

convenient connections between downtown restaurants,

shops, and more. Our three ITEEA host hotels, the Hyatt,

Hilton, and Millennium, are directly connected to the

Convention Center via these skywalks.

Joel Ellinghuysen

Technology Education

Teacher

Lewiston-Altura High

School

Lewiston, MN

David D. Worley, DTE

Classroom Teacher

Haltom High School

Haltom City, TX

The city’s glimmering steel and glass core spans more than

50 square blocks, encompassing the financial, retail, and

theater districts, all connected via skywalk. Art, science,

and history are on display at over 57 museums. Shop along

Nicollet Mall or visit the largest mall in the country, Mall of

America. It’s a city of amazing contrasts and combinations.

Where down-home people meet uptown style. Where

below-zero temperature meets above-average intelligence.

Where modern glass architecture meets outdoor green

adventure. Where every season, every art, and every type

meet in every possible way.

2 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


STEM News

Minneapolis combines the bustle of a big city with the

intimacy of neighborhood life. Big enough to attract worldclass

theater, sports teams, and businesses, yet small enough

to avoid the crime and overcrowding of bigger, denser cities,

this city by the Mississippi has it all.

So, make plans now to join your colleagues in March 2011.

And don’t forget to apply early for funding assistance (details

on the conference website). For full conference information,

visit www.iteea.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htm.

Need Financial Assistance to Attend the ITEEA

Conference? Here are Some Tips

Before you apply for financial assistance:

• Compile facts on the ITEEA conference.

• Create talking points as to how this conference

program could improve education for your students.

• Stress to the administration that you will be attending

as a representative of the school and district.

• Print the preliminary program and share it with your

potential funding source.

• Apply to be part of the program, e.g., the Teaching

Technology and Engineering Showcase.

• Have a small budget put together based upon the costs

involved.

• Apply to be a Teacher or Program Excellence winner.

Where to look for funding sources:

• Talk to your immediate supervisor about using

professional development monies.

• Ask your local PTA for assistance.

• Become friends with local civic groups that support

education.

• Contact your district or state supervisor who deals with

technology and/or engineering education.

• Do a search of local educational foundations.

• Check with your local teacher’s union.

For more detailed information about funding, go to www.

iteea.org/Conference/funding.htm.

To stretch your budget money even further, be sure to take

advantage of the special preregistration pricing. ITEEA

Professional Members will pay $299 for a full conference

registration prior to February 11, 2011 ($339 on-site), and

Student Members will pay $84 prior to February 11 ($94 onsite).

Encourage your colleagues to become ITEEA members

to take advantage of these special prices. Contact Maureen

Wiley at mwiley@iteea.org for information on becoming a

member. (Nonmember conference pricing is $384 prior to

February 11 and $424 after.)

ITEEA Teams Up with Four Other Associations in

Article on Digital Fabrication

Writers from ITEEA, the National Council of Teachers

of Mathematics, the Association of Mathematics Teacher

Educators, the Society for Information Technology

and Teacher Education, and the American Society for

Engineering Educators have teamed up to write an article

titled “Use of Digital Fabrication to Incorporate Engineering

Design Principles in Elementary Mathematics Education”

that is featured in the Contemporary Issues in Technology

and Teacher Education Journal.

The article is designed to show the collaboration of these

five associations in teaching about and with technology

in elementary mathematics instruction. The article was

also directed at fostering STEM education, which is a

fundamental challenge for education. President Obama

(2009) recently addressed members of the National

Academy of Sciences and called for an increased emphasis

on hands-on learning to address this need when he said:

“I want to encourage young people to be makers of things,

not just consumers of things.”

The President concluded that the future of the United States

depends upon our ability to encourage young people to

“create and build and invent.”

This article can be found at www.citejournal.org/vol10/iss2/

editorial/article1.cfm.

ITEEA Recognized for Its Support of Children’s

Engineering

ITEEA and the Society for Information Technology and

Teacher Education (SITE) have been recognized by the

MacArthur Foundation for their joint effort to support

children’s engineering in the nation’s schools. The Fab@

School 3D fabricator is at the center of their winning

entry in the first MacArthur Foundation Learning

Labs competition. The Fab@School submission was

selected from more than 800 entries in the competition,

cosponsored by the MacArthur Foundation and the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The

SITE/ITEEA Fab@School project was designated by the

sponsors as the “most novel use of new media in support

of learning.”

3 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


STEM Calendar

October 4-7, 2010 The International Society of Automation

(ISA) will hold its annual event, ISA Automation Week

2010, at the Westin Galleria Hotel in Houston, Texas. ISA

Automation Week is a technical conference that covers

2½ days of sessions, including two keynote addresses,

networking and social events, and a 10,000 square-foot

exhibit area featuring over 100 exhibitors. Early-bird and

member registration discounts are available. For registration

rates, program information, or general event information,

visit www.isaautomationweek.org.

October 4-10, 2010 Join educators and space enthusiasts

around the world to celebrate World Space Week. This

international event commemorates the beginning of the

Space Age with the launch of Sputnik 1 on October 4,

1957. World Space Week is the largest public space event

in the world, with celebrations in more than 50 nations.

During World Space Week, teachers are encouraged to

use space-themed activities. To find NASA educational

resources that can be used during World Space Week, visit

the Educational Materials Finder: http://search.nasa.gov/

search/edFilterSearch.jsp?empty=true. To learn more about

World Space Week, search for events in your area, and

find educational materials related to the event, visit www.

worldspaceweek.org/index.html.

October 15, 2010 The Massachusetts Technology

Education/Engineering Collaborative will present its 2010

Annual MassTec Conference, Delivering the Promise – The

T&E of STEM, at the Industrial Technology Department

at Fitchburg State College, 160 Pearl Street, Fitchburg,

Massachusetts. Planning is under way. It is not too early to

register, apply for a vendor table, submit a workshop, or (if

you cannot attend) apply for membership only. Visit http://

masstec.org/conference.html for details.

October 15-20, 2010 The Biotechnology Institute is now

accepting registrations for Teach BioScience!, a premier

training program for teachers who want to bring stateof-the-art

bioscience education to their classrooms.

The new conference, which will be held in Washington,

DC, allows educators to custom design a professional

development experience that meets their needs! For more

information or to register, visit www.biotechinstitute.org/

programs/Conference_Bioscience_Education_2010.html,

or contact Scott May at smay@biotechinstitute.org or

571-527-3256.

October 20-22, 2010 Space Week in New Mexico where

ISPCS, the leading meeting of the commercial and personal

spaceflight industry conference, is held. ISPCS is organized

by the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium, a member of

the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program,

administered by NASA. On October 22, WhiteKnightTwo

and VSS Enterprise will perform a flyover as part of the

festivities. This will be the first long-distance test flight of

the VG spaceship and mothership system as part of the

celebrations inaugurating the completion of the runway

at Virgin Galactic’s future home—Spaceport America. A

flyover of the two craft will be a unique event enabling

attendees to see both the spaceport and the vehicles. For

more information on ISPCS 2010, visit www.ispcs.com.

October 21-22, 2010 The Triangle Coalition for Science

and Technology Education is partnering with ITEEA

to present its Annual Conference on STEM Education

Policy in Washington, DC at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel.

The conference will focus on the key issues confronting

education leaders at all levels. The theme of this year’s

conference is STEM Innovation…Leveraging Government,

Education, and Business. It will focus on the transition from

policy to practice, with panel discussions on Congress’s

legislative agenda, the Administration’s education priorities,

the implications of these issues to the various Federal

Agencies with STEM education programs, and how state

and local education leaders can build on these policies and

influence educational excellence in their communities. The

conference will conclude with attendees making visits to

Capitol Hill to meet with Congressional delegates to discuss

these key issues.

To register or to find out more information about the

conference, visit the conference webpage at www.regonline.

com/triangle_coalitions_annual_conference_on_stem_educ.

October 21-22, 2010 The National Girls Collaborative

Project’s Collaboration Conference will be held at the

Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill. The Project

brings together organizations throughout the United States

that are committed to informing and encouraging girls to

pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics (STEM). The Collaboration Conference is an

opportunity for representatives from these organizations

to connect and learn from each other and nationallevel

experts. Thanks to funding provided by the Noyce

Foundation, NGCP is able to provide the opportunity for 50

practitioners, representing 25 organizations serving girls in

STEM, to attend the Collaboration Conference at no cost.

Scholarships will be provided to teams of two from selected

organizations. For more information, please visit the

Conference website at www.ngcproject.org/collabconf/.

4 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


STEM Calendar

October 28-29, 2010 The Department of Technology,

State University of New York at Oswego, will host its 71st

Technology Education Fall Conference on the SUNY

Oswego campus on Lake Ontario. The conference is open

to all K-16 educators/professionals from different school

disciplines, who want to explore this year’s theme of

engineering in Technology Education. The approximately

500 attendees will enjoy 50+ programs, professional

development/contacts, and numerous vendor displays in

Wilber, Park, and Sheldon Halls. For additional information

on attending or presenting, contact Mark.Springston@

Oswego.edu, Conference Co-Chair, or visit www.

fallconference.com.

November 5-6, 2010 Save the date for the New England

Association of Technology Teachers (NEATT) 2010 fall

conference, to be held at the University of Southern Maine

at Gorham. Email NEATT President Jeffrey Jobst at jjobst@

mass.rr.com for additional information.

November 11-12, 2010 The 68th Annual Four State

Regional Technology Conference, 21st Century Technology

Showcase, will take place at Pittsburg State University/

Kansas Technology Center. For information, contact 620-

235-4365 or Kylie Westervelt at kwesterv@pittstate.edu.

November 11-12, 2010 The Colorado Technology

Education Association’s 2010 CTEA Conference, 25 Years of

Sharing Ideas!, will be held at the CCCS Lowry Conference

Center in Denver, CO. The agenda will include workshops

on project-based learning, lesson swaps, industry tours,

awards, networking, and more. Would you like to present?

Email rstekete@psdschools.org.

November 26-27, 2010 The First International Conference

of STEM in Education will be held at Queensland University

of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. The importance

of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

(STEM) in Education has been emphasized in numerous

government policies both in Australia and overseas. The

First International Conference of STEM in Education

creates an opportunity for educators and researchers from

schools, universities, businesses, industries, and other

private and public agencies to share and discuss innovative

practices and research initiatives geared towards the

advancement of STEM education. Registration deadline is

October 10, 2010. http://stem.ed.qut.edu.au/

of the conference is Knowledge in Technology Education.

For information contact d.burns@griffith.edu.au or visit:

www.griffith.edu.au/conference/technology-educationresearch-conference-2010.

March 24-26, 2011 ITEEA’s 73rd Annual Conference,

Preparing the STEM Workforce: The Next Generation, will be

held at the Minneapolis Convention Center in Minneapolis,

MN. This year’s

conference

strands are:

The 21st

Century

Workforce,

New Basics,

and Sustainable

Workforce and

Environment. All conference information is available at

www.iteea.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htm.

List your State/Province Association Conference

in TET and STEM Connections (ITEEA’s electronic

newsletter). Submit conference title, date(s), location,

and contact information (at least two months prior to

journal publication date) to kcluff@iteea.org.

Ad Index

Mastercam.......................................................C2

Technology Education Concepts, Inc.............i

Valley City State University .............................i

Kelvin...................................................................6

California University of PA........................... 15

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher...................... 38

Forrest T. Jones................................................C3

SME...................................................................C4

December 8-11, 2010 The 6th Technology Education

Research Conference (TERC) will be held at the Crowne

Plaza Hotel, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. The theme

5 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


The Road to Minneapolis Leads To:

A once-in-a-lifetime professional

development experience for anyone

involved in STEM education.

Make plans to join your colleagues as they delve

into “Preparing the STEM Workforce:

The Next Generation.”

