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 


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 


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. 


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.” 


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/. 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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) 


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 


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. 


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 


“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). 


engineering design (p. 99). 


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. 


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. 


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? 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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) 


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. 


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. 


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 

? 


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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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 


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 


ENGINEERING 

• Common Core Science 


• 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) 

 

 


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. 


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 


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

intersection of science education and 21st century skills: 

A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National 


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 


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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?