Get the latest conference information at www.iteea.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htm

www.kelvin.com

Find a Complete Selection of

Kre8 ® Products at www.kelvin.com

Kre8 ®

Mars Rover

Steers with

remote controller:

right, left, back

and forth.

#283658

®

Kre8 ®

Solar Racer

Convert sunlight into electricity to power

the electric motor. Adjustable solar panel

and wheels. Clip provided top in place or

design your own. #283691

Kre8 ® Marble Maze

Get your marble to

loop the loop, spin a

wheel, travel along

the tracks and

round corners

Kre8 ® Bridge Kit

3-in-1 Kit!

Suspension

Build and rebuild one

of three bridge types:

arch, suspension,

Arch

or truss. Learn

about spanning

a gap, rigidity,

stiffness, enclosing

a space, triangulation,

mirror image, tension,

and compression.

Truss

#283664

KELVIN and Kre8 are Registered Trademarks of KELVIN L.P.

Kre8 ® Forklift

One motor

moves the load

up/down and

a second motor

moves the

truck back

and forth.

Comes

with 3

wired

remote

controllers.

#283665

#283673

Kre8 ®

Ferris Wheel

Watch the wheel

turn as the people

pods stay upright.

#283675

6 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Editorial

The Necessity of Change

By Katie de la Paz

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the

stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty,

and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so

we must think anew and act anew.” – Abraham Lincoln

The world described above by Abraham Lincoln sounds

much like the one we inhabit today. Like us, the citizens

of the 1860s lived in uncertain times that required them

to be forward-thinking and adaptable. The challenge

faced by ITEEA members is to recognize that change is

necessary in order to remain competitive and relevant.

By voting in March of 2010 to change the name of the

association, and thereby expand its focus, the membership of

ITEEA has chosen to “think anew and act anew.”

And if Step One of the “Surviving Uncertain Times

Handbook” is adaptation, Step Two would most certainly

be “strength in numbers.” Ironically, the times when it is

most difficult to rationalize your annual membership fee are

precisely those times when being part of this organization

becomes most critically important. Our best opportunity

for long-term success as a field is to work together—sharing

resources, supporting one another, and continuing work to

make the world aware of the critical importance of providing

students with a strong STEM education.

Meanwhile, we’ll work to provide the latest news, resources,

and information relating to all the components of STEM,

with an obvious emphasis on the technology and engineering

aspects. Therefore, while technology education remains

a crucial component of our focus, it’s also important to

recognize that it is just one of the components that make

up what has been determined to comprise a comprehensive

21st Century education. And while each of the STEM

components—science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics—can and do work independently; the whole is

definitely greater than the sum of its parts.

In an effort to provide the services you most need and

want, we continue to pay close attention to our annual

Communications Survey. For example, you tell us, year after

year, that you want practical, classroom teacher-written

articles. We want nothing more than to be able to deliver.

However, to do that, we need YOU to share your classroom

experiences. Our teachers are notoriously reticent—often

convincing themselves that they don’t have the writing

“chops” to successfully put pen to paper, resulting in an

unfortunate lack of precisely the kind of material that

everyone wants most. Let me translate that into a STEMfriendly

equation:

Not Enough Articles Written by Teachers = Not Enough

Articles Published by Teachers

For me, a highlight of the ITEEA Charlotte conference was

seeing two classroom teachers receive authorship awards.

Pictured above (on right) is Curt Funkhouser receiving

the first-ever award for “Top Peer-Reviewed Article by a

Classroom Teacher.” Curt didn’t think of himself as a writer,

probably right up until the time he won the award. But he had

classroom experience to share and knew that his experience

could benefit other teachers. Curt was willing to “act anew”—

he took a chance and wrote an article. His reward, in addition

to the “feel good” aspect of being published, is an award and

some great PR for his program.

7 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


This year, in addition to handing out another round of

author awards in Minneapolis, we are offering an additional

incentive: any classroom teacher who has a manuscript

published in Technology and Engineering Teacher will

receive a $50 credit—to use for ITEEA membership,

conference, or publications.

What else did we learn from the survey? That even with

a constantly updated website, email notifications, and a

burgeoning social network, the vast majority of you (92%!)

still consider Technology and Engineering Teacher to be the

most effective way to receive information from ITEEA. We

will continue to put a lot of effort into all of these avenues,

while understanding that you expect a lot from TET—and do

our best to deliver.

When asked what topics you would like to have addressed in

future issues, we heard responses that were very similar to

last year—and very reflective of current events. The top four

topics were:

• STEM (and STEM Integration)

• Green (Technology and Environment)

• Implementing Engineering in the Classroom

• Practical, Classroom Teacher-Written Projects/Activities

This helps us tremendously when determining editorial

content for the year, and we’ve lined up a series of articles

to address these important topics, beginning this month

with Rodger Bybee’s article, which “sets out to clarify the

purpose of STEM education as well as address challenges to

its advancement.”

Thank you all for the opportunity to create and share

resources on your behalf. Your dedication to creating a

next generation of truly technologically literate citizens

brings a tremendous sense of purpose to what I do every

day. I look forward to working our way, together, through

the “stormy present.”

Katie de la Paz is Editor-in-Chief of the

International Technology and Engineering

Educators Association. She can be reached

via email at kdelapaz@iteea.org.

Attention Technology and Engineering Classroom Teachers!

Earn a $50 credit towards ITEEA membership,

conference, or publications!

By having an article accepted for publication in Technology

and Engineering Teacher, classroom teachers are eligible for

the $50 credit.

Need more information? Try these helpful links.

• Writing for Technology and Engineering Teacher

(www.iteea.org/Publications/WritingForTET.pdf)

• Sample classroom teacher-written articles

(www.iteea.org/Publications/submissionguidelines.htm)

• Copyright guidelines

(www.iteea.org/Publications/CopyrightGuidelines.pdf)

Questions or submissions should be directed

to kdelapaz@iteea.org.

8 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Resources in Technology and Engineering

Wind Power:

An Emerging Energy Resource

By Walter F. Deal

It is ironic that we think of wind,

solar, geothermal, and other energy

sources as “alternative” energy

resources.

Energy in the News

Events in the energy arena have been in headlines over the

last year. Two significant human and environmental tragedies

were the Massey coal mine explosion in West Virginia

and the explosion of the Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon

Drilling rig—causing British Petroleum’s oil spill in the Gulf

of Mexico. Despite heroic rescue efforts at the Massey mine,

29 miners perished in the explosion on April 5, 2010. News

media reports state that this was one of the worst mining

accidents in the last 40 years (Fox News, 2010).

On the international scene there were also other significant

energy accidents. About the same time as the Massey mine

explosion, the Wangjialing mine was flooded and 115

Chinese miners were rescued after being trapped for eight

days. Thirty-six miners were killed at the Wangjialing mine in

Shanxi province in China (CNTV, 2010).

Figure 1. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) astronaut

Soichi Noguchi, Expedition 23 flight engineer, photographed the

Mississippi Delta showing the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico on

May 4, 2010. Part of the river delta and nearby Louisiana coast

appears dark as the sunlight reflects on the water. Millions of

gallons of oil have flowed from the Deepwater Horizon well in

the Gulf of Mexico. This photograph provides a view of the Gulf

and relative size of the oil film stretching across the delta. The

oil disaster will have far-reaching effects well into the future for

humans and the environment.

Several major mining practices are used to recover coal.

These include surface mining such as area mining, contour

mining, and mountaintop removal. Underground mining

techniques, such as room and pillar mining, are used where

coal seams are too deep to recover by surface techniques.

Depending on the geology of the land and characteristics

of the coal seam and other details, either surface mining or

underground mining strategies are followed. Underground

mining is hazardous work. Danger from mine collapse,

gas or dust explosions, and flooding are a constant threat.

9 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Significant measures are undertaken to insure the safety of

miners, yet accidents do happen.

The British Petroleum (BP) Deepwater Horizon drilling rig

that was located in the Gulf of Mexico exploded on April

21, 2010 and claimed the lives of nine workers. Again, as

in mining coal, the recovery of energy resources can be

extremely hazardous. The BP Deepwater Horizon well is

in 5,000 feet of water in the Gulf and another 13,000 feet

into the sea bed and reservoir (CBS News). It is difficult to

imagine a well that is three miles into the earth!

Coal, oil, and natural gas are three major sources of energy

that are typically used by the industrial nations around

the world. These energy resources are what we may call

“convenient energy” because they are inexpensive, easy to

transport, concentrated, and easy to use. However, there

are many costs that we may not recognize as being hazards,

affecting humans and the natural world around us. They are

finite resources, and the difficulties and challenges increase

in the search for new sources of these forms of energy. As

we look toward our energy future, there is little question

that we need to look at other sources of energy besides oil,

coal, and natural gas.

Energy Perspective

We may ask the question, What is energy? Typically the first

answers that come to mind are oil, coal, and natural gas or

nuclear energy. Most human activities require some form

of energy consumption. This may be the energy produced

by the food that we eat or the gasoline that is used in cars,

trucks, buses, and other vehicles. We cannot ignore the fact

that we use energy in work and recreation. We use energy

when we ride a bicycle to a store, take a bus or airplane trip,

or even talk on a mobile phone. We use energy across the

spectrum in communications, construction, manufacturing,

and transportation. For example, the food that we consume

may be produced far from our homes on large farms in

another state or even in another country. We may purchase

grapes from Chile or hamburger from Canada or fish from

Norway. Energy is a key element that is required to produce,

harvest, process, and transport that food. We use energy for

lighting, heating, and cooling our homes and businesses. It

is important to recognize that energy plays a critical role in

how we work or play and even survive. However, we may

give little thought as to where this energy comes from. Could

other forms of energy, such as wind and solar energy, become

major players in our energy mix?

What is energy? We can simply define energy as the capacity

to do work as measured by the capability of doing work

(potential energy) or the conversion of this capability to

motion (kinetic energy). Energy that is stored, such as

gasoline or water behind a dam, is defined as potential

energy. Electricity that is available to you through an

electrical wall outlet is a source of potential energy. That

electricity has the potential to do work for you! When we

plug an electrical appliance, such as a microwave, into a

wall outlet and turn it on, the potential electrical energy is

converted into some useful form that is being consumed—

called kinetic energy or the energy of motion. Here the

device may be a lamp that provides light or a toaster that

supplies heat. Here the energy is converted from one form

to another. In our examples, electricity is converted into

light and heat. The electricity is a “convenient” form of

energy because it is easy to transport, easy to convert into a

useful form, and is low in cost. (Figure 2.) Other examples of

kinetic energy are a stream or river, an electric motor used

to power a fan, or a wind generator converting the kinetic

energy of the wind into electricity.

Energy is available in a number of forms, some of which

are easily converted and can be changed into another form

that can do useful work. Most of the world’s convenient

energy comes from fossil fuels that are burned to produce

heat that is then used as a transfer medium to mechanical or

other means to accomplish tasks or do work. Other forms

of energy include solar, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, biomass,

wind, and hydropower. Frequently these forms of energy

are called “alternative” energy resources because they do

not contribute large quantities of usable forms of energy

demanded by industrialized societies (with the exception of

Figure 2. The energy mix that is representative of many industrialized

countries includes petroleum, natural gas, coal, and nuclear

energy. It is important to note that alternative energy resources

such as wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass make

up about seven percent of the energy mix in the United States.

(Adapted from Energy Basics EIA/DOE). (www.eia.doe.gov/kids/

energy.cfm?page=about_home-basics)

10 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


nuclear energy). In looking at these forms of energy, we can

see that some of them are renewable and others are not.

Looking at Other Energy Resources

It is ironic that we think of wind, solar, geothermal, and

other energy sources as “alternative” energy resources. If

we look at energy from an historical perspective, wind and

solar energy uses date back thousands of years, while coal

and refined petroleum are more recent. Wind energy is one

of the oldest energy resources used by humans. Humans

have used wind to fill the sails of sailing vessels travelling

the seven seas. Windmills, used in much the same way as

sails on sailing ships, captured the energy of the wind and

converted it into motion; early windmills had sails that

captured the energy of the wind (Goffman, 2008).

that dates sometime before 1900. This type of windmill is

characteristic of what you might have expected to see dotting

the farmland in the Midwest from the mid-1800s through

the 1930s that were used for pumping water. Other brands

of windmills included Heller-Aller, Perkins, Star, Dempster,

Fairbury, and Aeromotor (Gillis, p.15).

Photo Credit: NREL/Jim Green

It is thought that early windmills have their roots in Persia

near the present day borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. As

civilizations advanced and declined, you could see evidence

of windmills harnessing the power of wind to grind corn or

grain (Gillis, p. 6). With the introduction of the steam engine

and fuels such as peat and coal, and later oil, windmills began

to disappear. Coal and oil were convenient, concentrated,

easily transported, used on demand, and did not rely on the

variability of wind currents.

While there are many different types of windmills, we

probably are most familiar with the windmills of Holland.

One of the earliest types of windmills was the post windmill,

where the mill housing and sails were built upon a post.

The mill housing, which set upon the post, contained

the hardware such as hoppers, gearing, and mill stones

for grinding and making flour. Subsequently, tower mills

began to appear during the middle ages and may have

been constructed with timbers or stone depending on the

availability of local materials. These types of mills were much

larger and sturdier than the post mill. While the towers were

stationary, the caps could be rotated so that the sails could

face into the wind (Gillis, p.10).

Windmills Across the American Prairies

Just as the railroads moved across America connecting the

East and West coasts, windmills gained in importance, too.

Water is a critical resource for humans and machines. Water

was needed for human and animal consumption on the Great

Plains. The steam locomotives required water to make steam

to power the steam engines as they travelled the rails across

the countryside.

Windmills were used to pump water from underground

aquifers using a series of cranks and rods connected to a

pump. Figure 3 shows a restored Eclipse-brand windmill

Figure 3. This Eclipse-brand windmill, manufactured by Fairbanks

Morse, is located in a city park in Limon, CO. It has wooden blades

and tail—perhaps a pre-1900 model. It is no longer pumping water

as a working windmill.

Windmills were used primarily for pumping water but

also were used for other activities that required the energy

of motion. Windmills were employed in sawing logs into

lumber, grinding grain, and generating electricity. Rural areas

in America as well as other parts of the world did not have

the luxury of utility-generated electricity during the early

1900s. Windmills supplied small amounts of electricity to

charge batteries that could power electric lamps for light and

simple radios for several hours a day. Keep in mind that this

was a very modest amount of electricity as compared with

what we may consume in our homes today! Most of these

windmills were removed or destroyed in America when the

11 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Rural Electrification Authority (REA) installed electric power

lines into these areas (Gillis, p.4)

Interests in Wind Power

America’s interest in and policies toward alternate energy

and wind power has been much like a yo-yo. Changes in the

supply, demand, and pricing of energy drive energy policy.

This can be seen in the invention and innovation of windpower

devices throughout history. The Arab Oil Embargo of

1973 resulted in an oil crisis in the early 1970s and brought

about a flurry of interest and subsequent grants, research

initiatives, and demonstration projects for a variety of energy

generation and development that emphasized renewable and

replenishable resources. Research projects focused on wind,

solar, geothermal, and biofuels such as ethanol.

A number of large wind-power projects appeared in the early

1980s. California is noted for its warm and sunny weather,

and most notably its prevailing winds that originate over the

Pacific Ocean, and became home to a number of wind-power

projects. One of the most notable was the Altamont Pass

wind farm. The Altamont Pass project attracted three of the

earliest wind-farm builders (Gillis, p.58). U.S. Power built the

first 100 turbines that had three-legged 60-foot towers with

three-blade rotors attached to a generator mounted at the

top of the tower. Another builder, Fayette Manufacturing,

erected 50 turbines on 40-foot thin tubular towers with blade

diameters of 50 feet. U.S. Wind Power’s turbines at Altamont

produced about 1.5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. The

wind turbines at Altamont Pass and other wind farms would

establish technology trends with their large three-blade

rotors on a single steel tower.

research projects. These activities will augment the scientific

and technical exchanges that already occur between the two

Departments. The goal is to facilitate the development of

offshore clean energy. Additionally, it is expected that these

efforts will create clean energy jobs while expanding the

nation’s renewable energy portfolio and easing America’s

reliance on fossil fuels. (U.S. Department of Energy)

Engineering and Technical Careers

There are a variety of professional and skilled-worker

jobs available in the wind-energy sector. As new windenergy

projects are designed, constructed, and operated,

employment opportunities will be realized. Much of the

funding for alternative and wind-energy projects comes from

federal and state grants and research projects. Jobs in these

areas will require people with business skills and knowledge,

as well as meteorological and engineering experience, to

plan and build projects.

Expect to see meteorologists helping engineers identify

appropriate sites with suitable geographical and wind

Photo Credit: Warren Gretz/NREL

By the late 1980s wind farms were generating large quantities

of electricity in California. Texas would soon take over the

leadership from California in wind-produced electricity,

and by the end of 2006 Texas had an installed base of 2,768

megawatts of wind-generated capacity! While the energy

of the wind is free, critics often complain that wind energy

is not cost-effective without government subsidies (Gillis

p.56). Further, environmental groups oppose large-scale

wind farms because of the threat to migratory birds, their

loud low-pitched sound, and what some consider to be large

unsightly structures.

Today there is renewed interest in continuing to develop

and build wind farms and other alternative energy

resources. Recently, the U.S. Department of the Interior and

Department of Energy have combined efforts to develop

renewable offshore energy resources. The two agencies

will exchange information on resources and technologies,

conduct stakeholder engagements, and collaborate on

Figure 4. Certification test engineer Arlinda Huskey is shown here

measuring noise emission from the Advanced Wind Turbines, Inc.

AWT-26 wind turbine at the National Wind Turbine Technology

Center using a microphone, signal analyzer, and data recorder.

12 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


conditions. Engineers design the wind-plant facilities while

working with the power utility companies and surrounding

communities. A variety of construction worker classifications

are needed to construct the wind plant. Mechanical and

electrical technicians and technologists are needed to

operate and maintain the wind turbines. These technicians

are called “windsmiths.” Aside from technical positions in

the alternative and wind-energy area, there are business,

management and marketing, sales, communications, human

services, and personnel positions that offer many professional

career opportunities (EERE).

Most all of the technical, engineering, and professional

careers require math and science skills. Critical-thinking

and problem-solving skills such as those gained in science,

math, technology, and engineering classes are a significant

asset in careers that you may find attractive and rewarding.

Technicians and technologists use test equipment to

measure and test the efficiency and performance of complex

equipment and require math and technical skills to accurately

interpret charts and graphs for technical reports (Figure 4).

Photo Credit Warren Gretz/NREL

Figure 6. Here is an exploded illustration view of the inside of a

typical wind turbine. Shown here are the turbine rotor and nacelle

and their technological systems. A mechanical system converts

the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy, and the

mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy that is transported

and used by the consumer (Courtesy of EERE).

Specific careers in technical and nontechnical administrative

and professional support fields can be found in the

Dictionary of Occupational Titles (www.occupationalinfo.

org/) and “ONet” Online Occupational Information Network

(www.occupationalinfo.org/onet/).

How Wind Generators Work

Windmills and wind turbines depend on the motion of air

currents or wind to turn some type of propeller or rotor

to convert the wind energy into mechanical energy. It is

this principle that is common to windmills of the past and

present-day wind turbines. Today we call windmills wind

turbines, as they are more sophisticated in design and

construction. Wind turbines generally are classified into two

major categories: horizontal-axis and vertical-axis machines.

The most common design is the horizontal design as shown

in Figure 5. These are three-blade turbines that are designed

to face the oncoming wind.

Figure 5. Wind turbine construction workers and engineers are

hoisting a Westinghouse 600 kW wind turbine rotor and nacelle assembly

on top of a steel tower at the NREL National Wind Technology

Center (NWTC), where the turbine will be modified for use as a

test bed for component testing.

When we look inside a wind turbine nacelle or housing,

we can see a number of technological systems such as

shown in Figure 6. These include a mechanical system

of gears and shafts to modify the low speed of the rotor

through a gear box to increase the generator shaft speed.

The rotor is part of this mechanical system that converts

the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy.

The wind moving across the blades of the rotor creates a

13 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


“lift” and therefore rotation of the rotor. The generator is

the heart of the generating system, as it is used to convert

the mechanical energy of the wind acting on the rotor into

electrical energy. There are sensors that determine the wind

speed and wind direction. This information is channeled

into a control system that orients the wind turbine into

an optimal position facing the wind using a yaw control

system. A braking system limits that rotational speed of

the rotor to safe and acceptable speeds. A pitch control can

alter the pitch of the rotor to control the speed and drive

the generator.

As you can see, there are a number of mechanical,

electrical and electronic, and structural systems that

function together to harness the power of the wind.

There are engineers, technologists, and technicians who

design, operate, and maintain equipment such as these

sophisticated wind turbines. Additionally, there are

other business and support professionals concerned with

personnel and business issues who require technological

literacy to support their nontechnical job skills.

Student Activity

The following activity addresses Standards for Technological

Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA/ITEEA,

2000/2002/2007) Standards 5, 9, and 10.

Standard 5 – Students will develop an understanding of

the effects of technology and the environment (p. 65).

Standard 9 – Students will develop an understanding of

engineering design (p. 99).

Standard 10 – Students will develop an understanding of

the role of troubleshooting, research and development,

invention and innovation, and experimentation in

problem solving (p. 106).

Task

The task in this activity is to research, plan, design,

construct, and test a working model of a wind turbine.

Miniature 6-12 volt DC electric motors can be used as

DC generators. A rotor or propeller must be designed and

constructed that can be used with the motor in a generator

mode. An LED can be used as a load and voltage, and

current data can be collected at various wind speeds using

an inexpensive digital multimeter. The data can be collected,

recorded, and analyzed to establish potential power and

wind relationships. The wind turbine should be capable

of orienting itself into the wind using a wind-vane design

concept. Students should research the best location on the

school grounds by analyzing wind patterns. In addition, they

should research an ideal home or large-scale wind turbine

location within their city or country and describe the

characteristics of such a site.

Ideally, an engineering-team approach should be used to

maximize innovation and experimentation as well as a team

and competitive dimension to the learning activity. The

teams should consult the Department of Energy’s Wind and

Water Power Program website (www.windpoweringamerica.

gov) for information about wind power technologies and

suitable wind locations.

Student engineering technical reports should reflect the

scope of each team’s project and findings. Team evaluation

should be based on the project team’s turbine design,

innovation, experiment, and technical report.

Summary

Energy is a critical resource to emerging and industrial

societies. We can see that fossil energy resources

such as oil, coal, and natural gas are convenient and

concentrated energy sources. They are easy to convert

from one form to another, which makes them ideal for

heating and cooling and for powering the engines of

industry as well. Generally, fossil fuels are burned to

create heat and expanding gases that are converted into

mechanical energy and thus into more useful forms such

as electricity and motion. All societies use energy in

varying degrees. Industrial and information societies are

energy-intensive and use very large quantities of energy.

Today western societies rely on very large quantities

of petroleum, coal, and natural gas to support human

needs such as agricultural production, communication,

construction, and manufacturing activities. However, it

is widely recognized that fossil fuels are finite resources

that are becoming scarce and challenging to discover and

extract. These challenges are highlighted by recent energy

accidents around the globe such as in the Gulf of Mexico

and in China.

These kinds of accidents and their impact on the

environment, as well their effect on the global warming or

climate change front, provide an incentive to explore and

develop alternative energy resources and technologies.

These kinds of accidents affect governmental policies

regarding the extraction and use of energy resources.

Governments may provide incentives through research

and demonstration projects, grants, and taxes. Alternative

energy resources, such as wind and solar energies, can be

a part of the energy mix to meet human needs and reduce

the undesirable impacts of fossil fuels. As we move toward

the future, we will see new jobs on the horizon that

complement the alternative energy field.

14 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Resources

CBS News. (2010, May 16). Blowout: The Deepwater

Horizon Disaster. Retrieved from www.cbsnews.com/

stories/2010/05/16/60minutes/main6490197.shtml

CNTV. Death toll rises to 36 in north China colliery flood;

investigation launched. Retrieved from http://english.

cctv.com/20100413/105282.shtml

Fox News Network, LLC. (2010, July 1). Coal miner killed

in accident at Massey Energy operation in southern

West Virginia. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com/

us/2010/07/01/coal-miner-killed-accident-masseyenergy-operation-southern-west-virginia/.

Published July

01, 2010 | Associated Press

Gillis, Christopher. (2008). Windpower. Atglen, PA.

Goffman, Ethan (2008). Schiffer Publishing Ltd. Capturing

the wind: Power for the 21st century. Retrieved from

www.csa.com/discoveryguides/wind/review.php.

U.S. Department of Energy. (2010, June 29). DOI and DOE

sign MOU to spur offshore renewable energy projects.

Retrieved from http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/daily.

cfm/hp_news_id=252

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearing

House (EERE). (2001, January). Careers in renewable

energy. Retrieved from www1.eere.energy.gov/library/

pdfs/28369.pdf

Walter F. Deal, Ph.D. is an adjunct

associate professor and Emeriti at Old

Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. He

can be reached via email at wdeal@odu.edu.

217_430 TechEd7x4.625_BW:Layout 1 1/6/10 10:01 AM Page 1

100% ONLINEMaster of Education

in Technology Education

Ensure the vital competitiveness of your

students by becoming an expert educator

in integrating technology and engineering

(the T&E of STEM) by earning your Master’s

degree ONLINE.

C A L I F O R N I A U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y LVA N I A

BUILDING CHARACTER. BUILDING CAREERS.

www.calu.edu/go

A proud member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.

G L O BA L

O N L I N E

CALU

This 100% online program will enhance

your ability to prepare your students with

a conceptual understanding of technology

and its place in society:

• Dedicated, world-class faculty

• Asynchronous program with

flexible learning

No residency requirement

• Competitive tuition

• 31 credits

The National Academy of Engineering

developed an action plan to address the

“technology” and “education” components

of STEM (science, technology, engineering

and math) with representatives from

business, government and education to

address growing employment demands.

Strengthen the “T&E” pipeline to address

the looming shortage of talent prepared to

enter these careers. Prepare your students

by being the best.

15 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Classroom Challenge

Rooftop Garden

Design Challenge

By Harry T. Roman

Any good design has plenty of

illustrations, artist’s renderings,

top/side/perspective drawings,

and assorted projections of what

the physical reality of the design

might look like.

Introduction

A small commercial building in a nearby industrial park

has decided to install a rooftop garden for its employees

to enjoy. The garden will be about 100 feet long and 75

feet wide. The company has heard about your school’s

technology and engineering education program and is

impressed, and has asked you to consider having your

students assist with the initial conceptual design and

concerns with planning the garden. Are you and the

students ready for this challenge?

Getting Started

The best way to start any open-ended design like this is to

consider the basic questions that are likely to arise in the

mind of the company. So let’s make a list of the things we

anticipate will be of importance to the company.

• Can the roof and building structure support the added

weight of soil, plants, and other items to be installed

there? And the water to be absorbed by the soils?

• Are there to be only plants in the garden or small trees

and shrubs as well?

• If natural rain is insufficient, is there a water supply that

can be tapped from the building?

• Will there be walkways and places to sit or maybe eat

lunch in the garden?

• Who will tend and maintain the garden after it is

functional?

16 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


This phase of the rooftop garden should conclude with a

summary report of the concerns and past experiences with

rooftop gardens and a bibliography of references cited. If

time permits, the students might even make a formal oral

presentation to company managers about what they have

found out in the first phase of their work.

Can the roof and building structure support the added weight of

soil, plants, and other items to be installed?

These first few questions are pretty “technical” in nature, so

don’t forget to include other concerns as well, such as:

• Does this alteration of the building affect any of

the local municipal codes for fire, safety, building

construction, and public appearance?

• Is a special permit or variance needed from the town?

• Are there building insurance impacts and additional

premium fees as a result of the rooftop garden?

• Will there be a need for additional safety measures for

the employees who visit the garden?

• How might this new employee facility affect their work

habits?

Making a Design Case

Teams of students can now begin developing some initial

designs for the rooftop garden. It would be helpful to keep

in mind that the students are to be involved in the early

concept and planning stages, which generally means the

customer (the company in this case) may not have a firm

idea of what it wants. Perhaps the best way to approach this

design challenge is to have different student teams develop

different design themes. For instance, how about some

design team themes such as:

• A relaxation garden to promote employee creativity

• A lunch-hour respite garden

• An open-air meeting garden for company team

meetings

• A multipurpose and recreational garden

• An active garden where employees can tend the plants

Now students may begin the actual design phase, turning

the design themes listed above into exciting visual

formations, accompanied by good written supporting

descriptions.

These two lists above are not necessarily complete. There

are probably other concerns that should be itemized

and discussed. Give this initial thinking time plenty of

room, letting the students feel comfortable with being a

“consultant” to the company. To help spur student thinking

on this design challenge, the students can visualize what

it would be like to have such a facility on their own school

roof. What might their principal and administrative staff be

concerned about in such a case?

They should also check the literature for what has been

done in the past with rooftop garden designs. Are there

architects who specialize in this, whose work can be

referenced? Is this a field of study in architectural schools?

Are there architects or a school of architecture from which

an expert may visit the class and provide some firsthand

information? Literature searches via Internet or traditional

library sources are, of course, also strongly encouraged.

Students are free to use hand drawings, computer-generated images,

or sketches to get their ideas across in an understandable way.

17 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Any good design has plenty of illustrations, artist’s

renderings, top/side/perspective drawings, and assorted

projections of what the physical reality of the design

might look like. Students are free to use hand drawings,

computer-generated images, or sketches to get their ideas

across in an understandable way.

A favorite technique of architects is to use threedimensional

models and diorama-like portrayals to give

their creations a lifelike quality, creating excitement and

affinity for their chosen design points. There is nothing

preventing your students from doing the same thing for

their client company. Have at it and let the construction

paper, foam-board, paints, and assorted accoutrements fly!

Tease out the artist-designer in everyone. Make sure to mix

head and hand learners on each design team.

Would a bench add some “pizzazz” to your rooftop garden design?

When the designs are ready, it becomes time for the big

presentation to the client company and the time to see their

faces light up with awe and surprise at what your students

have designed. I can hear the applause from here!

If you can visualize this highly creative effort happening

right now in your classroom….why wait any longer?

Contact some nearby companies and businesses, and

offer the services of your students to solve problems and

fulfill new design challenges they might be thinking about.

Market your students as consultants and then stand back

and watch the creative ideas fly!

Architects use three-dimensional models to give their creations a

lifelike quality.

Museums are a wonderful place to learn about models and

dioramas. Maybe a quick trip to a local museum would get

your students in the mood to build some 3-D models and

help them develop some ideas for doing the same with the

rooftop garden challenge.

Hobby stores may have the kinds of accoutrements and

accessories your students will need, like miniature plants,

trees, benches, walkways, building materials, and such that

will add “pizzazz” and “snap” to their designs. Don’t be

afraid to experiment and push the envelope. Your students

are trying to get their client company to think and envision

what could be a wonderful new space on their now plain,

old, drab, flat roof.

You might be very pleased at what these local companies

and businesses have to say about your school and its

technology and engineering education program.

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.

18 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Preferences of Male and Female

Students for TSA Competitive Events

By Charles R. Mitts and W. J. Haynie, III

Females preferred those

activities that focused on design

or communication and that

seemed socially relevant.

Arguably a major issue facing technology education

(TE) since its inception has been its failure to

attract and keep female students. This article

explains one primary reason female students may

be avoiding TE courses, presents a research-tested set of

tools that TE teachers can use to help fix the problem, and

offers a new realizable pathway toward TE’s number one

goal: technological literacy for all students. By tapping the

full potential of the Technology Student Association (TSA),

TE’s long unintentional and, until recently, unrecognized

and under-addressed history of male gender bias may be

greatly diminished.

Background

The Industrial Arts curriculum before the 1980s did not

attract female students or teachers, but there were some

early indicators that the more contemporary technology

curriculum incorporating computers and communication

technology was more appealing to females (Cummings,

1998; Hill, 1998; Sanders, 2001; and Zuga, 1998). At the

same time, society was changing, and women were more

accepted in traditionally male-dominated professions

(Foster, 1996; Haynie, 1999; Stephens, 1996; and Wolters

& Fridgen, 1996). Still, few women enter technology

education even today. Regrettably, Sanders (2001) noted

that, despite some gains in diversity, “technology education

is still taught mostly by middle-aged white men.” The

secondary classes still attract far more boys than girls. This

troubling issue must be resolved if technology education is

to meet its mission.

The small body of professional literature concerning lack

of women in technology education and factors keeping

females out has been modest but useful (ITEEA, 1994;

Liedtke, 1995; Markert, 1996; Silverman & Pritchard,

1996; Trautman, Hayden, & Smink, 1995; and Volk &

Holsey, 1997). Most of this literature, however, consisted of

opinion papers, library research, and journal articles. Very

little original or data-driven empirical research exists on

gender issues in technology education.

Two foundational research efforts did shed some light on

gender issues in technology education (Haynie, 1999, &

2003). The 1999 survey provided a baseline for further

research. In 2003 the “Quasi Ethnographic Interview

Approach” reported further findings, mostly concerning

the cultural atmosphere in the TE profession. But these

and other similar efforts by researchers following up on

Haynie’s work (Lee, 2008; Varnado, Haynie, and Lee, N.D.)

have failed to identify significantly important ideas for

increasing the interest level of female students to take TE

courses in their secondary school experience. They mainly

focused on how to make females more comfortable once

they had enrolled in TE.

19 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


More recently, Mitts (2008) broke new ground in a study

that did identify topics and activities of interest to females

in TE. His study was essentially a testing of theory and

predictions from an earlier work by Weber and Custer

(2005). Many research studies, such as those noted in this

paragraph, remain hidden in the esoteric research literature

of the profession. However, when findings of importance

to teachers in the field are revealed, it is important to

share them in a broader forum such as Technology and

Engineering Teacher. That is the purpose of this article: to

share some findings discovered in a re-examination of the

Mitts research data with technology teachers who can use

them to attract more girls to their classes.

Foundations, Methods, and Findings of the

Mitts Study

Documenting the Need. Data from the North Carolina

Department of Public Instruction’s Education Statistics

database for the 2004-2005 school year was examined,

and it clearly revealed the extent of the gender issue

problem in technology education (Table 1). Exploring

Technology Systems is a required middle school course,

and Fundamentals of Technology is an elective course for

high school freshmen (or above) in North Carolina; similar

courses appear in the curricula in many states. While

37% of boys who had Exploring Technology Systems took

Fundamentals of Technology as freshmen, only 8.6% of

the girls did. And out of the 1594 female students who did

enroll in the Fundamentals course, only 1.7% took the next

TE course, Manufacturing Systems. Table 1 documents

a decline of 16,852 female students between middle

school and high school who enrolled in Fundamentals of

Technology in North Carolina: 91.4%.

If the goal of technology education is to ensure that all

students become technologically literate members of

Table 1.

Students Enrolled in North Carolina Technology Education

Courses 2004-2005

Course Males Females Ratio

Exploring Technology Systems 30258 18446 1.64:1

Fundamentals of Technology 11107 1594 6.97:1

Manufacturing Systems 853 27 31.59:1

Principles of Technology I 1943 547 3.55:1

Principles of Technology II 395 49 8.06:1

Note: The researcher selected these courses because they were the ones offered at

the Lincoln County High School where he taught in 2004-2005.

This group of school students has just succeeded in building fragile

towers from nothing but spaghetti-stick beams and gumdrop

fasteners. Girls prefer design activities that have some social

significance. Photographer: Denise Applewhite, Princeton Weekly

Bulletin 2005.

society, we will never achieve this goal unless

approximately one-half of the desks in our classrooms are

occupied by girls.

How Gender Bias Developed. While the data indicates

that TE teachers may have unwittingly contributed to the

problem of too few girls in our classes, the issue of male

gender bias has deep roots in Western philosophy and

culture. From Socrates to Hegel, our philosophers believed

and taught that women were intellectually inferior to men.

Plato said that this was due to the fact that “women are of

the earth.” Beliefs are the basis of actions. The belief that

women were inferior to men was used as the justification

for barring women from receiving any formal education

or participating in public life. It wasn’t until the middle of

the 19th century that educational opportunities became

available for women. And, even in our pluralistic society

of the USA, women only recently won their right to vote

in 1922. During WWII the “Rosie the Riveter” image

convinced many members of our society that women were

capable, but when the war ended the servicemen generally

still reclaimed most jobs in industry and technology, and

bias against females still prevailed.

The fact that technology education has been dominated

by men is partially due to the consequence of an historic

split by the Congress of vocational education into maledominated

industrial arts and female-dominated home

economics. This division no doubt made perfect sense

to the all-male U.S. Congress when it passed the Smith-

Hughes Act in 1917, the precursor of today’s Carl Perkins

20 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Occupation

Construction manager

Engineering manager

Aerospace engineer

Chemical engineer

Civil engineer

Computer hardware engineer

Electrical and electronics engineer

Mechanical engineer

Table 2.

Percent of Women in Technical Occupations 2005

Percent

6.4

5.9

11.3

15.8

11.7

12.7

7.9

5.8

Act. Even though women were moving toward equal

treatment and opportunities, the common belief was

that a woman’s place was in the home. So, while today all

educational arenas and occupational fields are open to

women, the situation is complicated by the fact that what

women believe it means to be a woman has developed over

the centuries within the context of and by relationship to a

male-defined norm (Table 2).

Effects of Gender Bias in TE. Research reveals major

differences in career preferences between males and

females. Women prefer fields that involve people and living

things, such as law, medicine, and biological sciences,

while men prefer fields that deal with the inanimate, such

as physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, and

engineering. Activities in the industrial arts shops of the

1940s–1960s, such as the pump handle lamp (shown in

Figure 1) and gun rack projects appealed mainly to boys.

In the 1970s those traditional projects were supplanted

by a number of new activities derived from the IACP

era as part of our transition to TE. But there was still a

notable gender bias. The Metric Dragster was the most

popular activity of this period, and it still mainly attracted

boys. Research also reveals that while women are not well

represented in technical careers, females are just as likely

as males to use computers, more likely to participate in

nonathletic activities after school, have higher educational

aspirations than males, and are more likely than males

to immediately enroll in college. Women comprise the

majority of students in undergraduate and graduate

programs, and are more likely to persist and attain degrees.

Research to Identify Sources of Gender Bias in TE.

Weber and Custer published a research study in 2005

that found that females in technology education prefer

activities focusing on design and communication. Their

study divided 56 activities into four categories: Design,

Make, Utilize, and Assess. Student participants were asked

to rate these activities according to their interest level

using a Likert-type scale. Females preferred those activities

that focused on design or communication and that seemed

socially relevant. The top five female choices were:

1. Use a software-editing program to edit a music video.

2. Use a computer software program to design a CD cover.

3. Design a model of an amusement park.

4. Design a school mascot image to print on t-shirts.

5. Design a “theme” restaurant in an existing building.

In contrast, males picked the following five items as their

top choices:

1. Build a rocket.

2. Construct an electric vehicle that moves on a magnetic

track.

3. Perform simple car maintenance tasks on a car engine.

4. Program a robotic arm.

5. Design a model airplane that will glide the greatest

distance.

The results of the Weber-Custer research pointed to clear

differences in gender preferences based upon distinct

categories of activities.

Figure 1. The classic pump-handle lamp project, circa 1940-1960,

and other woodworking projects mainly appealed to boys.

The Follow-up Study by Mitts. In order to test the Weber-

Custer research findings, the types of activities males

and females chose in Technology Student Association

(TSA) competitive events at the North Carolina State TSA

Conferences in 2005 and 2006 were carefully analyzed.

There were 31 middle school events and 33 high school

21 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


events (Mitts, 2008). Before tabulating these gender

choices, the description of each TSA competitive event

listed in the official guides for both middle and high school

was examined; then based upon the Weber-Custer study, a

predictive judgment was made by the researcher as to the

type of event category in which it belonged. Out of a total

of 64 events, it was determined that 26 were designing

and/or communication-type events, and 26 were utilizingtype

events.

Definite conclusions were drawn from the resulting

data. Male and female participants in these TSA state

conferences differed in their preferences for types of

competitive event activities. Males clearly had a strong

bias for utilizing-type activities such as Dragster Design

(7 out of 9 events), while females had a preference for

nonutilizing design and/or communication-type events (10

out of 10). These results were consistent with the findings

of the Weber-Custer research. A correct prediction of

gender preferences for TSA competitive events was made

before data analysis in 20 out of 21 cases (95%) for which

statistically significant results were found. Some TSA

events were omitted from the study because there were not

enough entrants to analyze validly. In addition, the data

clearly suggested that both males and females prefer team

activities by 77%. Of high importance to researchers, but

of little utility to teachers, the validity and reliability of the

Weber-Custer criteria as a predictor of gender preferences

was confirmed.

New Findings Discovered in the Mitts Study

The original Mitts study used raw numbers of students

selecting certain TSA events and the “Chi-Square” statistic

as the basis for determining the predictive capability

of the Weber-Custer assumptions. Thus, if the Weber-

Custer approach predicted that the event “Manufacturing

Prototype” would be favored by males, and then 10 boys

and 8 girls actually entered the contest, it would appear

that boys preferred this event. However, if the same data is

reexamined based on percentages of the total numbers of

girls and boys attending the conference selecting this event,

we see that the 10 boys were from a group of 244 total

(4.10%) while of the total girls present (115) the 8 selecting

this event represents 6.96%. In actuality, the percentage of

girls selecting Manufacturing Prototype at this particular

conference was slightly higher than the percentage of boys.

Hence, the present study reexamines all of the Mitts (2008)

data to provide information easily understood in laymen’s

terms concerning which activities and TSA competitive

events might be more attractive to girls, which are more

or less neutral, and which boys prefer. It is acknowledged

that this casual approach of examining percentages does

not rise to the level of statistical significance available via

the Chi-Square technique, but it allows us to make good

guesses about cases with small numbers, whereas it could

take several years of collecting data to attain statistical

significance for them.

In the reexamination of data from the Mitts study,

columns were added to the original data tables showing

the percentages of males and females selecting each

competitive event, while the previous columns concerning

the Weber-Custer predictions were deleted. The resulting

tables, including the columns of percentages (Tables 3 and

4 for middle school and high school), were then examined

and used to identify specific events favored by males or

females and an informal indication of the magnitude of

their preferences. The following scale of capital and lower

case letters indicating magnitude was used to indicate

preferences:

M = Strong Male preference (more than 5% points)

m = slight Male preference (1-4.99 % points)

none = no preference (less than 1% point difference)

Fundamentals of Technology Class, East Lincoln High School, Lincoln

County, NC. As the research study on TSA gender preferences

confirmed, boys love to build dragsters. Photographer: Charles

Mitts 2003.

N-F = No Finding, 0 females entered the event, so any

apparent finding is invalid

f = slight female preference (1-4.99 % points)

F = Strong Female preference (more than 5% points)

22 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


events and activities marked lower case (m or f, indicating

slight preference) or “none” (neutral). These tables should

be helpful to teachers who wish to present a curriculum

that is more gender neutral.

Girls enjoy group activities and events that simulate making a

contribution to society.

* = If a * appears beside any of the above codes, it

indicates that the difference noted was statistically

significant according to the Chi-Square (Χ²) test at the

.05 level.

Statistical significance does not automatically indicate

importance, so a few of the events marked “m” also have

the *, making them “m *.” Only one event coded with a

capitol letter (M) did not have a significant Χ² finding

(high school - Structural Engineering), so all other F and

M findings are significant statistically as well. In selecting

events, teachers should consider all three bits of data (raw

numbers, percentages, and Χ² results) to determine if the

finding is fully valid, represents enough numbers to be

useful, and really represents a large enough difference to

be important.

The middle school girls seemed to like most (with

high preference, F) 12 of the 31 events and had a slight

preference (f) for four more events. Middle school boys

still had a high level of preference (M) for 7 events,

including the Dragster Design. High school findings were

similar in nature, but there were fewer events strongly

favored by girls (5 of 33 marked F), while boys chose 9

events more often (M). In both tables, teachers can identify

Conclusions

The field of technology education evolved from an

historically male-dominated industrial arts curriculum.

The projects and other learning activities of IA held little

interest for girls, and few females entered the field at any

level as secondary students, teachers, or professors. With

the transition to TE, new activities came into vogue, but

many, such as the CO 2 -powered race car, were still of

much more interest to boys. Casual observations of the

strong male gender bias were confirmed with research,

but the research literature has had little effect in the TE

laboratories and classrooms of our schools. This article

interpreted some valid research findings in a manner more

easily accessible to teachers and presents them in the

appropriate forum for having real impact in our middle

and high schools. TSA competitive events have been

demonstrated to have significant impact on what is taught

in the TE curriculum and how it is taught. Now teachers

can consult the tables provided in this article to choose

activities and TSA competitive events to feature in their

classes that will attract a higher number of girls and help

offset some of the male gender bias at the secondary level.

As more girls participate in higher numbers, eventually

there will also be more female teachers and professors to

attract even more girls.

Events centering on socially significant topics (i.e.,

environment, medical technology, etc.) and those

focusing on communication skills (such as graphic design,

desktop publishing, etc.) have highest appeal to girls and

should certainly be considered as a means to balance the

population of our classes. Events for which boys or girls

have only a slight preference and those that are neutral

can also be useful (if used in balance) to stem the gender

deficit. It is only those activities and TSA events that show

strong male preference that are continuing to repel girls

from our programs. Is it time to consider doing away with

the race cars? Perhaps not, but they certainly should be

balanced with some learning activities and TSA events

that are highly preferred by girls if TE is to truly prepare a

whole society of “technologically literate” people.

23 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Middle School Event

Event Type

246

Male

187

Fem

Total

Entries % of M % of F

Prefer

?

1 Agriculture and Biotech Design Design and/or Communication 14 23 37 5.69% 12.30% F *

2 Career Challenge Research and Writing 9 9 18 3.66% 4.81% f

3 Challenging Tech Issues Design and/or Communication 16 32 49 6.50% 17.11% F *

4 Chapter Team Design and/or Communication 17 31 48 6.91% 16.58% F *

5 Communication Challenge Design and/or Communication 3 12 15 1.22% 6.42% F *

6 Computer Applications Utilizing 19 20 39 7.72% 10.70% f

7 Construction Challenge Design and/or Communication 20 10 30 8.13% 5.35% m

8 Cyberspace Pursuit Design and/or Communication 25 37 63 10.16% 19.79% F *

9 Digital Photography Challenge Design and/or Communication 18 41 59 7.32% 21.93% F *

10 Dragster Design Challenge Utilizing 59 10 69 23.98% 5.35% M *

11 Electrical Applications Utilizing 22 3 25 8.94% 1.60% M *

12 Environmental Challenge Design and/or Communication 18 29 47 7.32% 15.51% F *

13 Inventions & Innovations Design and Utilizing 28 12 41 11.38% 6.42% m

14 Leadership Challenge Writing and Communication 15 35 50 6.10% 18.72% F *

15 Manufacturing Challenge Utilizing 34 12 46 13.82% 6.42% M *

16 Graphic Design Challenge Design and/or Communication 12 31 43 4.88% 16.58% F *

17 Flight Challenge Utilizing 45 9 54 18.29% 4.81% M *

18 Marine Design Challenge Research and Utilize 16 17 29 6.50% 9.09% f

19 Mechanical Challenge Utilizing 26 12 38 10.57% 6.42% m

20 Medical Technology Challenge Research and Present 11 22 33 4.47% 11.76% F *

21 Prepared Speech Writing and Communication 5 8 13 2.03% 4.28% f

22 Problem Solving Utilizing 59 18 83 23.98% 9.63% M *

23 RC Marine Transport NC Utilizing 21 3 25 8.54% 1.60% M *

24 Structural Challenge Utilizing 45 26 52 18.29% 13.90% m *

25 System Control Tech Utilizing 16 6 17 6.50% 3.21% m *

26 Technical Design Challenge Utilizing 16 5 21 6.50% 2.67% m

27 Technical Writing Challenge Research and Writing 5 20 18 2.03% 10.70% F *

28 Technology Bowl Challenge Technology Knowledge 37 26 63 15.04% 13.90% m

29 Transportation Challenge Utilizing 24 7 31 9.76% 3.74% M *

30 TSA Talk/Multimedia Research and Present 9 5 14 3.66% 2.67% none

31 Video Challenge Design and/or Communication 21 29 50 8.54% 15.51% F *

Table 3 Preferences of Middle School Students

* Significant Χ² finding at the p< .05 level.

24 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


High School Events

Table 4 Preferences of High School Students

* Significant Χ² finding at the p< .05 level.

Event Type

244

Male

115

Fem

Total

Entries % of M % of F

1 Agriculture and Biotech Design Research and Display 8 11 19 3.28% 9.57% F *

2 Architectural Model Designing and/or Communication 25 15 40 10.25% 13.04% f

3 Career Comparisons Research and Writing 5 2 7 2.05% 1.74% none

4 Chapter Team Designing and/or Communication 19 26 45 7.79% 22.61% F *

5 CAD 2D Architectural Designing and/or Communication 8 2 10 3.28% 1.74% m

6 CAD 3D Engineering Designing and/or Communication 6 1 7 2.46% 0.87% m

7 CAD Animation, Arch. Designing and/or Communication 2 0 2 0.82% 0.00% N-F

8 CAD Animation, Eng. Designing and/or Communication 1 0 1 0.41% 0.00% N-F

9 Construction Systems Utilizing 17 0 17 6.97% 0.00% M *

10 Cyberspace Pursuit Designing and/or Communication 39 8 49 15.98% 6.96% M *

11 Desktop Publishing Utilizing 4 13 17 1.64% 11.30% F *

12 Dragster Design Utilizing 50 7 57 20.49% 6.09% M *

13 Electronic Res. & Exper. Utilizing 9 1 10 3.69% 0.87% m

14 Engineering Design Utilizing 18 8 26 7.38% 6.96% none

15 Extemporaneous Presentation Designing and/or Communication 19 5 24 7.79% 4.35% m

16 Film Technology Designing and/or Communication 43 20 64 17.62% 17.39% none

17 Flight Endurance Utilizing 30 3 34 12.30% 2.61% M *

18 Imaging Technology Designing and/or Communication 13 9 24 5.33% 7.83% f

19 Manufacturing Prototype Utilizing 10 8 18 4.10% 6.96% f

20 Medical Technology Designing and/or Communication 21 38 59 8.61% 33.04% F *

21 Prepared Presentation Designing and/or Communication 8 12 20 3.28% 10.43% F *

22 Promotional Graphics Designing and/or Communication 20 14 35 8.20% 12.17% f

23 Robotics (RC) Utilizing 12 2 15 4.92% 1.74% m

24 SciVis Utilizing 13 1 14 5.33% 0.87% m *

25 Structural Engineering Utilizing 53 14 67 21.72% 12.17% M

26 System Control Tech Utilizing 25 3 29 10.25% 2.61% M *

27 Technical Research and Report

Writing Research and Writing 7 6 13 2.87% 5.22% f

28 Technical Sketch & Application Designing and/or Communication 18 9 27 7.38% 7.83% none

29 Technological Systems Designing and/or Communication 10 8 19 4.10% 6.96% f

30 Technology Bowl Designing and/or Communication 76 21 97 31.15% 18.26% M *

31 Technology Challenge Utilizing 14 2 17 5.74% 1.74% m

32 Technology Problem Solving Utilizing 68 12 80 27.87% 10.43% M *

33 Transportation Modeling Utilizing 16 1 17 6.56% 0.87% M *

Prefer

?

25 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


References

Cummings, J. (1998). Foreword. In B. L. Rider (Ed.),

Diversity in technology education (pp. iii-v). New York:

Glencoe.

Foster, W. T. (1996). Technology, the arts, and social

constructivism: R2D2 meets Degas. In R. L. Custer & A.

E. Wiens (Eds.), Technology and the quality of life (pp.

239-272). New York: Glencoe.

Haynie, W. J. (1999). Cross-gender interaction in technology

education: A survey. Journal of Technology Education,

10(2), 27-40.

Haynie, W. J. (2003). Gender issues in technology education:

A quasi ethnographic interview approach. Journal of

Technology Education, 15(1), 15-29.

Hill, C. E. (1998). Women as technology educators. In B. L.

Rider (Ed.), Diversity in technology education (pp. 57-75).

New York: Glencoe.

International Technology Education Association (ITEA/

ITEEA). (1994). ITEA strategic plan: Advancing

technological literacy. Reston, VA: Author.

Lee, J. A. (2008). Gender equity issues in technology

education: A qualitative approach to uncovering the

barriers. Unpublished Dissertation, North Carolina

State University. Available at: www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/

available/etd-05062008-105006/

Liedtke, J. (1995). Changing the organizational culture of

technology education to attract minorities and women.

The Technology Teacher, 54(6), 9-14.

Markert, L. R. (1996). Gender related to success in science

and technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 22(2),

21-29.

Mitts, C. R. (2008). Technology education and gender

preferences in TSA Competitions. Journal of Technology

Education, 19(2), 80-93.

Sanders, M. (2001). New paradigm or old wine? The status

of technology education practice in the United States.

Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 35-55.

Silverman, S. & Pritchard, A. M. (1996). Building their

future: Girls and technology education in Connecticut.

Journal of Technology Education, 7(2), 41-54.

Stephens, G. (1996). Technology, crime & civil liberties. In

R. L. Custer & A. E. Wiens (Eds.), Technology and the

quality of life (pp. 345-380). New York: Glencoe.

Trautman, D. K., Hayden, T. E., & Smink, J. M. (1995).

Women surviving in technology education: What does it

take? The Technology Teacher, 54(5), 39-42.

Varnado, T. E., Haynie, W. J., & Lee, J. A. (N.D.). Perceptions

of female university students in technology education.

Unpublished research project in progress at North

Carolina State University.

Volk, K., & Holsey, L. (1997). TAP: A gender equity program

in high technology. The Technology Teacher, 56(4), 10-13.

Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences

toward technology education content, activities, and

instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education

16(2), 55-71.

Wolters, F. K. & Fridgen, J. D. (1996). The impact of

technology on leisure. In R. L. Custer & A. E. Wiens

(Eds.), Technology and the quality of life (pp. 459-500).

New York: Glencoe.

Zuga, K. F. (1998). A historical view of women’s roles in

technology education. In B. L. Rider (Ed.), Diversity in

technology education (pp. 13-35). New York: Glencoe.

Charles R. Mitts is a technology education

teacher at Larry A. Ryle High School,

Union, KY. He can be reached via email at

charlesmitts@live.com.

W. J. Haynie, III, Ph.D. is Professor and

Coordinator, Technology, Engineering

and Design Education at North Carolina

State University in Raleigh, NC. He can be

reached via email at Jim_Haynie@ncsu.edu.

This is a refereed article.

Part of the “Complete Classroom”

The original “Rationale and

Structure” document underwent

a major rewrite in 2006.

This enhanced version provides

a logical transition from

the 10 universals from the

first edition into the 20 technological

literacy standards.

Also included are sections on

teaching technology in Grades K-12 and beyond.

Make sure you have all the tools you and your students

need to be successful in the classroom!

Technological Literacy for All/P214CD To order, download

(www.iteea.org/Publications/pubsorderform.pdf) and fax

(703-860-0353) an order form or call 703-860-2100

26 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Pop Fly: Hands-On Challenge

Engage Your Students in Learning about Levers with PBS’s Design Squad TM

By Lauren Feinberg

"Pop Fly is so simple and open-ended that I do it with kids of all levels. They really get into it and come up with totally wild designs!”

—Vic Stefan, Technology Education Teacher, Hartville, Ohio

Explore levers with your students and reinforce the engineering design process with the hands-on activity Pop Fly. You can use

Design Squad’s online library of simple machine-related activities, animations, episodes, video clips, and profiles of young

engineers to enhance the experience and deepen students’ understanding of levers and related engineering concepts. Here’s how.

Pop Fly is one of 40 hands-on

activities on the Design Squad

website that correspond to ITEEA’s

STL content standards.

Download the activity sheet

at pbskids.org/designsquad/

parentseducators/activities.html.

Hands-On Engineering

(And Feet-On, Too!)

In Pop Fly, kids use the design

process to invent a way to send a

Ping-Pong® ball flying high enough

to catch it. They’ll use paint stirrers,

a wooden spool, tape, and . . . their

feet. Ready, set, launch!

Identify the Problem

Help your students understand the problem they need to

solve. Discuss with them this question: How can you launch

a Ping-Pong ball into the air? Show the animation How

Does a Lever Work? to introduce levers and illustrate the

relationship between force and distance.

27 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010

Use Design Squad’s 46 animations to visually

explain concepts, like levers. Each one is

about 30 seconds and can be downloaded at

pbskids.org/designsquad/parentseducators/

download_animations.html.

Ping-Pong is a registered trademark of Sop Services, Inc.


Brainstorm and Design

Prompt your students to think about how they can use

levers in their designs—to convert a small motion (like the

flick of a foot) into a large motion (like the end of the lever

flinging a Ping-Pong ball into the air). Have them identify a

goal—height, distance, or accuracy—then sketch out their

design ideas.

Build and Test

Provide materials and get students building. Have them

test their Pop Fly launchers as they go. Is the Ping-Pong ball

launching as high or as far as they’d like it to?

Share

Kids get a sense of their

own resourcefulness and

creativity by telling others

what they’ve achieved.

Encourage your students

to share their Pop Fly

designs and sketches

with each other and with

the world in the online

Design Squad Exchange.

The Wishes feature lets

kids share their ideas—or

wishes—for something

In the DS Xchange, kids can post their wishes and

help answer other kids’ wishes by sketching or

building prototypes, then sharing them at pbskids.

org/designsquad/exchange.

new, better, or different, and provides an opportunity for

them to work together to find solutions. Ideas are, after all,

the start of the engineering design process.

Swing Batter! A Real-World

Connection

Give your students a context for what they’ve learned by

showing them how levers are used in lots of everyday things

(pinball machine games, seesaws, and baseball bats, for

example). Show kids the D-Squad Pro File of Curtis Cruz

and Becky O’Hara, two engineers who make baseball bats

for Rawlings Sporting Goods.

Watch levers in action in Design Squad’s Moving Target episode, where teams build

indestructible, remote-controlled, flying football targets for Nerf toymaker Hasbro. Stream

it at pbskids.org/designsquad/season3.

Evaluate and Redesign

Have your students think about what works and what could work

better. Extend the challenge. How can they send the ball higher,

farther, or toward a target? Can they launch two balls at once?

In two-minute D-Squad Pro Files, kids see real engineers with diverse and creative

engineering careers. Download or stream videos at pbskids.org/designsquad/parentseducators/download_video.html.

Pop Fly corresponds to ITEEA’s STL content standards 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12.


Design Squad and STEM

"Design Squad is as hands-on as

television can be, exposing kids

to real-world applications of

science and math and modeling

how engineers use the design

process. It’s a great resource for

educators who want to cover

their requisite curriculum

through an innovative approach

to learning."

—Marisa Wolsky, Executive

Producer of Design Squad

Watch Engineers Do Pop Fly

Meet Judy and Adam—engineers in Design Squad’s new season (look for more details

soon). See how inventive they get with their Pop Fly solutions in a two-minute video,

streaming online at pbskids.org/designsquad/projects/video.html.

More Levers and Simple Machines

Extend your students’ learning with more hands-on challenges. Check out the Design Squad website for six activity

guides with leader notes, reproducible activity sheets, and other valuable resources at pbskids.org/designsquad/

parentseducators. Look for these activities that also incorporate levers and simple machines:

• Kicking Machine: Build a machine that kicks balls across the floor.

• Extreme Kicking Machine: Add more features to your Kicking Machine.

• Confetti Launcher: Invent a device to launch a big cloud of confetti.

Order a printed copy of The Design Squad Teacher’s Guide! Go to pbskids.org/designsquad/engineers/newsletter.html.

Lauren Feinberg is an associate editor at

WGBH Boston. The activity featured in this

article was developed by the Educational

Outreach department. WGBH is PBS’s single

largest producer of TV and Web content, serving

the nation and the world with media resources

that inform, inspire, and entertain.

29 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Advancing STEM Education:

A 2020 Vision

By Rodger W. Bybee

Now is the time to move beyond

the slogan and make STEM

literacy for all students an

educational priority.

When STEM education first appeared, it caught

the attention of several groups. Botanical

scientists were elated, as they thought educators

had finally realized the importance of a main

part of plants. Technologists and engineers were excited,

because they thought it referred to a part of the watch.

Wine connoisseurs also were enthusiastic, as they thought

it referred to the slender support of a wine glass. And,

political conservatives were worried, because they thought

it was a new educational emphasis supporting stem cell

research. Actually, none of these perceptions of STEM meet

the current use as an acronym for Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics education.

STEM had its origins in the 1990s at the National Science

Foundation (NSF) and has been used as a generic label

for any event, policy, program, or practice that involves

one or several of the STEM disciplines. However, a

recent survey on the “perception of STEM” found that

most professionals in STEM-related fields lacked an

understanding of the acronym STEM. Most respondents

linked the acronym to “stem cell research” or to plants

(Keefe, 2010). Once again, the education community has

embraced a slogan without really taking the time to clarify

what the term might mean when applied beyond a general

label. When most individuals use the term STEM, they

mean whatever they meant in the past. So STEM is usually

interpreted to mean science or math. Seldom does it refer

to technology or engineering, and this is an issue that must

be remedied.

If STEM education is going to advance beyond a slogan,

educators in the STEM community will have to clarify

what the acronym actually means for educational

policies, programs, and practices. The following

discussion presents several things that STEM might

mean for contemporary education. First, it may mean

recognition that science education has been diminished

during the No Child Left Behind era, which is ending.

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) could underscore the importance

of science, and by their close association, technology and

engineering, in school programs.

Second, based on the observation that STEM is often a

term for science or mathematics, STEM should mean

increased emphasis of technology in school programs. With

reference to technology, there are very few other things that

influence our everyday existence more and about which

citizens know less. It is time to change this situation. I am

referring to a perspective and education programs larger

than Information Communication Technology (ICT). ICT

is, of course, part of technology programs. Third, STEM

could mean increasing the recognition of engineering in

K-12 education. Engineering is directly involved in problem

solving and innovation, two popular themes (Lichtenberg,

Woock, & Wright, 2008). Engineering has some presence in

our schools, but certainly not the amount consistent with

its careers and contributions to society. If the nation is truly

interested in innovation, recognizing the T and E in STEM

30 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


would certainly be worth emphasizing (Katehi, Pearson, &

Feder, 2009).

Fourth, all STEM disciplines present opportunities for

stressing 21st Century skills. Students can develop 21st

Century skills such as adaptability, complex communication,

social skills, nonroutine problem solving, self-management/

self-development, and systems thinking (NRC, 2010). In

STEM programs, student investigations and projects present

the time and opportunity for teachers to help students

develop 21st Century skills.

Fifth, STEM could mean an integrated curricular

approach to studying grand challenges of our era. I am

referring to challenges such as: energy efficiency, resource

use, environmental quality, and hazard mitigation. The

competencies that citizens need in order to understand and

address issues such as these are clearly related to the STEM

disciplines, which should be understood before addressing

other disciplines such as economics and politics.

Now is the time to move beyond the slogan and make

STEM literacy for all students an educational priority. The

public may be ready for such a reform (Johnson, Rochkind,

& Ott, 2010).

Clarifying the Purpose of STEM Education

Clarifying STEM literacy and establishing this as a

fundamental purpose of school programs is a first step in

advancing STEM education. The following description is

modified from the PISA 2006 Science framework (OECD,

2006). In general, STEM literacy includes the conceptual

understandings and procedural skills and abilities for

individuals to address STEM-related personal, social, and

global issues. STEM literacy involves the integration of

STEM disciplines and four interrelated and complementary

components. STEM literacy refers to the following:

• Acquiring scientific, technological, engineering, and

mathematical knowledge and using that knowledge to

identify issues, acquire new knowledge, and apply the

knowledge to STEM-related issues.

• Understanding the characteristic features of STEM

disciplines as forms of human endeavors that include

the processes of inquiry, design, and analysis.

• Recognizing how STEM disciplines shape our material,

intellectual, and cultural world.

• Engaging in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as

concerned, affective, and constructive citizens.

Translating this description of STEM literacy into school

programs and instructional practices requires a way of

organizing education so the respective disciplines can be

integrated and instructional materials designed, developed,

and implemented. Educators must confront and resolve a

number of challenges if they are to advance STEM literacy.

Addressing Challenges to Advancing STEM

Education

Advancing STEM education presents several significant

challenges. Use of the acronym and the associated ambiguity

has served as a rallying point for policy makers and some

educators. The power of STEM, however, diminishes quite

rapidly as one moves away from national policies and

toward the realization of STEM in educational programs.

Here, I am not implying changes in the individual “silos” of

STEM; rather I am referring to an integrated perspective of

STEM as a long-term goal (Sanders, 2009). So, let’s examine

some of the challenges.

The first challenge involves actively including technology

and engineering in school programs. Although one can

identify technology and engineering programs, the scale

at which they are in schools is generally quite low. Scaling

up technology and engineering courses and appropriately

including the T and E in science and mathematics education

seem reasonable ways to meet this challenge. Note, however,

that this approach maintains a “silo” orientation for the

separate disciplines.

Suggesting that technology and engineering be incorporated

in science education is not new. Science for All Americans

(AAAS, 1989) and subsequently Benchmarks for Science

Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education

Standards (NRC, 1996), all included standards related to

technology and engineering. For example, Science for All

Americans set the stage with discussions of “Engineering

Combines Scientific Inquiry and Practical Values” and “The

Essence of Engineering is Design Under Constraint (AAAS,

1989, pp. 40-41). In 1996, the National Science Education

Standards included standards on Science and Technology

for all grade levels, K-4, 5-8, and 9-12. One of the standards

directly addressed the “abilities of technological design” as a

complement to the abilities and understandings of scientific

inquiry standards.

In addition, there are two very significant initiatives

supporting technology and engineering education. First,

in March 2010, the National Assessment Governing Board

(NAGB) approved the framework for a national assessment

of technology and engineering, scheduled for 2014. Second,

the new common core standards for science will support

these initial standards-based initiatives by including

technology and engineering standards.

31 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


One of the most significant challenges centers on

introducing STEM-related issues such as energy efficiency,

climate change, and hazard mitigation and developing the

competencies to address the issues students will confront as

citizens. Addressing this challenge requires an educational

approach that first places life situations and global issues in

a central position and uses the four disciplines of STEM to

understand and address the problem. This has been referred

to as context-based science education (Fensham, 2009)

and could easily be represented as context-based STEM

education. Figure 1 is a framework of contexts adapted

from PISA Science 2006, but they certainly could represent

curricular topics for context-based STEM education.

The educational approach emphasizes competency in

addressing the situation, problem, or issue, and not

exclusively knowledge of concepts and processes within

the respective STEM disciplines. Figure 2 presents

competencies that could be used as learning outcomes for

STEM education.

Health

Energy

efficiency

Natural

resources

Environmental

quality

Hazard

mitigation

Frontiers of science,

technology, engineering,

mathematics

Personal

(Self, family, and peer groups)

Maintenance of health,

accidents, nutrition

Personal use of energy, emphasis

on conservation and efficiency

Personal consumption of

materials

Environmentally friendly

behavior, use and disposal of

materials

Natural and human-induced,

decisions about housing

Interest in science’s explanations

of natural phenomena, sciencebased

hobbies, sport and leisure,

music and personal technology

Social

(The community)

Control of disease, social

transmission, food choices,

community health

Conservation of energy, transition to

efficient use and nonfossil fuels

Maintenance of human populations,

quality of life, security, production

and distribution of food, energy

supply

Population distribution, disposal of

waste, environmental impact, local

weather

Rapid changes (earthquakes, severe

weather), slow and progressive

changes (coastal erosion,

sedimentation), risk assessment

New materials, devices, and

processes, genetic modification,

weapons technology, transport

Global

(Life across the world)

Epidemics, spread of

infectious diseases

Figure 1. Contexts for STEM Education

Note. Adapted from: Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006 (OECD, 2006)

Identifying STEM issues

• Recognizing issues that are possible to describe from a STEM perspective

• Identifying keywords to search for STEM information

• Recognizing the key concepts from STEM disciplines

Explaining issues from STEM perspectives

• Applying knowledge of STEM in a given situation

• Describing or interpreting phenomena using STEM perspectives and predicting changes

• Identifying appropriate descriptions, explanations, solutions, and predictions

Using STEM information

• Interpreting STEM information and making and communicating conclusions

• Identifying the assumptions, evidence, and reasoning behind conclusions

• Reflecting on the societal implications of STEM developments

Figure 2. STEM Competencies

Note. Adapted from: Assessing scientific, reading, and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA

2006 (OECD, 2006).

Global consequences, use and

conservation of energy

Renewable and nonrenewable,

natural systems, population

growth, sustainable use

Biodiversity, ecological

sustainability, control of

pollution, production, and loss

of soil

Climate change, impact of

modern warfare

Extinction of species,

exploration of space, origin and

structure of the universe

32 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Innovative changes implied by this discussion should be

initiated with curriculum supplements that demonstrate

a change in emphasis within many K-12 programs. This

approach is modest but achievable, since such changes

take advantage of opportunities that exist within current

school programs.

Advancing STEM: A Curricular Theory of Action

The theory of action centers on model instructional units

that are based on contemporary issues in the contextual

categories described in Figure 1. These instructional units

would be of varying lengths for elementary, middle, and high

school levels, perhaps 2, 4, and 6 weeks at the respective

levels. So, I am not suggesting a complete reform of the

STEM education system. Although the units would present

an integrated approach to STEM-related issues, the units

could be introduced in the “silos” of STEM school programs.

Using model instructional units as the basis for introducing

an integrated approach to STEM education will present a

challenge, but the fact that the units are brief and can be

accommodated within current programs makes the goal

achievable. This approach is a positive and constructive

response to classroom teachers’ requests for instructional

materials that both exemplify the innovation and are easy

for them to implement. Further, they provide opportunities

• Based on Learning Research described in several NRC

reports; e.g., How People Learn (NRC, 2000), Taking

Science to School (NRC, 2007).

• Represent an Integrated Instructional Sequence as

recommended in America’s Lab Report (NRC, 2006); i.e.,

an instructional model.

• Developed Using Backward Design (see Wiggins and

McTighe, 2005).

• Emphasize Competencies

• Include Opportunities to Develop 21st Century Workforce

Skills (e.g., NRC, 2010)

• Present Units Lasting:

Ÿ Elementary (K-5) 2 weeks

Ÿ Middle (6-8) 4 weeks

Ÿ High (9-12) 6 weeks

• Field-Tested and Revised Based on Feedback and

Evidence of Effectiveness.

• Contextual issues related to STEM as central theme of

units (see Figure 1).

Figure 3. Design Specifications for Exemplary STEM Units

for professional development. Figure 3 outlines design

specifications for the proposed instructional units.

The instructional approach begins with a challenge or

problem that engages students. The challenge is appropriate

to their age, grade, and developmental stage. As they explore

options and gain an understanding of the problem, they

must “reach out” to the respective STEM disciplines and

apply knowledge and skills to the problem. The knowledge

and skills that students use in the development of the model

units and that they use to design solutions would be from

various documents such as common core standards and

the NAEP technology and engineering literacy framework.

Figure 4 presents a framework characterizing the central

emphasis on contextual problems and the connections

among STEM disciplines.

SCIENCE

National Standards

NAEP 2009 Framework

Common Core Science

Standards


MATHEMATICS

Common Core Standards

NCTM Standards

Figure 4. A Framework for Model STEM Units


TECHNOLOGY

• ITEA Standards

• NAEP 2012

Framework for

Technological Literacy

• Common Core Science

Standards

ENGINEERING

• Common Core Science

Standards

• NAE Reports

Advancing STEM: A Decade of Action

This section describes the larger picture of how we can

initiate and bring about the changes described in the last

section to a scale that matters within the U.S. education

systems.

Achieving higher levels of STEM literacy cannot be

accomplished quickly; it will take a minimum of ten years.

Figure 5 presents specifications for phases and goals for a



CONTEXTS

LIFE AND WORK SITUATIONS

THAT INVOLVE STEM

(e.g., Environment, Resources,

Health, Hazards, Frontiers)



33 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Phase Timeline Goal

Initiating the STEM education reform Two years Design, develop, and implement model instructional units

Bringing the STEM reform to scale Six years Change policies, programs, and practices at local, state, and

national levels

Sustaining the STEM education reform Two years Build capacity at the local level for continuous improvement

of school science and technology programs

Evaluating the STEM education reform Continuous, with a major

evaluation in 10 years

Provide formative and summative data on the nature and

results of the reform efforts

Figure 5. A Decade of Action: Phases and Goals

decade of reform centering on advancing STEM education

in the United States.

The primary work for the initial phase of reform occurs

in the first two years. This phase would be “Introducing

little changes with big effects.” This phase centers on the

funding and the development of model STEM units. The

model STEM units use major contexts as the “topics,”

(e.g., energy efficiency, hazard mitigation, and health) and

emphasize competencies as learning outcomes. This phase

includes field-testing and final production of the units and

complementary assessments. Participating districts select

schools, and implementation begins with accompanying

professional development.

Providing model STEM units, professional development,

and exemplary assessment at the elementary, middle, and

high school levels would have an impact on the system,

increase understanding and acceptance of STEM among

school personnel, increase support by policy makers and

administrators, and promote understanding by the public.

The units would provide a basis for answering the public’s

questions about what changes involve and why they are

important—especially for children.

The second phase is “Systemic changes that make a

difference.” Bringing the reform to scale takes six years.

After the initial phase, efforts to bring the reform to a

significant scale expand. Evaluations of teachers’ responses

and students’ achievement, abilities, and attributes are

reviewed and analyzed. These data form the basis for

revision of the original models of instructional units, the

development of new models of instructional units, and a

compelling case statement for the continued expansion of

the reform. This phase includes major efforts to review and

revise state policies and standards and create new criteria

for local and state adoptions of instructional materials.

Publishers would begin developing new editions of core

and supplemental programs. Through this entire period,

professional development of STEM teachers continues.

Districts begin the process of selecting and implementing

curricula that emphasizes STEM literacy as they become

available. Professional development aligned with the new

programs is ongoing. The central goal of this phase is to

revise local, state, and national policies, develop new school

programs, and align teaching practices with the goals of

STEM literacy.

By the end of this phase, states would have new standards

and assessments, new teacher certification requirements

would be in place, new instructional materials for core

and supplemental programs would be available, and the

professional development of teachers would be aligned with

the new priorities. This phase likely would present the most

difficulty as policy makers and educators directly confront

resistance to change and criticism of the new initiatives and

changes in policies, programs, and practices.

The work of sustaining “building local capacity for a national

purpose” is concentrated in the final two years of the decade.

The work focuses on building local capacity for ongoing

improvement of STEM education at the district level. These

efforts phase out the use of external funds for the reform

effort and phase in school districts’ use of resources in

response to the new advances in science and technology and

the implied changes for the school programs.

Evaluation involves continuous feedback about the work

and changes in content and curricula, teachers and teaching,

and assessment and accountability. Clearly, feedback

occurs during all phases for “monitoring and adjusting

to change.” The feedback informs judgments about the

models of instructional units and issues associated with

their implementation and the professional development

of teachers. Evaluations and feedback are conducted

and available at the school district, state, national, and

even international levels. School districts and states

implement their own evaluations. Results from the

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and

international assessments TIMSS and PISA also provide

feedback about the progress of reform efforts.

34 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


Conclusion

In the late 1950s, this nation responded to national and

international challenges with a major curriculum reform.

The reform took a decade and lasted a decade or more.

Advancing STEM education with a 2020 vision could

respond to myriad contemporary challenges the nation

now faces.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science

(AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fensham, P. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science:

Implications for context-based science education. Journal

of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8): 884-896.

Garmire, E. & Pearson G. (Eds.). (2006). Tech tally:

Approaches to assessing technological literacy.

Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

International Technology Education Association (ITEA/

ITEEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological

literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA:

Author.

Johnson, J., Richkind, J., & Ott, A. (2010). Are we beginning

to see the light? Public Agenda Survey.

Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009).

Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status

and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Keefe, B. (2010). The perception of STEM: Analysis, issues,

and future directions. Survey. Entertainment and Media

Communication Institute.

Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2008). Ready to

innovate: Are educators and executives aligned on the

creative readiness of the U.S. workforce? Conference

Board, Research Report 1424, New York: Conference

Board, Inc.

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2008).

NAEP 2009 science framework. (Using Technological

Design), NAGB.

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2010).

NAEP technology and engineering framework. NAGB.

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National

science education standards. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Exploring the

intersection of science education and 21st century skills:

A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD). (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and

mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris:

OECD.

Pearson, F. & Young, A.T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically

speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about

technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all

Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education primer. The

Technology Teacher, 68(4). 20-26.

Rodger W. Bybee, Ph.D., is director

emeritus of BSCS. Prior to joining BSCS,

he was executive director of the National

Research Council’s Center for Science,

Mathematics, and Engineering Education

(CSMEE) in Washington, D.C.

EbD-NASA STEM Design Challenge Units

Designing Human Exploration: People, Education, and Technology

SPECIAL OFFER FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER:

FREE SHIPPING ON EVERY HEP ORDER!

EbD-NASA STEM Design Challenge High School Units:

P237CD - $15.00 (Includes all four units – delivered on CD)

• Moving Cargo

• Transportation and Space: Reuse and Recycle

• Engineering Design for Human Exploration

• Lunar Growth Chamber

EbD-NASA STEM Design Challenge Middle School Units:

P238CD - $15.00 (Includes all four units – delivered on CD)

• Lunar Colonization: Focus: Energy and Power

• Space Transportation: Reshooting the Moon

• Creating a Space Exploration Infrastructure

• Packing Up for the Moon

EbD-NASA STEM Design Challenge Elementary Units:

P239CD - $9.00 (Includes both units – delivered on CD)

• Moon Power

• Moon Munchies

To order, download (www.iteea.org/Publications/pubsorderform.pdf)

and fax (703-860-0353) an order form or call 703-860-2100

35 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010


2010 Super Mileage Challenge

The 2009-2010 Indiana Super Mileage Challenge featured

nearly 55 teams of high school students who studied

advanced topics related to vehicle design including

safety, control systems, friction reduction, geometry,

aerodynamics, composite materials, prototype fabrication

techniques, and much more throughout the school year.

The students then competed at O’Reilly Indianapolis

Raceway Park against other schools from throughout

Indiana to determine the team that achieved the highest

miles per gallon. The Unlimited Class championship went

to Mater Dei High School from Evansville, which achieved

1,004.02 MPG! The Stock Class champion was Greenfield

Central High School, which achieved 847.36 MPG. The

schools that received IMSTEA’s highest honors were: Jac-

Cen-Del High School for the Best Integration of Math,

Science, and Technology and Sullivan High School for the

Best Math, Science, and Technology Design Proposal.

36 • Technology and engineering Teacher • September 2010


37 • Technology and engineering Teacher • September 2010

For more information, visit:

http://students.sae.org/

competitions/supermileage/

about.htm


Q: What Do YOU Need to Succeed

in Today’s High-Tech Classroom?

A: EVERYTHING YOU NEED IS AT

GOODHEART-WILLCOX!

● Textbooks with proven content

● Comprehensive instructor’s resources

● Interactive companion Web sites

● Dynamic multimedia presentations

G-W products combine accurate, authoritative content

with dynamic illustrations to help your students learn

complex technical concepts. G-W teaching packages

provide you with an abundance of flexible solutions,

including Resource CDs, Blackboard ® Course

Cartridges, EXAMVIEW ® Assessment Suites and

PowerPoint ® Presentations, allowing you to focus on

successful hands-on, minds-on technical education.

In print, on CD, or online, G-W products give YOU the

tools to succeed in today’s high-tech classroom!

Visit us online @ www.g-w.com or call 800.323.0440

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher • 18604 West Creek Drive • Tinley Park, IL 60477-6243


A Professional Liability

Program that fits…

The ITEEA-sponsored Professional Liability Program is designed to be

responsive to your needs.

• Educators Professional Liability Insurance ... for employees of

educational entities

• Private Practice Professional Liability Insurance ... for

independent contractors, consultants, private practitioners,

partnerships and corporations

• Student Educator

Professional Liability Plan ...

required by many collegiate

training programs for

student educators

just right.

And FTJ is a proven insurance partner for educators with more than 50 years of experience. To learn more

about this plan and how it can work for you, call (800) 821-7303, e-mail info@ftj.com, or get plan information

and an application at www.ftj.com/ITEEA.

Administered by:

Forrest T. Jones & Company

3130 Broadway • P.O. Box 418131

Kansas City, Missouri 64141-8131

(800) 821-7303 • www.ftj.com/ITEEA

Sponsored by:

39 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010

Arkansas producer license #71740, California producer license #0592939. #4652 310


Manufacturing is Cool!

Through creativity and teamwork,

engineers make the world

a better place.

Peek into a world that inspires

students to embrace this industry

and create a positive future.

manufacturingiscool.com is an

essential resource for teachers

to help students learn about

the exciting, high-paying career

of Manufacturing Engineering.

Students will enjoy fun activities

while exploring the

future of innovation through

interesting industry interviews

and videos, information about

summer youth programs, scholarship

opportunities and much more!

Let’s help our children live their

dreams and be original thinkers!

www.smeef.org

www.manufacturingiscool.com

313-425-3300

40 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • September 2010

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines