K-12 Engineering Education Standards: - International Technology ...

Bridges with trigonometry equals engineering achievement • The intersection challenge 

February 2011 

Volume 70 • Number 5 

K-12 Engineering 

Education Standards: 

Opportunities and Barriers 

Also: 

• Minneapolis 

Conference Exhibitors 

• Drafting with 

Design in Mind 

www.iteea.org

Content 

SUCCESS 

for 

Accurate Authoritative Dynamic 

Choose , the best products 

for Technology and Engineering Education 

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

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

From napkin sketch to prototype in just weeks. 

Let’s see what we can create in SolidWorks ® . 

You and your fellow designers are going to help Jeremy create some never-before-built products. 

You’ll submit projects, share design ideas and vote on key design decisions. If you think you’re ready, 

let’s go design. Watch. Share. Vote. LetsGoDesign.tv 

Jeremy Luchini 

DESIGN TEAM LEADER 

SolidWorks Certified 

SolidWorks is a registered trademark of Dassault Systèmes. ©2010 Dassault Systèmes. All rights reserved. 

LetsGoDesign.tv 

presented by

Contents 

February • VOL. 70 • NO. 5 

21 

K-12 Engineering Education Standards: 


Does the nation need K-12 engineering 

education standards? 

Rodger W. Bybee 

Departments 

1 

2 

3 

ITEEA Web News 

STEM Education 

News 


Calendar 

9 Resources 

in Technology 

and 

Engineering 

15 

Design Squad 

Nation (NEW!) 

18 Classroom 

Challenge 

4 

5 

29 

30 

35 

Features 

ITEEA and FTEE Financial Report – Fiscal 2010 

Drafting with Design in Mind 

In order to overcome the overly restrictive nature of teaching design as a component of 

drafting, the authors offer an alternative approach. 

Michael K. Daugherty and Vinson Carter 

TET Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation 

Bridges with Trigonometry Equals Engineering Achievement 

Demonstrates how bridges can be a very good tool for reinforcing mathematical concepts 

with engineering and technology students. 

Ahmed Gathing 

Minneapolis Conference Exhibitors 

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-CSL 

Richard Seymour, Director, CTTE 

Andrew Klenke, Director, TECA 

Marlene Scott, Director, ITEEA-CC 

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: 

2158-0502, 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: 

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT? 

Picture . . . Minneapolis-friendly, green living, great food, fantastic shopping 

(Mall of America... need we say more?). Now picture all that with your friends and 

colleagues and exciting speakers, informative sessions, and a killer exhibits floor. 

What have you got? ITEEA’s 73rd Annual Conference in Minneapolis, MN on March 

24-26, 2011, that’s what! 

There is still time to register before the 

February 11 preregistration deadline. 

Register online at http://store.iteea.org/ 

department/conferences-10004.cfm or 

use the printed form, downloadable from 

www.iteea.org/Conference/registration.pdf 

and fax or postmark on or before February 

11. 

Preparing the STEM Workforce: The Next Generation 

• Strand 1 - The 21st Century Workforce 

• Strand 2 - New Basics 

• Strand 3 - Sustainable Workforce and Environment 

Imagine . . . California sunshine, more than a thousand friends and colleagues, and 

great professional development opportunities. What have you got? ITEEA’s 74th 

Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA on March 15-17, 2012, that’s what! 

Beat the June 15th deadline 

and apply to present in Long 

Beach today. 

Application to Present in Long 

Beach, 2012: www.iteea.org/ 

Conference/apptopresent.htm 

Changing the Conversation: Improving P-16 Technology and Engineering 

Strand 1 - Changing Philosophical Thought 

Strand 2 - Changing Content and Practices 

Strand 3 - Changing Teacher Preparation 

Strand 4 - Changing Public Perception 

Do you know a technology/engineering educator who 

exemplifies leadership and inspires others? 

The Twenty-First Century Leadership Academy provides opportunities for rising 

technology and engineering educators from across the country to develop as 

professional leaders, develop community, and have experiences related to the 

promotion of technology and engineering education and technological literacy in 

our schools. 

See program details, profiles on current and past participants, and the nomination 

form at www.iteea.org/Membership/21CenturyLeaders/leaders.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 

© 2011 by the International Technology and Engineering 

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

1 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011

STEM Education News 

ITEEA Announces Board of Directors 

Election Results 

ITEEA’s professional and life members have completed a 

balloting process to elect a new President-Elect and Directors 

for Regions I and III. Joining the ITEEA Board of Directors are: 

Bill Bertrand (President Elect). Bill is the Technology 

Education Advisor with the Pennsylvania Department of 

Education in Harrisburg, PA. 

Lynn Basham (Region I Director). Lynn is the Technology 

Education Specialist with the Virginia Department of 

Education in Richmond, VA. 

Joel Ellinghuysen (Region III Director). Joel is a 

technology education teacher at Lewiston-Altura High 

School in Lewiston, MN. 

Also joining the ITEEA Board of Directors is John Brown, 

DTE, Department Chair and teacher at Mount Pleasant 

High School in Wilmington, Delaware. John will represent 

the Council for Supervision and Leadership (CSL). Rod 

Thompson, an associate professor in the Department of 

Secondary Education at University of Wyoming–Casper 

will also be joining the Board as the TECA (Technology 

Education Collegiate Association) Director. 

Sincere thanks are extended to the new Board Members for 

taking on this leadership role, and to the other candidates 

for bringing such a wealth of experience and talent to the 

balloting process. By being part of the ballot, each of the 

candidates has demonstrated leadership in the field. 

Next Month in Minneapolis 

ITEEA’s 73rd annual conference in Minneapolis, March 24- 

26, 2011, carries the theme, Preparing the STEM Workforce: 

The Next Generation. 

This theme will address the 21st century workforce, new 

basics, and the sustainable workforce and environment. 

What STEM teaching and learning concepts are key to our 

future workforces? What current basics will fade, and what 

will the new courses look like, and how will STEM teaching 

and learning change as a result of the new basics? What new 

technologies and concepts will join such areas of interest as 

energy, resource utilization, manufacturing, and more as a 

major focus of STEM education? These questions and many 

more will be addressed for three to four days, during which 

you’ll be immersed with others who want to remain at the 

top of the teaching profession as you focus on Professional 

Development, Vendor Interaction, Networking, and have 

the opportunity to participate in an array of specialized, 

technical labs and workshops. 

You can see details about all the Minneapolis conference 

has to offer in the ITEEA Preliminary Program, available at 

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

ITEEA’s conference next month in Minneapolis is the 

best place for you to go to join fellow teachers and 

participate in some of the best professional development 

experiences that you can find anywhere. And check out 

the largest technology education trade show in the USA, 

with suppliers that address all aspects of technology and 

engineering teaching. 

Housing and Registration are both still open, and it’s 

not too late to make plans to attend. Check the ITEEA 

website at www.iteea.org/Conference for complete details. 

ITEEA’s host hotels offer great rates and complimentary 

high-speed Internet, and if you make your reservations 

within the official housing block, you’ll qualify for special 

prize drawings for free breakfasts and dinners. 

And don’t forget that your ITEEA membership must be 

current through the end of March 2011 in order to qualify 

for member rates, which offer terrific discounts. 

This is the ONE educational event in 2011 that you 

won’t want to miss. STEM is one of the hottest topics 

in education in America right now. Technology and 

engineering education can and does play a critical role 

in helping school districts deliver all aspects of STEM 

education to students who are particularly interested 

in the field. An important professional development 

and networking opportunity awaits you next month in 

downtown Minneapolis. Make plans NOW to attend. 

ITEEA Board Member Receives TEEAP Middle 

School Teacher Excellence Award 

Joanne Trombley, Technology Education Teacher at J. R. 

Fugett Middle School and also the Department Chair in 

her District, received the TEEAP Middle School Excellence 

Award at the TEEAP Conference Banquet held in early 

November 2010. Joanne will also be recognized at the ITEEA 

Conference in Minneapolis, MN, in March, 2011. The award 

is given jointly by the state and international associations. 

Joanne has been and continues to be involved in a number 

of professional activities. She is the Immediate Past 

President of the TEEAP Council for Leadership and the 

Region 1 Director for ITEEA. She served TEEAP as its 

first female president, as a regional vice-president, and as 

the ITEEA-PA affiliate representative. She also serves on a 

variety of committees. Joanne works with the Pennsylvania 

Department of Education, Millersville University’s “Science, 

Technology & Me” event, the Chester County “Girls 


STEM Education News and Calendar 

Exploring Tomorrow’s Technology” event, and is a volunteer 

for “Relay for Life.” 

Read the full article at: www.wcasd.net/news/ 

news111810c.asp. 

Improving, Inspiring, Achieving – Change the 

Equation 

Our nation’s future hinges on our ability to prepare our 

next generation to be innovators in science, technology, 

engineering, and math (STEM). Yet far too few of our 

students are prepared for the challenges ahead, and other 

countries are leaving us in their wake. Now, more than 

112 companies are joining forces to work with schools and 

communities to change the equation for our youth and 

our nation. 

Five visionary leaders—former Intel CEO Craig Barrett, 

Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt, Xerox CEO Ursula 

Burns, Eastman Kodak CEO Antonio Perez, and Sally 

Ride Science CEO Sally Ride—joined forces with Carnegie 

Corporation of New York and the Bill & Melinda Gates 

Foundation to form Change the Equation. 

Change the Equation (CTEq) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 

CEO-led initiative to solve America’s innovation problem. It 

answers the call of President Obama’s Educate to Innovate 

Campaign to move the U.S. to the top of the pack in science 

and math education over the next decade. CTEq aims to 

improve science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) 

education for every child, with a particular focus on girls 

and students of color, who have long been underrepresented 

in STEM fields. 

Change the Equation’s members will connect and align their 

work to transform STEM learning in the United States. 

Learn more about CTEq at www.changetheequation.org/. 

The Black Inventor Exhibit 

The Black Inventor Exhibit (BIE) is a multimedia 

presentation, a traveling museum that pays tribute to the 

world’s unsung heroes—the Black inventor and scientist. 

“The Awakening: Black Inventors Worldwide” is this year’s 

theme, which will be conducting its annual tour throughout 

the country in celebration of Black History Month 2011. 

The Exhibit showcases famous Black inventors and their 

respective inventions in the fields of science, aerospace, 

communication, health care, agriculture, transportation, 

and engineering. 

The Black Inventor Exhibit aims to enlighten and 

empower others through knowledge and understanding 

of the many prolific Black inventors and their individual 

accomplishments. Throughout the history of the United 

States, far too little attention and recognition has been given 

to the many inventions of Black people. 

For more information, visit www.blackinventions101.com/ 

ITEEA Loses Former Board Member 

Larry J. Claussen of Sioux Falls, SD, died November 18, 2010 

as the result of an illness. Larry was a long-time member of 

ITEA/ITEEA and served on the Board of Directors in 2001- 

2002. His life’s passion was working with young people, as 

evidenced by 40 plus years in education, teaching students 

from junior high to college level. In addition to being the 

national TECA director, Larry was very active in the Boy 

Scouts of America. He will be truly missed. 

Calendar 

February 20-26, 2011 National Engineers Week. Dedicated 

to ensuring a diverse and well-educated future workforce by 

increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and 

technology careers. More information at www.eweek.org. 

February 24-25, 2011 The annual Children’s Engineering 

Convention will be held at the Holiday Inn Select Koger 

South Conference Center, Richmond, VA. The Children’s 

Engineering Convention has three major components: 

1) staff development for K-5 teachers focusing on ways 

to help children create, use, and control technology, 2) 

teacher demonstrations of ways to infuse technology 

activities into the Virginia Standards of Learning, and 3) a 

showcase of technology-based educational resources. In 

addition to the special interest sessions/workshops, other 

opportunities will include education vendor exhibits and an 

international keynote speaker during each general session. 

Participants will experience technology-based activities that 

contribute to the development of technological awareness 

and may receive fifteen (15) recertification points for full 

participation in the convention when they have prior 

approval from their school administration. 

Visit www.childrensengineering.org/convention/ for details. 

March 10-11, 2011 The 42nd Annual Wisconsin 

Technology Education Association Spring Conference 

will take place at Chula Vista Resort in Wisconsin Dells. 

The theme for 2011 will be “Generating Innovation.” For 

information, go to www.wtea-wis.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php. 

March 11-13, 2011 Education Beyond Borders will take 

place in the National Palace of Culture in Sofia, the capital 

of Bulgaria. Many schools, universities, and educational 


STEM Education News and Calendar 

organizations from many European counties, as well as from 

the USA, Canada, and Russia will participate. To organize 

the largest educational event in Bulgaria, the organizers 

work with many embassies, educational and cultural 

organizations, and Bulgarian state authorities. There will be 

a second Education Beyond Borders exposition presented 

October 21-23, 2011. If you have any questions regarding 

the exposition, please visit the website at www.educationworld.eu 

or contact Zornitsa Andreeva, Marketing Director, 

at +359 2 9888 604 (phone), +359 2 950 25 11 (fax), or email 

Education.Beyond.Borders@gmail.com. 

March 18, 2011 The 25th Annual NJTEA Technology 

Conference and Expo will take place at the New Jersey 

Institute of Technology. This year’s theme is “I am 

Technology Education.” Additional information is available 

at www.njtea.org. 

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. 

ITEEA and FTEE Financial Report – Fiscal 2010 

Important Comments Pertaining to the ITEEA 

and FTEE Financial Reports: 

• The figures in this report reflect the financial year, which 

ended on June 30, 2010. A complete financial report is 

made to the ITEEA/FTEE Board of Directors/Trustees by 

the accounting firm of Ribis, Jones, and Maresca, P.A. 

• The balance shown is the result of specifically planned 

activities on behalf of the Board of Directors and the 

headquarters staff to balance the budget. The Board 

monitors the financial condition of the association and 

foundation on an ongoing basis through its Executive 

Committee, which also serves as the finance committee, 

and the Executive Director, who serves the association as 

secretary/treasurer. 

• Care is taken through the auditing process to ensure that 

the operation of the association is in compliance with 

rules and regulations established by the Internal Revenue 

Service and State of Virginia guidelines used for nonprofit 

associations. Questions pertaining to this report can be 

directed to ITEEA at (703) 860-2100. 

INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

AND FOUNDATION FOR TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING EDUCATORS, INC. 

COMBINED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION 

ASSETS 

CURRENT ASSETS 

Cash and cash equivalents $ 74,659 

Investments 1,313,913 

Accounts receivable, net of allowance 

For doubtful accounts of $1,395 and $1,995 1,825 

Grants receivable 14,500 

Inventory 92,365 

Prepaid expenses 30,197 

Total Current Assets 1,527,459 

PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, NET 17,440 

OTHER ASSETS 

Security deposits 2,200 

Cash surrender value of life insurance 164,302 

Total Other Assets 166,502 

TOTAL ASSETS $1,711,401 

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 

CURRENT LIABILITIES 

Accounts payable $ 17,027 

Accrued wages 33,274 

Accrued vacation 24,554 

Deferred consortium and membership dues 201,823 

Total Current Liabilities 276,678 

LONG-TERM LIABILITIES 

Postretirement health benefits obligations $ 184,890 

NET ASSETS 

Unrestricted net assets 1,225,512 

Temporarily restricted net assets 

Life members net assets 24,321 

Total temporarily restricted net assets 24,321 

TOTAL NET ASSETS 1,249,833 

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 1,711,401 

TOTAL REVENUE 1,539,973 

TOTAL EXPENSES 1,415,424 

REVENUE OVER EXPENSE AND SUPPORT 124,549 


Drafting with Design in Mind 

By Michael K. Daugherty and Vinson Carter 

Most technology teachers would 

agree that students crave practical, 

real-world activities in all of their 

classes—and CAD classes are no 

exception. 

Introduction 

Design and drafting are subjects long taught in technology 

education, and subjects that retain high status in the 

profession. Admittedly, since the initial publication of 

Standards for Technological Literacy in 2000, design has 

taken on a larger role and meaning in the technology 

education profession. However, design continues to be 

delivered primarily within drafting and computer-aided 

drafting (CAD) classes in many technology education 

programs across the nation. And, in many cases, that design 

component taught in drafting class may be unnecessarily 

restrictive. As an initial step in overcoming this inherent 

restriction, the authors offer an alternative approach to 

teaching design in CAD classes. 

In The Art of Innovation, Tom Kelley (2001) writes that 

while many in our society believe that truly creative 

individuals are few and far between, he believes the 

opposite. Kelley contends that we all have a creative side 

that can flourish if we spawn a culture that encourages 

it, one that embraces risks and wild ideas as well as 

the occasional failure. One could easily make the case 

that the “design” taught in many technology education 

courses includes very few opportunities for true creativity, 

includes little risk, and is almost never accepting of failure. 

Conversely, the design component of most drafting classes 

includes students making exacting copies of the imaginative 

designs created by others in the distant past. 

The historical roots of drafting and design in technology 

education are rooted in the interpretation of drafting as a 

fundamental tool for technical and graphic communication. 

Anyone who has sat in a drafting class for more than a 

few minutes has heard an instructor note that drafting is 

“the universal language of industry.” In 1953, William Ivins 

(CITE) stated that: 

The tool maker wants not a verbal description of the thing 

he is asked to make but a careful picture of it…without 

pictures most of our modern highly developed technology 

would not exist. (p. 160) 


Others have noted that, beyond teaching technical 

communication, drafting classes help students apply 

mathematics, specifically geometry. French and Helsel 

(2003) noted that, in addition to solving drafting 

problems using geometric constructions, drafters often 

need to be able to calculate various aspects of geometric 

constructions. Similarly, Computer-aided Drafting (CAD) 

has been noted as a class that prepares students with the 

computer skills needed to be successful in modern business 

and industry. Now that many CAD classes use software 

incorporating three-dimensional design, students have 

additional opportunities to understand the parts they are 

learning to draw. While the visualization that is enhanced 

by 3D CAD software allows for more creativity as students 

conceptualize their designs, the actual classroom exercises 

continue to be dominated by activities that cause students 

to replicate preexisting designs. 

The Problem with Traditional CAD 

Many computer-aided drafting (CAD) classes are taught in 

a manner similar to the traditional board drafting classes 

they replaced. Students complete the same prescriptive set 

of drawings that have been published in textbooks for the 

past generation or two. Gear blanks, V-blocks, industrial 

sprockets, and outdated machine parts are the daily grind. 

Clemons (2006) noted that, while teaching materials 

require frequent updating, the illustrations used in many 

texts appear to be a step behind. Further, Clemons noted 

that many students cannot relate to these drawings and 

become disinterested in the classroom routine. Bhavnani, 

et. al. (1996) noted that an analysis of CAD usage indicates 

that, even after many years of experience, users tend to use 

suboptimal strategies to perform complex tasks. Bhavnani 

suggested that many of these suboptimal strategies are 

based in manual drafting technique. He attributed this 

problem to the textbooks and teaching techniques used 

to deliver content to CAD students—noting that most 

textbooks are still dominated by learning activities and 

drawings generated for manual drafting. He noted that, 

if we understand that a new technology often requires 

reformulating the way we approach old tasks, we must 

reformulate the way we deliver instruction in CAD and 

design. Most technology teachers would agree that students 

crave practical, real-world activities in all of their classes— 

and CAD classes are no exception. 

Hill and Wicklein (2000) noted that the very content of 

technology education is rapidly changing, requiring teachers 

to continually upgrade their knowledge and expertise. Given 

this rapid change in the technology education profession, 

teachers must find the hook to both engage students and 

deliver design in a more creative and even risky manner. 

A CAD Design Survey of 97 middle, junior high, and high 

school students from Oklahoma and Arkansas indicated 

that, of those students who have completed or are enrolled 

in a CAD class, 65 percent noted that the primary teaching 

methodology is through teacher-led demonstration and 

individual drawing exercises (Carter and Daugherty, 2009). 

Additionally, this same group of students noted that more 

than 30 percent of all primary design/drawing assignments 

came directly from the textbook. It is interesting to note 

that only 18 percent of these same students indicated that 

this was a preferred method of learning technical material 

such as CAD. Further, only 6 percent indicated that they 

prefer to learn technical subject matter, such as CAD, 

through teacher demonstrations. Overwhelmingly, the 97 

students who completed this purposive survey listed handson/discovery 

projects as their preferred method of learning 

technical subject matter. 

This suggests that members of the technology education 

profession should question the manner through which 

CAD and other design instruction is delivered to middle 

school and high school students. Jordan, et. al. (1997) 

recommended that, to enhance student engagement and 

understanding, educators must create learning experiences 

and subject matter with which the students can relate. Given 

the fact that most of the technological products that we take 

advantage of daily were shaped in the minds of designers 

(Ferguson 1994), technology education must find ways to 

incorporate design in a more robust and engaging manner. 

A Proposal 

How can technology educators engage students in authentic 

and creative design? What can provide the “design” hook for 

our students? Additional student choice in design exercises 

and a subsequent decrease in the use of prescriptive work 

assignments may be the answer to both questions. Student 

choice leads to student engagement. Stipek (1996) writes 

in the Handbook of Educational Psychology that engaged 

students are more likely to approach tasks eagerly and to 

persist in the face of difficulty. They are also more likely 

than disengaged students to continue learning after formal 

schooling has been completed. When a student is given 

choices and the opportunity to find value in creative design 

activity, the result is purposeful learning. All of this is not 

to suggest that standards or rigor should be lowered, or that 


students should determine the curriculum. Rather, this is to 

suggest that design activities should include opportunities 

for students to explore and experiment in a creative 

environment. Sheldon and Biddle (1998) observe the impact 

of student engagement on learning: 

…if students are challenged, if their interests in the 

subject matter are encouraged, if they are given autonomy 

support, then their intrinsic interests, their motivation 

for learning, and their test scores will all grow more 

effectively. (p. 176) 

Although maximum achievement may be the technology 

teacher’s goal, if student attention is focused on completing 

prescriptive assignments, growth will likely not be 

maximized. In contrast, if the students are provided with 

some measure of choice and design challenges that support 

their individual interests, their performance and retention 

will grow accordingly. 

An Application 

Close your eyes for a moment and enter the world of 

the middle school or high school technology education 

student. This is a world of few personal spaces and still 

fewer individual choices. In fact, as you travel down the 

hallway, you will note that your student locker is one of 

the few private spaces that you have in the public school. 

Now open your eyes and consider the student lockers that 

you have seen during your own school visits. Students’ 

deep ownership is apparent when walking down a school 

hallway, as students tend to personalize, decorate, and 

enshrine their locker spaces. For these reasons we have 

selected the activity of package design, more specifically 

the package design of a locker organizer, to invigorate the 

traditional drafting classroom and infuse more design and 

creativity into student CAD drawings. 

Locker Design Challenge 

Overview 

Students will plan, draw, and produce a cardboard 

prototype of a school locker organizer that can be produced 

in one dimension and then creased, folded, and assembled 

into a working prototype. 

Challenge 

Create and produce a full-scale school locker organizer 

that will store textbooks, notebooks, writing utensils, 

mobile phones, and various other items commonly found 

in public schools. 

Time Limits 

The time to complete this assignment will vary between 

classrooms based on class period length, but generally this 

would work as a one-month-long school project. 

Parameters 

A. The Locker Design Challenge is an individual 

assignment. However, collaborative problem solving is 

encouraged. No two locker organizers should be alike. 

B. The locker organizer must be designed in such a way 

as to allow for the final product to be designed using 

CAD software, printed or plotted using a printer, 

affixed to card stock, and then cut, creased, folded, and 

formed into a finished prototype. 

C. The locker organizer must be comprised of no more 

than three (3) components (each affixed to card stock), 

with the overall dimensions of the organizer being: 

1. 30” height 

2. 11¾”width 

3. 10¾” depth 

D. The drawings for each component must contain an 

accurately dimensioned orthographic projection, and 

an isometric view of the parts. 

E. No fasteners, glue, or other types of adhesives may 

be used in the design. Each component must be 

self-standing or interlock together with the other 

components. 

F. Prototypes must be constructed of 1/8” or smaller 

corrugated cardboard, card stock, railroad board, or a 

like material. 

Evaluation 

Designs are evaluated for design creativity and the 

effectiveness of the prototype. Additionally, the design will 


e judged on accuracy, functionality, strength, neatness, 

and technical quality of the drawings and the prototype. 

Design teams will be evaluated on this project using the 

following criteria: 

1. Functionality: (30 points) Does the prototype device 

perform the intended function? 

2. Accuracy: (20 points) Does the prototype meet the 

stated criteria (i.e., store textbooks, notebooks, writing 

utensils, mobile phones, and various other items)? 

3. Strength and Durability: (20 points) Is the prototype 

strong and durable, and will it stand up to hard and 

constant use in a school? 

4. Technical Quality: (20 points) Is the original drawing of 

high quality, and was the prototype produced in a neat 

and clean manner? 

5. Originality: (10 points) Is the prototype an original idea, 

and does it incorporate innovations? 

6. Extra credit: (up to 5 points) Points will be awarded for 

the efficiency of the student’s work or “time on task.” 

Summary 

The Locker Design Challenge is a motivation assignment 

that allows for design creativity and student choice within 

the technology education classroom. The parameters of 

the challenge allow students to explore and experiment 

in a nonrestrictive environment, breaking away from the 

prescriptive methods employed in many CAD lessons. To 

introduce this lesson, it is recommended that the instructor 

bring in a variety of cardboard packaging and display items. 

These displays can be found at your local market or grocery 

store. Often these displays can be found at the end of an 

aisle holding batteries, magazines, and other highly visible 

items. These displays fold together and stand on their 

own. When students have the opportunity to manipulate 

different types of displays, they are better able to visualize 

how this type of package design works. This will aid in 

the surface development and pattern design of individual 

locker organizers. 

This design-based activity provides students with a practical, 

real-world activity in the CAD classroom. This is design with 

a purpose. 

Resources: 

Bhavnani, S. & John, B. (1996). Exploring the unrealized 

potential of computer-aided drafting. Proceedings of the 

‘96 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing 

Systems. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved 

from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=238538 

Carter, V. & Daugherty, M. K. (2008). The challenge of design. 

Unpublished Manuscript. 

Cheng, Nancy Yen-Wen. (1997). Teaching CAD with 

language learning methods. In J. P. Jordan, B. Mehnert, 

and A. Harfmann (Eds.), Representation and design, 

proceedings of the Association for Computer Aided Design 

in Architecture (ACADIA) (pp. 1–19). Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Retrieved from http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~design/ 

nywc/pdf/acadia97-lang-cheng.pdf 

Clemons, S. A. (2006). Constructivism pedagogy drives 

redevelopment of CAD course: A case study. The 

Technology Teacher, 65(5), 19-21. 

Ferguson, E. (1994). Engineering and the mind’s eye. 

Cambridge: MIT Press. 

French, T. & Helsel, J. (2003). Mechanical drawing: Board 

and CAD techniques (13th ed.). New York: Glencoe- 

McGraw Hill. 

Hill, R. & Wicklein, R. C. (2000). Great expectations: 

Preparing technology education teachers for new roles 

and responsibilities. Journal of Industrial Teacher 

Education, V37 (N3), 6-21. 

Ivins, W. (1953). Prints and visual communication (p. 160). 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Republished in 

1969, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-59002-6. 

Jordan, P., Di Eugenio, B., Thomason, R., & Moore, J. (1997). 

Reconstructed intentions in collaborative problem-solving 

dialogues. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. 

Retrieved from http://www.isp.pitt.edu/~intgen/ 

Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation. New York: Doubleday. 

Petroski, H. (1998). Invention by design: How engineers get 

from thought to thing. Topeka, KS: Tandem Library. 

Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In D. C. 

Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational 

psychology (pp. 85–113). New York: MacMillan. 

Sheldon, K. M. & Biddle, B. J. (1998). Standards, 

accountability, and school reform: Perils and pitfalls. 

Teachers College Record, 100(1), 164–180. 

This is a refereed article. 

Michael K. Daugherty, Ed. D. is Professor 

of Technology Education and Department 

Head of Curriculum and Instruction at the 

University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, AR. 

He can be reached via email at mkd03@ 

uark.edu. 

Vinson Carter is a Visiting Instructor of 

Technology Education in the Department 

of Curriculum and Instruction at the 

University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, AR. 

He can be reached via email at vcarter@ 

uark.edu. 


Resources in Technology and Engineering 

Energy Decisions: Is Solar 

Power the Solution? 

By Vincent W. Childress 

It does seem likely that 

photovoltaic solar can make a 

meaningful contribution if there 

are enough incentives for its 

implementation on a larger scale. 

Introduction 

People around the world are concerned about affordable 

energy. It is needed to power the global economy. 

Petroleum-based transportation and coal-fired power 

plants are economic prime movers fueling the global 

economy, but coal and gasoline are also the leading 

sources of air pollution. Both of these sources produce 

greenhouse gases and toxins. Worry over the environment 

and the health of humans is growing. The Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Office of Atmospheric Programs 

(2010) calculated that, in 2004, coal-fired electrical power 

plants in the United States dumped 1,943.1 megatons 

(MT) of carbon dioxide (CO 2 

) into the atmosphere. CO 2 

is the most prevalent greenhouse gas and is believed to 

be responsible for most of the effects of greenhouse-gasrelated 

warming. Coal accounts for almost all of the air 

pollution associated with electrical generation (Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 1998). Gasoline for 

vehicles was the source of 1,228 MT of CO 2 

, and that is 

only calculating what was dumped by the United States. 

There are more than enough worldwide sources of air 

pollution of this type. China recently passed the United 

States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases 

(Vidal & Adam, 2007). Transportation and electrical 

generation air pollutants are not just contributing to global 

warming, they include mercury, lead, arsenic, hydrogen 

chloride, and many more carcinogens and toxins, which 

cause lung cancer, asthma, and other diseases, and degrade 

flora and fauna. People are concerned about these issues, 

but generally, they do not want to pay extra to solve the 

problem, and they do not want to lose their jobs over a 

poorly powered economy. 

In 2008, the United States had an electrical generating 

capacity of 1,104,486 megawatts (MW), and 30 percent 

of that capacity was fueled by coal. Roughly, one MW 

can power 1,000 homes. Natural gas accounts for 40 

percent of the United States’ electrical generating 

capacity. Natural gas pollutes much less than coal, but it 

still produces CO 2 

. Petroleum accounts for six percent 

of electrical generating capacity (Energy Information 

Administration, 2010). The table on page 10 summarizes 

capacity percentage by energy source. 


Energy Source 

Capacity 

in MW 

Percent of 

U.S. Capacity 

Natural Gas 454,611 41.16 

Coal 337,300 30.539 

Nuclear 106,147 9.61 

Hydroelectric 77,731 7.037 

Petroleum 63,655 5.763 

Wind 24,979 2.261 

Pumped Storage* 20,355 1.842 

Wood 7,730 0.699 

Other Biomass 4,854 0.439 

Geothermal 3,281 0.297 

Other Gases 2,262 0.204 

Other 1,042 0.094 

Solar (thermal & PV) 539 0.048 

Total 1,104,486 99.993† 

Source: Energy Information Administration, 2010 

*Pumped Storage is a form of hydroelectricity. 

†Error due to rounding. Percentages and totals calculated by 

author. 

Could the world switch to solar power today and sustain 

the global economy? Not a chance. In 2008, solar accounted 

for only 0.048 percent (four one-hundredths of one percent) 

of the U.S. generating capacity (including concentrating 

solar). But that is not necessarily the right question to ask. 

Here is a more appropriate one: 

Can solar power contribute to a cleaner environment and 

a healthy economy? The answer is yes, with conditions. 

Photovoltaic Solar Power 

Photovoltaic solar electricity is produced when photons 

from the sun energize electrons on a semiconductor. 

The word photovoltaic is obvious in its meaning. Photo, 

meaning light, and voltaic, meaning electrical, describe 

the power source well; electricity from light. Solar power 

is the least prevalent source of electrical power in the 

United States. There are at least two reasons. Relatively 

speaking, it is less efficient than electromagnetic induction 

as an electrical power producer. All of the other sources of 

energy in the chart above use electromagnetic induction 

to produce electrical power. Electromagnetic induction 

is produced by the conventional electrical generator. 

The electrical generator has been around as a viable, 

commercial source of electricity since before the turn of the 

last century. Of course, it grew in popularity and became 

more efficient as consumers and industries realized the 

conveniences associated with electricity. Now, in the 21st 

Century, electricity is not a convenience, it is a necessity. 

The commercial generator came first, and photovoltaic 

electricity came about half a century later. 

How Photovoltaic Electricity Works 

At the heart of a photovoltaic electrical system is the solar 

cell. Solar cells are made from silicon, a semiconductor. 

Silicon atoms have only four electrons in their outer shells. 

That means that a silicon atom can both lose an electron 

and gain an electron from another silicon atom. When 

electrons move among atoms, the basics are present for 

electrical conduction or current. However, silicon is not 

a very good conductor like gold or copper. That is why 

it is called a semiconductor. To increase the number of 

free electrons within the silicon, another element, such 

as phosphorous, is added to the silicon. Phosphorous has 

one extra electron in its outer shell that is not needed to 

bond with other atoms. That extra electron has a much 

easier time breaking free from the phosphorous atom and 

perhaps becoming electrical current. When a substance 

or material has extra electrons, it is said to be negatively 

charged. When photons from the sun come into contact 

with the semiconductor and its phosphorous, the extra 

energy breaks loose more electrons from outer shells of 

atoms. However, for the electrons to flow as an electrical 

current, there needs to be a potential difference, or voltage, 

built up. 

If the presence of free electrons is a negative charge, then 

the absence of free electrons is a positive charge. Electrons, 

if provided a pathway (conductor), will flow toward a 

positive charge. For a solar cell, one layer is made of silicon 

doped with phosphorous, and this layer is referred to as an 

“N” type semiconductor. To assist in developing a potential 

difference within the cell, there is a second semiconductor 

layer. It has a positive charge. For this layer, the silicon 

is doped with boron. Boron has room in its outer shell 

to receive electrons. Relatively speaking it is positively 

charged. This type of semiconductor is referred to as a “P” 

type semiconductor. 

The two layers, shown in Figure 1, are placed together in 

the cell. Electrons in the N type layer are attracted to the 

absence of electrons in the P type layer. The area where 

the two layers contact each other is called a junction. The 

junction makes it difficult for electrons in the N type layer 

to cross over to the positive charge of the P type layer. As a 

consequence, the two types of charges—electrons and the 

absence of electrons—gather on each side of the junction 

respectively. In a way, this forms a barrier to the flow of 

electrons across the junction, because as electrons gather at 


the junction, it is more difficult for other electrons to cross; 

it is a sort of bottleneck. This creates a stronger difference 

in potential. This voltage is required to create current or 

the flow of electrons from the cell. The layers of the cell 

have metal conductors attached, and it is through these 

metal conductors that the electrons flow, attracted by the 

positive charge on the opposite side of the cell. Current 

in this circuit, external to the cell, will eventually become 

the same current that will operate lights and equipment. 

(Energy Information Administration, 2010; Department of 

Energy, 2010). 

Figure 2: The house shown here has a series of modules that are 

used to supplement its energy needs. The panels in the upper left of 

the roof are for heating water for use in the residence. The modules 

shown on the lower roof are photovoltaic panels. 

Figure 1: Section of a photovoltaic solar cell showing its components 

and function. A difference in potential is created at the 

junction of the P and N layers. It is the difference in potential that 

creates the current in an electrical circuit. 

Voltage increases in a series circuit. A series circuit 

is much like a daisy chain of electrical components 

or voltage sources. For example, if there were three 

9V batteries with the terminals connected negative to 

positive—negative to positive—and negative to positive, 

they would form a series circuit, and the total voltage 

would add up to 18V. Solar cells work exactly the same 

way, because one cell might output very low levels of 

voltage and current. Cells are connected in series on a 

mounting board commonly called a solar panel or module. 

These panels are, in a like manner, connected in series 

forming a string. Finally, a set of strings forms a solar 

array. Once an array is constructed, there will be enough 

electricity to power lights and equipment. 

When electricity is generated by magnetic induction, a 

conductor is in a magnetic field and there is relative motion 

between the two, resulting in current. The current may have 

a magnitude, for example 10,000 volts. When the conductor 

is no longer in the magnetic field, there is no current, 

and the magnitude is 0 volts. Also, when the conductor 

moves in one direction in the magnetic field, current may 

be positive moving, but when the conductor moves in 

the opposite direction, it may be negative moving. This is 

alternating current (AC). The direction of the movement 

in relationship to the polarity of the magnetic fields makes 

the current alternate from positive to negative over time. 

The electrical current from a photovoltaic system is direct 

current (DC). It maintains a fixed level of voltage and 

current, and it is not suitable for powering appliances and 

equipment designed to operate on AC such as those that 

are typically found in homes. 

Photovoltaic electricity is then conducted through an 

inverter. The inverter creates changes in the magnitude 

and polarity of the electricity to match standard AC on 

the power lines or electrical grid. The inverter also has a 

built-in component that shuts off the photovoltaic system 

in a power outage on the grid. This is a safety feature that 

protects a worker fixing a circuit on the grid from electrical 

shock from the photovoltaic system. If power from the grid 

is interrupted, there would otherwise be nothing to stop 

the photovoltaic system from continuing to generate power 

and electrocuting an unsuspecting worker in the midst of 

making repairs (Honey, 2010). 

Photovoltaic electricity output is like conventional 

hydroelectric because it varies depending on weather 


conditions. If it is humid and the atmosphere appears hazy 

or if the sun is not at an optimal angle to the cells or if it is 

cloudy, there will be a reduction in electrical production. 

For buildings and operations that use photovoltaic 

electricity to offset their consumption of electricity from 

the grid, it is necessary to have a series of deep-cycle 

batteries installed with the system. When output falls, the 

DC electricity stored in the batteries is automatically sent 

through the inverter as a replacement of the photovoltaic 

electricity. Currently, photovoltaic systems are more 

expensive to purchase and install than one saves from the 

offset of power from the grid. For a residential consumer, 

the payoff comes in the form of a more reliable supply of 

electricity that is not as susceptible to effects from power 

outages on the grid (Honey, 2010). 

Can Solar Power Make a Contribution? 

From one perspective, it does not seem likely that 

photovoltaic solar can make a meaningful contribution 

because the systems do not appear to be feasible relative 

to conventional electromagnetic induction processes. The 

largest photovoltaic solar array in the United States is the 

Nellis Air Force Base array in Nevada. It produces 30,000 

megawatt hours (MWh) of power annually, but that only 

provides 25 percent of the base’s annual electrical needs. 

To accomplish this, the array of 72,000 modules takes up 

140 acres of land at the base (Whitney, 2007). Compare 

that system to a conventional steam generator like Belews 

Creek Steam Station in Stokes County, North Carolina. It 

has two generators that are fired with coal, and it produces 

16,320,532 MWh of electricity annually (Duke Energy, 

2010a). It produces roughly 550 times more power than 

the Nellis array. There are tradeoffs. To produce the steam 

that is needed at Belews, a reservoir is required. Belews 

Lake consumes 3,864 acres of land (Duke Energy, 2010b). 

That is roughly 27 times more land than the array at Nellis 

occupies. However, when compared by output on a peracre 

basis, Belews produces 4,223 MWh per acre compared 

to 214 MWh per acre at Nellis. So the argument can be 

made that Belews’ conventional generation effectively 

consumes less land per megawatt hour than the Nellis solar 

array. Additionally, the reservoir provides fishing, boating, 

and swimming recreation. However, it simultaneously also 

dumps tons of particulate into the air and water and onto 

the land. 

From a second perspective, it does seem likely that 

photovoltaic solar can make a meaningful contribution if 

there are enough incentives for its implementation on a 

larger scale. As the table on page 10 shows, solar power 

represents a meager percentage of generation capacity. 

It is also relatively expensive because it is not yet popular 

enough for modules and equipment to be manufactured 

at such a volume that the price is generally affordable. 

“Expensive” means that it is difficult for a system to pay for 

itself in electrical savings over a reasonable length of time. 

Nevertheless, breaking even may not be the best 

motivation to install a photovoltaic system. William M. 

Graham (2010), Attorney at Law, installed a photovoltaic 

array on the roof of his law office, Wallace and Graham, 

P.A., in Salisbury, North Carolina. The firm is listed as 

the largest sell-back photovoltaic operation in the state. 

Sell back means that instead of using the electricity 

to power the law firm’s electrical needs, Wallace and 

Graham is selling 100 percent of its solar power to the 

power company. Its photovoltaic electricity is sent from 

the inverter through an electrical meter and directly to 

the grid. The firm receives a payment each cycle from the 

power company. The motivation is clean cogeneration. 

Wallace and Graham is producing solar electricity from the 

roof of its law building because it is the right thing to do. 

Graham notes that it would not be possible if it were not 

for tax incentives. 

He also proposed that, if every suitable roof on the east 

coast of the United States were covered with solar arrays, 

the impact would be significant in reducing emissions 

from fossil-fueled generators and reducing the up-front 

costs of solar (Graham, 2010). Graham is not the only one 

making this suggestion. It is estimated that, if all viable 

Figure 3. Shown here is a satellite view of the Wallace and Graham 

solar array that provides clean cogeneration and has a 100 percent 

sell back to the utility power company. The solar panels are not visible 

from the ground; however, the satellite photo shows the surface 

area of the array that occupies the law firm’s rooftop. 

12 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011

ooftops in the United States carried solar panels, the 

capacity of that photovoltaic technology could represent 

about 64 percent of the current national generation 

capacity (Allen, 2009). Many commercial buildings and 

some residences have flat or high roofs on which solar 

panels cannot be seen. Most installations would not be 

eyesores (see Figure 3). Wallace and Graham have the 

potential to produce 226 MWh per year. 

Technology, Science, Mathematics Interfaces 

Technology 

The extent to which the following activity addresses 

Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the 

Study of Technology (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007) really 

depends on what the technology and engineering teacher 

emphasizes. However, it is safe to say that the following 

power technology activity could address Standard 16, 

Benchmarks M and N. 

Standard 16 

Students will develop an understanding of and be able to 

select and use energy and power technologies. (p. 158) 

Benchmark M 

Energy sources can be renewable or nonrenewable. 

(p. 165) 

Benchmark N 

Power systems must have a source of energy, a 

process, and loads. (p. 165) 

To address this benchmark, the technology and engineering 

teacher may help students design an experiment in which 

power consumption and the cost of power systems is 

compared. Figure 4 shows an example of a residential 

model with solar equipment installed on the roof. The 

technology and engineering teacher will also want to 

help students understand the processes involved in both 

approaches. These understandings will also help students 

to realize the value of renewable energy. The key here is to 

make sure that students understand that there are tradeoffs 

related to solar power. It reduces air pollution and on that 

model scale, costs, but it is not necessarily as dependable as 

electrical power from a conventional generator. Work with 

science and mathematics teachers to develop an assignment 

related to energy and power and the related mathematics. 

Science 

The National Science Education Standards (National 

Research Council, 1996) document helps to highlight 

a number of opportunities that the technology and 

engineering teacher and the science teacher may have to 

teach students about the relationship between applications 

of power and energy and the scientific principles. 

Figure 4. Students might run a model house that has photovoltaic 

power and compare its power production and costs to a control. 

The control could be operated from the wall current. Voltage and 

current must be measured for both systems, and electrical safety 

must be observed. Rechargeable batteries could even be installed in 

the solar model house. In this photo, a model house is illuminated 

using light-emitting diodes and solar cells. 

Mathematics 

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (National 

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000) may prove 

useful in designing instruction for teaching students about 

statistics and simple mathematics. Teaching students about 

simple statistics will help them be able to interpret data that 

they find during their experiment. 

References 

Allen, B. (2009, January 27). Leasing America’s rooftops for 

solar energy. Miller-McCune Magazine. Retrieved from 

www.miller-mccune.com/business-economics/leasingamerica-s-rooftops-for-solar-energy-3987/ 

Department of Energy. (2010). Sunlight to electricity 

[animated video]. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 

from www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/animations.html 

Duke Energy. (2010a). Three Duke Energy fossil stations 

among the best in the country. Our Company. Charlotte, 

NC: Author. Retrieved from www.duke-energy.com/ 

lakes/facts-and-maps/belews-lake.asp 

Duke Energy. (2010b). Belews Lake. Our Company: Lake 

Facts and Maps. Charlotte, NC: Author. Retrieved from 

www.duke-energy.com/lakes/facts-and-maps/belewslake.asp 

Graham, W. M. (2010). Personal communication. 

Honey, T. (2010). Personal communication, Honey Electric 

Solar, Inc., www.honeyelectricsolar.com 

Energy Information Administration. (2010). Energy 

generating capacity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Energy. Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ 

electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html 

Energy Information Administration. (2010). Renewable 

solar. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. 


Addendum to Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology 

Retrieved from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy. 

cfm?page=solar_home-basics 

International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ 

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

literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: 

Author. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). 

Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, 

VA: Author. 

National Research Council. (1996). National science 

education standards. Washington: National Academy 

Press. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (1998). 

Study of hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric 

utility steam generating units: Final report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. 

Retrieved from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/ 

eurtc1.pdf 

Office of Atmospheric Programs. (2010). Inventory of 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2008 – 

Annexes 08-12-2010. Washington, DC: Environmental 

Protection Agency. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/climate/ 

climatechange/emissions/downloads10/US-GHG- 

Inventory-2010-Annexes.pdf 

Vidal, J. & Adam, D. (2007, June 19). China overtakes U.S. as 

world’s biggest CO 2 

emitter. Guardian News and Media. 

Retrieved from www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/ 

jun/19/china.usnews 

Whitney, R. (2007). Nellis activates nation’s largest PV array. 

Inside Nellis Air Force Base. Nellis Air Force Base, NV: 

U.S. Air Force. Retrieved from www.nellis.af.mil/news/ 

story.asp?id=123079933 

Acknowledgements 

The author would like to thank William M. Graham, 

Attorney at Law, of Wallace and Graham, in Salisbury, 

North Carolina for his expertise and interest in this article. 

The author would also like to thank Tom Honey of Honey 

Solar Electric in Liberty, North Carolina for his expertise 

and interest in this article. 

Vincent W. Childress, Ph.D. is a Professor 

in Technology Education at North Carolina 

A&T State University in Greensboro, North 

Carolina. He can be reached at childres@ 

ncat.edu. 

Teaching Technology: 

Middle School 

Strategies for Standards-Based Instruction 

Looking for a bargain in the New Year? 

Here’s one from ITEEA! 

Get either Teaching Technology: Middle School 

OR Teaching Technology: High School at the recently reduced price of only $15! 

Advancing Technological Literacy: ITEA Professional Series 

Teaching Technology: Middle School presents contemporary methods, activities, and resources for standards-based 

instruction for Grades 6-8. Activities, selected from national curriculum projects, have been teacher-tested. Each 

classroom/laboratory activity responds with relevant materials and STL standards. 

P167 or P167CD 128 pages, 2000 

With Teaching Technology: High School high school teachers will be able to expand their instructional toolbox with 

contemporary methods and teacher-tested activities that are aligned with Standards for Technological Literacy. A 

resource section recommends classroom materials that support high school content and activities. 

P173 or P173CD 124 pages, 2001 

Both publications are available either in print or CD format. Shipping and handling fees apply. 

To order, download an order form (www.iteea.org/Publications/pubsorderform.pdf) and fax 

completed form to 703-860-0353, or call 703-860-2100. 


On Target 

Hands-On Challenge 

Investigate Force and Energy with PBS’s Design Squad Nation 

By Lauren Feinberg 

Photo courtesy of Westlake High School 

“controlled collision.” That’s what NASA 

A scientists and engineers created when 

they sent the LCROSS spacecraft (Lunar Crater 

Observation and Sensing Satellite) hurtling into a 

crater at the moon’s South Pole. The collision sent 

up a plume of dust that scientists studied for signs 

of water. 

In the On Target activity from NASA and 

Design Squad Nation, kids will create their own 

controlled collision by dropping a marble on a 

target using a modified paper cup and a zip line. 

In the process, they’ll explore the concepts of 

force and energy. 

Specific Design Squad Nation episodes, 

animations, video clips, and engineer profiles 

support this activity and allow you and your 

students to delve deeper into the science, see the 

engineering design process in action, and make 

real-word connections. In this article, we’ll walk 

you through how to integrate them into On Target. 

“With On Target, my students were using terms like acceleration, 

trajectory, and calibration while solving a real-world problem … 

they were applying physics without even realizing it.” 

—Jeff Hoffman, Technology Education teacher, 

Louisville, Ohio 

Everything you need is in the Parents, Educators, 

and Engineers section of the website within the 

resource topic Force/Energy. Find it at pbskidsgo. 

org/designsquadnation/parentseducators. 

Identify the Problem 

Tell your students about NASA’s LCROSS mission. Explain 

that NASA wanted the spacecraft to hit an exact place on 

the surface of the moon—an existing crater. Note that just 

as the success of the LCROSS controlled collision depended 

on accuracy and precision, so does success in On Target. 

State the challenge: to modify a paper cup so it can zip 

down a line and drop a marble precisely onto a target. 

Provide kids with the materials (nine feet of fishing line or 

kite string, one index card, one marble, masking tape, one 

paper clip, one paper cup, scissors, and a target drawn on a 

piece of paper.) 

Download On Target’s Student Handout and Leader Notes. 


Brainstorm and Design 

Help students get grounded 

in concepts like Newton’s 

First Law, acceleration, 

trajectory, and potential 

and kinetic energy. Show 

the animation, How Can 

Use a 30-second animation to visually 

explain the concepts of potential and 

kinetic energy. 

Potential Energy Be Used 

to Do Work? Ask students: 

How will you modify the 

cup so it can carry a marble down a zip line and also drop 

it onto a target? (They can build a door, platform, shelf, or 

holder.) How will you remotely release the marble from the 

cup? (They can attach a string on the uphill side of the cup, 

opposite the platform or door, to pull when near the “drop 

zone.”) When do you need to launch the marble so that it 

will hit the target? (The marble will keep moving as it falls, 

so they’ll need to release it before reaching the target.) Have 

your students sketch their design ideas on paper. 

Build and Test 

Have kids set up a zip line 

between two objects (i.e., a 

table and chair). The zip line 

should be stretched tight 

and at an angle. Invite kids 

to choose their best design 

and build it. When kids are 

ready to test, they should 

place a target near the end of 

the zip line. Then have them 

send the cup down the line 

and try to hit the target with 

the marble, using the remote 

release. As they test, help 

students problem-solve any 

issues they face. 

index card 

platform 

marble 

tape 

guides 

handle 

string to 

tip cup 

Examples of a platform and a door 

design. 

Evaluate and Redesign 

How close did students get to hitting the target? Encourage 

them to make changes to improve their designs. Is the cup 

moving slowly down the zip line? Make sure it can slide 

freely and check the steepness 

of the zip line. Does the marble 

get stuck? Suggest that kids 

enlarge the opening, unblock 

the platform, or make “guides” 

out of tape to help direct the 

marble. Does the marble miss 

In the episode Backyard Thrill Ride, 

teams bring the adrenaline rush of an 

amusement park ride to a 13-year-old’s 

backyard with zip line-inspired thrills. 

16 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011 

the target? Tell kids to check 

for interference from the 

door or platform and remind 

them about timing the release 

to account for the marble’s 

forward motion. 

Share 

Have your students show each other their modified cups 

and talk about how they solved problems that came up. 

Discuss what modifications they made, how the marble 

moved after it was ejected, and how they saw Newton’s First 

Law in action. Share photos of their designs on the Design 

Squad Nation website. Click “Read more” about On Target 

for a link. 

Water in Space: A Real- 

World Connection 

Just as they do on Earth, astronauts who are in space need 

air and water to survive. But bringing a large quantity of 

water is expensive—over $25,000 a pound—so NASA 

engineers have developed a way to recycle it. Show kids 

NASA Toilet, the video profile of aerospace engineer Evan 

Thomas, who works on 

water recovery systems 

that can turn even waste 

water like urine into clean, 

drinkable water. Find it in 

the Space/Transportation 

Download or stream two-minute video 

profiles in which kids see real engineers 

in diverse, creative careers. 

resource topic.

More on Force and Energy 

Extend your students’ learning with more hands-on 

challenges. Look for these activities that let kids further 

explore force and energy: 

• Zip Line: Design a way to get a Ping-Pong ball from the 

top to the bottom of a zip-line string. 

• Launch It: Design an air-powered rocket that can hit a 

distant target. 

• Touchdown: Build a spacecraft with a shock absorber 

that will protect marshmallow astronauts when they land. 

• Roving on the Moon: Build a rubber-band-powered car 

that can scramble across the room. 

For more moon mission-inspired activities, check out 

Design Squad Nation’s On the Moon activity guide, 

developed in collaboration with NASA. Find it at 

pbskidsgo.org/designsquadnation/parentseducators/ 

guides. 

Jeff Hoffman’s Tech Ed students talk about On Target: 

“I found out that to be an engineer, you need to keep an 

open mind.” —Erika 

“We tested it and made a few changes, then tested again 

and it hit right on the target!” —Sarah 

“The first model we made failed [but] we ended up coming 

up with a really good model. We all pitched in on the idea, 

because we each thought of a different part of it.” —Rachel 

“This was a fun project. It taught us patience and to learn 

how to work with people.”—Richie 

Lauren Feinberg is an associate editor at 

WGBH Boston. The activity featured in this 

article was developed by the Educational 

Outreach department in collaboration with 

NASA. 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. 

Celebrate National Engineers Week with Design Squad Nation 

Ping-Pong balls will fly high when Design Squad Nation co-hosts, 

Judy Lee and Adam Vollmer, lead kids in a super-sized version 

of the Pop Fly activity at National Engineers Week (EWeek) in 

Washington, DC this February 20-26. Every year, EWeek unites over 

120 organizations, corporations, and agencies dedicated to raising 

public awareness of engineers. But you don’t need to be at the event to 

join the celebration and get your students excited about engineering. 

Lead Pop Fly in your classroom and watch the Ping-Pong balls soar! 

Everything you need is available at pbskidsgo.org/designsquadnation/ 

parentseducators. Look for other ways to get involved in EWeek at 

www.eweek.org. 

Design Squad Nation hosts Judy and Adam will launch this giant 

Pop Fly at National Engineers Week’s kick off event—Discover 

Engineering Family Day at the National Building Museum in 

Washington, DC on Saturday, February 19, 2011. 

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

17 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011 

On Target corresponds to ITEEA’s STL Content Standards 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16.

Classroom Challenge 

The Intersection Challenge 

By Harry T. Roman 

Open up the boundaries and 

allow students to redesign their 

world. 

Introduction 

Street intersections are a source of accidents—for both 

automobiles and pedestrians. In this exercise, we shall 

explore some possible ways to change the traditional 

intersection. 

Thinking about the Problem 

Our modern grid layout of streets and roads makes it 

necessary that they cross one another. Here, some form 

of control must be exerted to moderate traffic, first in one 

direction and then the other. Is there an alternative to 

the intersection that would allow cars and pedestrians a 

separate thoroughfare? 

For instance, how might your students allow pedestrians 

to cross a busy street without worrying about traffic? Are 

there any examples of this in your community? Is there an 

elevated walkway across a busy highway that citizens can 

now use? Survey your students to find out where they think 

such walkways should be installed in your town. 


Let students conduct research to determine if any 

meaningful studies have been done that propose alternative 

ways to avoid pedestrian challenges at street intersections. 

A number of small towns around the country have tried to 

minimize the impact of automobiles upon their residents 

and developed their land accordingly. What can be learned 

from this? One such town is located in the Radburg area of 

Fairlawn, NJ. This entire section of the town is completely 

different in appearance and design. Cars and homes are 

purposely kept separate, with lots of walking and open space 

between the clusters of homes. Radburn dates back to 1929. 

Is there an elevated walkway across a busy highway that citizens 

can now use? 

From a practical standpoint, could your town afford to have 

these elevated walkways at every corner? Is there enough 

space at each intersection? How would handicapped citizens 

gain access to them? What would it do to local traffic flow 

to have to rebuild all the street intersections? In a crowded 

downtown district, would it even be possible to make such 

major changes? 

How about underground passages beneath each intersection? 

Folks would just walk down a few stairs on one side and up 

a few stairs on the other side, and traffic would never bother 

them at all. Sure there are lots of underground facilities such 

as pipes and electric cables and communications lines, but 

couldn’t they be moved a little deeper to allow for folks to 

pass above them? This might be an interesting challenge 

for older cities with dense population centers. Would the 

underground route be less expensive or more expensive than 

the elevated walkway option? 

How about underground passages beneath each intersection? 

Planned community, Reston, VA, offers its residents plenty of 

alternatives to driving. 

Other U.S. planned communities such as Columbia, MD 

and Reston, VA may offer some insight into minimizing 

automobile-human being interactions. Another city that 

might be looked at is the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore, 

which has a network of elevated walkways for access to 

tourist, business, and hotel destinations. 

Other sources of information for understanding this 

problem may be garnered from: 

• Local town planning and engineering departments 

• Land use consultants and designers 

• Traffic and automotive experts and consultants 

• Architectural firms specializing in urban/town design 

• Roadway engineering firms 

• Highway planners 


Certainly, you may invite visitors from these organizations 

to stop by and meet with your students, providing insight as 

to ways to approach this challenge. 

Might there be new technology that could be applied to 

intersections to make them much safer for cars and people 

to mix, and also to prevent accidents? Think of all the 

computerized systems that might be employed . . . such as 

automatic timing of traffic signals depending upon how 

much traffic is flowing at any given time; or pedestrian 

crosswalks that can automatically cause approaching cars to 

experience a drop in speed—a smart crosswalk if you will. 

Thinking along these lines makes one wonder if progressive 

automakers are not already thinking about designing cars 

that are more crosswalk-intelligent. Maybe someone from a 

car company ought to chat with your students? 

What sort of arrangement would students conceive for 

how the elevated walkways are supported from the street 

level? Perhaps a combination of support from the borders 

of the roadway with struts protruding from the buildings 

themselves would be envisioned. Encourage students to 

make drawings of their ideas or perhaps simulations using 

computer-aided design software . . . or maybe even threedimensional 

cardboard models. 

How would citizens be spared the inhalation of fumes 

from truck exhausts below; and the normal smells from 

automobiles? Or maybe your students envision only electric 

vehicles being used in such circumstances. Would the 

elevated walkways be steel grids or a concrete surface, or 

perhaps something different? 

What about the delivery of emergency services such 

as police and fire departments? How would such a 

multidimensional design affect safety for residents during 

fires, earthquakes, floods, and disasters? Who would 

maintain the elevated structures and provide daily security? 

Let the imagination shine through on this challenge. Open 

up the boundaries and allow students to redesign their 

world. First help them set some goals for their designs and 

encourage them to stick to these guidelines. This should be 

a fun challenge, hopefully with a good measure of “ah-has” 

and “wows” afterwards. Let them know it is perfectly OK to 

be creative. 

How about a pedestrian crosswalk that automatically causes 

approaching cars to experience a drop in speed? 

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. 

Changing the Paradigm 

How about letting the creative juices really run wild—have 

teams of students design, from scratch, a section of a town 

where cars operate on one level, say the street or foundation 

level. And one story up, people walk on a completely 

elevated network of walkways. 

How might this affect the design of buildings and peoples’ 

access to their cars? Can you see how every home, building, 

or business might have a garage on its first level so cars 

can pull in off the street, with stairs leading up to the living 

or business levels? Pedestrians would always walk safely 

above traffic. In essence, this is kind of the reverse of having 

elevated train tracks that were so familiar in towns like New 

York and Chicago in the early 1900s. 

Ad Index 

DS SolidWorks Corporation......................C2a 

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher......................C2 

Kelvin................................................................ 34 

Mastercam.......................................................C4 


K-12 Engineering Education Standards: 


By Rodger W. Bybee 

The opportunities for engineering 

education standards can be 

summed up in a short phrase— 

the time is right. 

Introduction 

Does the nation need K-12 engineering education 

standards? The answer to this question is paradoxically 

both simple and complex, and requires an 

examination of a rationale for such standards as well 

as the opportunities and barriers to developing and 

implementing the standards. 

The Idea of Standards 

A contemporary agreement among 46 states to join 

forces and create common academic standards in math 

and English language arts makes it clear that the idea of 

standards has an overwhelming appeal to policymakers. 

National standards also have an unimaginable complexity 

for educators responsible for “implementing” the 

standards (DeBoer, 2006; Bybee and Ferrini-Mundy, 

1997; National Research Council, 2002). The idea of 

standards has developed from an original meaning as “a 

rallying point for an army” to an “exemplar of measure 

or weight” to statement of “correctness or perfection” 

and finally to a “level of excellence.” It should be clear 

that the primary functions of an educational standard 

center on rallying support, increasing coherence, and 

measuring attainment. All require political persuasion, 

psychometric precision, and practical applications. In the 

end, setting standards, such as those being considered 

for K-12 engineering education, requires allegiance by a 

broad constituency, addressing programmatic concerns 

beyond the policy (e.g., school programs and teaching 

practices) and implementing an assessment system that 

is manageable and understandable by educators and the 

public alike. 

Standards for education are statements about purposes— 

priorities and goals (Hiebert, 1999). In engineering 

education they would be value judgments about what 

our students should know and be able to do. Education 

standards should be developed through a complex 

process informed by societal expectations, past practices, 

research information, and visions of professionals in 

associated fields; e.g., engineering and education. 

Before progressing too far, several terms must be 

clarified. In general, discussions of common academic 

standards and current considerations of engineering 

education standards refer to CONTENT STANDARDS—a 

description of learning outcomes described as knowledge 

and abilities for a subject area. For example, students 

should learn concepts such as systems, optimization, and 

feedback; they should develop the abilities of engineering 

design and habits of mind. Content standards would be 

differentiated from other standards such as: performance 

standards, professional development standards, and 

teaching standards (see Table 1). 


CONTENT STANDARDS—A description of the knowledge 

and skills students are expected to learn by the end of 

their schooling. Content standards describe learning 

outcomes, but they are not the instructional materials; 

i.e., lessons, classes, courses of study, or school 

programs. 

CURRICULUM—The way content is delivered. Curriculum 

includes the structure, organization, balance, and 

presentation of content in the classroom. 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—A description of the form 

and function of achievement that serves as evidence 

students have learned. Performance standards are 

usually described in relation to content standards. 

Performance standards sometimes identify levels 

of achievement for content standards, e.g., basic, 

proficient, advanced. 

TEACHING STANDARDS—Descriptions of the educational 

experiences provided by teachers, textbooks, 

technology. Teaching standards should indicate the 

quality of instruction for students and can emphasize 

unique features such as design experiences in 

engineering and use of integrated instructional 

sequences. 

Table 1. Some Terms Used in Standards-Based Reform 

The Idea of Education Standards Is Not New 

More than a century ago, The Committee of Ten made 

recommendations concerning college admissions 

requirements. The recommendations included the use 

of laboratories in science teaching. The Committee of 

Ten report influenced numerous programs and practices 

in the nation’s schools (Sizer, 1964; DeBoer, 1991). 

One particular example makes a point about national 

standards. The Committee of Ten report served as the 

impetus for the Harvard Descriptive List, a description 

of experiments in physics to be used for admission to the 

college. Students applying to Harvard would be required 

to complete 40 different experiments as well as a written 

test about the experiments and principles of physics. The 

point here is that the Harvard Descriptive List fulfilled 

the definition of education standards, by definition a 

combination of content and teaching standards. 

Since the late 1800s, numerous policies, generally in the 

form of committee reports, have described what is now 

referred to as education standards. The standards referred 

to science—technology and engineering were almost 

never mentioned. In recent decades, however, technology 

was often (and incorrectly) referred to as applied science. 

In the late 1980s, in the latter years of the “Sputnik era,” 

a new stage of education emerged. That new period 

can be characterized as the “standards era.” The likely 

origin of this era is the 1983 report of the National 

Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at 

Risk. Two recommendations from the report set the stage 

for standards: 1) strengthening the content of the core 

curriculum and 2) raising expectations using measurable 

standards. The report described course requirements in 

five core subjects for high school graduation—English, 

mathematics, science, social studies, and computer 

science. Science and mathematics were included as core 

subjects. To state the obvious, neither technology nor 

engineering were among the core subjects. 

In 1989, then President George Bush and Governors 

(including Bill Clinton) met in Charlottesville for an 

Education Summit, the outcomes of which included 

National Education Goals. Creation of National 

Education Goals directly led to initiatives for voluntary 

national standards in each of the core subjects. In this 

same year, 1989, the National Council of Teachers of 

Mathematics published Curriculum and Evaluation 

Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989), and 

the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science published Science for All Americans (AAAS, 

1989). These publications provided leadership for the era 

of standards-based reform. Still, as Paul DeHart Hurd 

argued, standards are fine, but they are not a reinvention 

(Hurd, 1999). 

The basic idea of standards-based reform was to establish 

policies of clear, coherent, and challenging content as 

learning outcomes for K-12 education. The assumption 

was that voluntary national standards would be used by 

state education departments and local jurisdictions for 

selection for educational programs, use of instructional 

practices, and implementation of assessments that 

would help students attain the standards. An additional 

assumption was that undergraduate teacher education 

and professional development for classroom teachers 

also would align with standards. The basic idea may 

sound reasonable, but in reality it did not quite work 

as envisioned. The many independent decisions about 

teacher preparation, textbooks, tests, and teaching 

resulted in less influence than desired for national 

standards (NRC, 2002). This said, the standards for 

science (NRC, 1996) have had a positive influence on the 

educational system, especially on state standards and 

curriculum materials (DeBoer, 2006). 


The Idea of K-12 Engineering Standards Is 

Emerging 

Based on Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), in 1993 

the AAAS published Benchmarks for Science Literacy, and 

in 1996 the National Research Council published National 

Science Education Standards. These three documents 

include recommendations and standards related to 

engineering and technology. For example, Science for 

All Americans set the stage for increased recognition of 

engineering education with discussions of “Engineering 

Combines Scientific Inquiry and Practical Values” and 

“The Essence of Engineering is Design Under Constraint” 

(AAAS, 1989, pp. 40-41). 

The International Technology Education Association 

(ITEA/ITEEA) initially published Standards for 

Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology 

in 2000. An important point about these standards is that 

they give substantial attention to the idea of engineering 

design and underwent a thorough review and subsequent 

revision by the National Research Council, with input and 

criticism from the National Academy of Engineering. 

In the two decades since 1989, the idea of national 

standards for education has been widely recognized as 

important, if not essential, and increasingly accepted 

by most policymakers and educators. Before turning 

to a specific discussion of K-12 engineering education 

standards, I discuss several ideas about national standards. 

Purposes of National Standards 

This section presents my reflections and opinions based 

on more than a decade’s experience with the National 

Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). My work 

on these Standards began in 1992 as a member (and 

later Chair) of the Content Working Group. In 1995, I 

became Executive Director of the Center for Science, 

Mathematics, and Engineering Education at the National 

Academies where my work completing and disseminating 

the Standards continued until 1999 when I returned to 

Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). At BSCS 

we used the Standards as the content and pedagogical 

foundation for curriculum materials and professional 

development. So my experiences with standards have 

been varied and include the perspectives of policy, 

program, and practice. For those interested, Angelo 

Collins has provided an excellent history of the national 

science education standards (Collins, 1995). Also worth 

noting is the October 1997 issue of School Science and 

Mathematics, a theme issue for which my colleague, Joan 

Ferrini-Mundy, and I served as guest editors. 

First and foremost, the power of national standards lies 

in their potential capacity to change the fundamental 

components of the education system at a scale that makes 

a difference. Very few things have the capacity to change 

curriculum, instruction, assessment, and the professional 

education of teachers. National standards must be on the 

short list of things with such power. The changes also are 

system-wide and thus at a significant scale. To the degree 

various agencies, organizations, institutions, and districts 

embrace national standards, there is potential to bring 

increased coherence and unity among state frameworks, 

criteria for adoption of instructional materials, state 

assessments, and other resources. 

Early in my work, I realized that there were several ways 

standards may affect the system. The importance of 

teaching biological evolution provides excellent examples 

for this discussion. First, including content such as 

biological evolution in national standards in turn affects 

the content in state and local science education standards. 

A review by Education Week (9 November 2005) found 

that a majority of states (39) included some description. 

My second point centers on feedback within the systems. 

Using the science education standards as the basis for 

the review by Education Week provided insights about 

which states did not mention evolution. The review also 

indicated the significant variation in the presentation 

of evolution among other states. The latter was a major 

finding in the review. 

Here is an example of my third point. When Kansas 

again planned to adopt state standards that would 

promote nonscientific alternatives to evolution and 

liberally borrowed from the Standards and National 

Science Teachers Association (NSTA) publications, both 

organizations denied Kansas the right to incorporate 

any of their material into its new standards (Science, 4 

November 2005). The Standards also can be used to define 

the limits of acceptable content. 

Fourth, standards influence the entire educational 

system because they are both input, and they define 

output. We use the defining question for education, 

“What should all students know, value, and be able to 

do?” to identify and define the output. In educational 

history, we have primarily focused on inputs with the 

hope of improving outputs—especially greater student 

learning. For example, we change the length of the school 

years, courses, textbooks, educational technologies, 

and teaching techniques. All such inputs are meant to 

enhance learning, but they have been inconsistent, not 


directed toward a common purpose, and centered on 

different aspects of the educational system. In other 

words, they have not been coherently focused on 

common outcomes. A lack of coherence is clearly shown 

by many contemporary analyses of the relationships 

among curriculum instruction, assessment, and 

professional development. 

There is a fifth way national standards affect the 

educational system. National standards present policies 

for all students. By their very nature, national standards 

are policies that embrace equity. Answering the 

question—What should all students know and be able 

to do?—identifies the standards as a clear statement of 

equity. In the decade since release of the Standards, I 

have had many individuals ask if we really meant all. 

The answer is—yes. Of course, there are exceptions 

that prove the rule. Severely developmentally disabled 

students would be an example. But, the Standards still 

are explicit statements of equity. While developing the 

Standards, we were quite clear about the fact that many 

aspects of the education system would have to change 

to accommodate the changes they implied. For example, 

changes such as the reallocation of resources to increase 

achievement of those students most in need, were clearly 

understood by those most closely associated with the 

standards project. 

Have the Standards changed the fundamental components 

system-wide and achieved equity? No. But you will notice 

that I indicated they had the potential to do so. I would 

note that this nation has not achieved equal justice for all, 

but we hold this as an important goal, one that we do not 

plan to change because it has not been achieved. 

A Rationale 

The justification for developing engineering education 

standards rests on a foundation that includes both societal 

and educational perspectives. I begin with the societal 

perspective by looking first at history, in particular the 

20th century. 

One stunning example supports the case for engineering 

education standards. In late 1999, the Newseum, a 

journalism museum in Washington, DC, conducted a 

survey of American historians and journalists to determine 

the top 100 news stories of the 20th century. As I read the 

list, I was surprised that of the top 100 headlines in the 

20th century, over 40% were directly related to engineering 

and technology. This ranking of news stories seems to 

justify increased emphasis on engineering education and 

technological literacy, because it represents clearly what 

the public reads, hears, and values relative to engineering 

and technology. 

The high percentage of engineering-related historical 

events is only rivaled by political events, and many of 

those indirectly involved engineering. Table 2 lists the 

engineering-related events. I modified the original list 

by selecting the stories that had a direct component 

of engineering or technology. Each selection of Table 

2 met one of these criteria: 1) the story clearly was 

about engineering/technology, 2) the story had clear 

connections to engineering/technology, or 3) the story 

forecasted future application for engineering/technology. 

As an interesting aside, in completing this analysis, I 

realized that nearly all headlines had some connection to 

engineering/technology. 

Although some might debate particular selections, it 

would be difficult to argue with the general conclusion that 

a significant percentage of important events in the 20th 

century were clearly and directly related to engineering/ 

technology. In the early years of the 21st century, I see 

no reason to predict fewer contributions by engineering/ 

technology, and I think it is reasonable to suggest there will 

be more. The justification for promoting engineering and 

technology seems clear. 

To the historical justification one can add contemporary 

challenges (see, e.g., the NAE Grand Challenges project, 

www.engineeringchallenges.org) that include the role of 

engineering and innovation in economic recovery, efficient 

use of energy resources, reduction of climate change 

risks, creation of green jobs, reduction of health care 

costs, increasing healthy life styles, ensuring defense, and 

technologies for national security. 

Turning to educational justifications for K-12 engineering 

education standards, I would first note the need for a widely 

accepted national statement of the goals and purposes of 

engineering education. I realize that individual curricula 

have goals. We can, for example, cite the historical goal 

from the 1970s Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project— 

technological literacy. Contemporary engineering curricula 

have similar goals (Katehi, Pearson, and Seder, 2009). 

With this recognition, I still suggest the need for a “widely 

accepted national statement” of the goals, purposes, and 

policies for engineering education. This observation leads to 

my next point. 

STEM is a popular acronym for science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics education. National 

standards exist for science (NRC, 1996), technology (ITEA/ 

ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), and mathematics (NCTM, 2000). 


Engineering/ 

Technology 

Ranking 

Top 100 

Ranking 

Year 

Headline 

1 1 1945 U.S. Drops Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima, Nagasaki: Japan surrenders to end World War II 

2 2 1969 American astronaut Neil Armstrong becomes the first human to walk on the moon 

3 3 1941 Japan bombs Pearl Harbor: U.S. enters World War II 

4 4 1903 Wilbur and Orville Wright fly the first powered airplane 

5 11 1928 Alexander Fleming discovers the first antibiotic, penicillin 

6 12 1953 Structure of DNA discovered 

7 17 1913 Henry Ford organizes the first major U.S. assembly line to produce Model T cars 

8 18 1957 Soviets launch Sputnik, first space satellite: space race begins 

9 20 1960 FDA approves birth control pill 

10 21 1953 Dr. Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine proven effective in University of Pittsburgh tests 

11 25 1981 Deadly AIDS disease identified 

12 28 1939 Television debuts in America at New York World’s Fair 

13 30 1927 Charles Lindbergh crosses the Atlantic in first solo flight 

14 31 1977 First mass-market personal computers launched 

15 32 1989 World Wide Web revolutionizes the Internet 

16 33 1948 Scientists at Bell Labs invent the transistor 

17 35 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis threatens World War III 

18 36 1912 “Unsinkable” Titanic, largest man-made structure, sinks 

19 40 1909 First regular radio broadcasts begin in America 

20 41 1918 Worldwide flu epidemic kills 20 million 

21 42 1946 “ENIAC” becomes world’s first computer 

22 43 1941 Regular TV broadcasting begins in the United States 

23 46 1909 Plastic invented: revolutionizes products, packaging 

24 48 1945 Atomic bomb tested in New Mexico 

25 51 1959 American scientists patent the computer chip 

26 52 1901 Marconi transmits radio signal across the Atlantic 

27 57 1962 Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring stimulates environmental protection movement 

28 60 1961 Yuri Gagarin becomes first man in space 

29 61 1941 First jet airplane takes flight 

30 64 1942 Manhattan Project begins secret work on atomic bomb: Fermi triggers first atomic 

chain reaction 

31 66 1961 Alan Shepard becomes first American in space 

32 70 1961 Communists build wall to divide East and West Berlin 

33 75 1928 Joseph Stalin begins forced modernization of the Soviet Union; resulting famines claim 

25 million 

34 78 1900 Max Planck proposes quantum theory of energy 

35 79 1997 Scientists clone sheep in Great Britain 

36 80 1956 Congress passes interstate highway bill 

37 81 1914 Panama Canal opens, linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans 

38 83 1986 The Space Shuttle Challenger explodes, killing crew 

39 87 1958 China begins “Great Leap Forward” modernization program, estimated 20 million die in 

ensuing famine 

40 90 1962 John Glenn becomes first American to orbit the Earth 

41 92 1997 Pathfinder lands on Mars, sending back astonishing photos 

42 95 1978 Louise Brown, first “test-tube baby,” born healthy 

43 96 1948 Soviets blockade West Berlin: Western allies respond with massive airlift 

44 97 1975 Bill Gates and Paul Allen start Microsoft Corp. to develop software for Altair computer 

45 98 1986 Chernobyl nuclear plant explosion kills more than 7,000 

*Modified from “The Top 100 News Stories of the 20th Century” (1999 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co., Inc.) 

Table 2. Engineering/Technology-Related News Stories of the 20th Century* 


There are no national standards for engineering education. 

I rest my case. 

Finally, as mentioned, we are in an era of standards-based 

reform. So, to be recognized and accepted in education, a 

discipline or area of study needs a set of standards. 

The Opportunities 

The opportunities for engineering education standards 

can be summed up in a short phrase—the time is right. 

A convergence of conditions has created a climate that 

is conducive to the emergence of engineering as a viable 

component of K-12 education. Let me elaborate several of 

the conditions contributing to this observation. 

A recent editorial in Science by John Holdren, the 

President’s science and technology advisor, makes my 

first point. In the editorial, Holden presents four practical 

challenges for the Obama administration. Briefly, those 

challenges are: bringing science and technology more 

fully to bear on economic recovery; driving the energytechnology 

innovation needed to reduce energy imports 

and reduce climate-change risks; applying advances in 

biomedical science and information technology; and, 

ensuring the nation’s security with needed intelligence 

technologies (Holdren, 2009). One can argue that all of 

the challenges have essential connections to, and reliance 

on, engineering. 

In the same editorial, Holdren introduced what he 

termed cross-cutting foundations for success in meeting 

the aforementioned challenges. One of the foundations 

presented another opportunity. That foundation was 

“strengthening STEM education at every level, from 

precollege to postgraduate to lifelong learning” (Holdren, 

2009, p. 567). The National Science Foundation (NSF) 

introduced the term STEM as an acronym for science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics. Now, the 

acronym is widely used, as Holdren did, as a reference to 

STEM education. But the truth is, the acronym usually 

refers to either science or mathematics or both. Seldom 

does the reference mean technology and almost never 

does it include engineering. While the nation is concerned 

about STEM education, the “T” is only slightly visible, 

and “E” is invisible. A major opportunity for engineering 

education standards resides in making the “E” in STEM 

education visible. 

Standards for K-12 engineering education would define the 

knowledge and abilities for the “E” in STEM education, and 

at best clarify ambiguities in use of the acronym. However, 

unless done with care and understanding, development 

of engineering education standards could perpetuate 

the politics and territorial disputes among the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. 

Given this historical situation vis-à-vis the sovereignty 

of educational territory, I suggest that standards in 

engineering education, along with business and industry, 

could provide leadership by providing a contemporary 

vision of STEM (Sanders, 2009). 

Another opportunity emerges from one of the current 

themes and stated outcomes in education—development 

of 21st century skills. The National Research Council has 

presented a summary of those skills (see Table 3). It seems 

clear that activities from K-12 that center on engineering a 

design could make a substantial contribution to students’ 

development of these skills. In this case, the opportunity 

may be a three-for-one. Students have opportunities to: 1) 

develop 21st century skills, 2) make connection to other 

STEM subjects, and 3) learn about careers in engineering. 

Overall, the experiences with engineering design likely 

would raise students’ understanding of engineering and, by 

so doing, expand the interest and motivation of students 

who may one day pursue a scientific, technical, engineering, 

or mathematics career. 

Finally, there are a number of engineering education 

programs already in schools (see Katehi, Pearson, and Feder, 

2009). Obviously, these programs are not based on national 

standards. The opportunity here is one of a critical entry 

point into the school system provided by the programs. 

Opportunities for engineering education exist, and the 

first step in realizing them is clarifying the purposes and 

developing the standards. 

The Barriers 

Few barriers exist to the actual development of K-12 

engineering education standards. With a sufficient budget, 

time, and expertise, the task of actually developing 

standards is clearly doable. That said, substantial barriers 

exist for the realization of those standards in national and 

state education policies, school programs, and classroom 

practices. The education system into which the engineering 

education standards will be placed has very strong 

antibodies, to use a biological metaphor. Those antibodies 

would be activated in the form of federal laws (e.g., No 

Child Left Behind), state standards and assessments, 

teachers’ conceptual understanding and personal beliefs, 

instructional strategies, budget priorities, parental 

concerns, college and university teacher preparation 

programs, teacher unions, and the list goes on. 


Research indicates that individuals learn and apply broad 21st century skills within the context of specific bodies of 

knowledge (National Research Council, 2008a, 2000; Levy and Murnane, 2004). At work, development of these skills is 

intertwined with development of technical job content knowledge. Similarly, in science education, students may develop 

cognitive skills while engaged in study of specific science topics and concepts. 

1. Adaptability: The ability and willingness to cope with uncertain, new, and rapidly changing conditions on the job, 

including responding effectively to emergencies or crisis situations and learning new tasks, technologies, and 

procedures. Adaptability also includes handling work stress; adapting to different personalities, communication styles, 

and cultures; and physical adaptability to various indoor or outdoor work environments (Houston, 2007; Pulakos, Arad, 

Donovan, and Plamondon, 2000). 

2. Complex communications/social skills: Skills in processing and interpreting both verbal and nonverbal information from 

others in order to respond appropriately. A skilled communicator is able to select key pieces of a complex idea to express 

in words, sounds, and images in order to build shared understanding (Levy and Murnane, 2004). Skilled communicators 

negotiate positive outcomes with customers, subordinates, and superiors through social perceptiveness, persuasion, 

negotiation, instructing, and service orientation (Peterson et al, 1999). 

3. Nonroutine problem solving: A skilled problem-solver uses expert thinking to examine a broad span of information, 

recognize patterns, and narrow the information to reach a diagnosis of the problem. Moving beyond diagnosis to a solution 

requires knowledge of how the information is linked conceptually and involves metacognition—the ability to reflect on 

whether a problem-solving strategy is working and to switch to another strategy if the current strategy isn’t working (Levy 

and Murnane, 2004). It includes creativity to generate new and innovative solutions, integrating seemingly unrelated 

information; and entertaining possibilities others may miss (Houston, 2007). 

4. Self-management/self-development: Self-management skills include the ability to work remotely, in virtual teams; to work 

autonomously; and to be self-motivating and self-monitoring. One aspect of self-management is the willingness and ability 

to acquire new information and skills related to work (Houston, 2007). 

5. Systems thinking: The ability to understand how an entire system works, how an action, change, or malfunction in one part 

of the system affects the rest of the system; adopting a “big picture” perspective on work (Houston, 2007). It includes 

judgment and decision-making; systems analysis; and systems evaluation as well as abstract reasoning about how the 

different elements of a work process interact (Peterson, 1999). 

Table 3. Examples of 21st Century Skills* 

* National Research Council Workshop on 21st Century Skills 

The power and position of science and mathematics in 

STEM education and the tendency to say STEM when 

one really means science or mathematics is a significant 

barrier. The S, T, E, and M are separate and not equal. 

The inequality really becomes clear, for example, when 

one considers the fact that science, technology, and 

mathematics have national standards, and by 2012 all three 

will have national assessments. It should be noted that the 

National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) approved 

a special national assessment of technological literacy for 

2012. Work on the assessment framework is underway and 

coordinated by WestEd. 

In addition, science and mathematics are prominent in 

the international assessments, “Trends in International 

Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS) and “Program 

for International Student Assessment” (PISA). 

A constellation of obstacles exist when one considers the 

educational infrastructure. For instance, state standards 

and assessments currently only include mathematics and 

science, and these dominate the views of policymakers, 

school administrators, and classroom teachers. The 

financial situation for most states and school districts 

simply will not support the major changes in curriculum, 

instruction, and assessment implied by new national 

standards for engineering education. 

Developing national standards for the “E” in STEM 

could create another “silo.” National standards for 

science, technology, and mathematics already exist and 

have a dominating influence on the educational system. 

Developing engineering education standards with little or 

no recognition of the other disciplines could be a disservice 

to STEM education, especially when one considers 


engineering’s natural connections to science, technology, 

and mathematics. 

Finally, one must point out the fact that engineering 

education has little leadership and political power that 

would be required in critical leverage points in national, 

state, and local educational systems. Several of the 

leverage points have been mentioned—international 

assessments, national assessments, state teacher 

certification requirements and teacher education programs, 

state standards and assessments, and programs for the 

professional development of current classroom teachers. 

Final Reflections 

My final reflections respond to the observation that, despite 

significant barriers, the likelihood is high that the National 

Academies or some other agency or organization will 

develop content standards for K-12 engineering education. 

This observation is supported by the recent report, 

Engineering Education in K through 12: Understanding the 

Status and Improving the Prospects (Katehi, Pearson, and 

Seder, 2009). The following questions and discussion may 

help inform the initial work. 

First, should the standards be for K-12 engineering or for 

STEM literacy? This seems a critical initial decision. After 

review and consideration, I come down in favor of STEM 

literacy. Taking this position avoids the “silo” problem, 

includes engineering knowledge and design, places 

engineering in a leadership position, and has a potential 

entry point in K-12 education. This recommendation 

implies an integrated approach to STEM programs (Van 

Scotter, Bybee, and Dougherty, 2000). 

Second, development of the engineering education 

standards should be completed by a group with balanced 

composition. By balanced I mean the group, which includes 

advisors, oversight board, expert developers, etc., should 

include engineers, educators, and classroom teachers. The 

caution here centers on the need to develop standards 

with a “neutral” perspective, one not grounded in extant 

curricula, assessments, or projects. 

Third, either specific engineering education standards 

or standards for STEM literacy will require content that 

represents the most important and valued knowledge and 

skills required by the nature of the subject(s). 

Fourth, currently the question “What should students 

know and be able to do?” guides decisions about content 

standards. What is the balance of learning outcomes for 

knowledge and learning outcomes for abilities? 

Fifth, regardless of the path chosen, the content standards 

should address the relationships among various core 

academic disciplines—English, mathematics, science, 

social studies. 

Sixth, how can the case be made that content standards 

for engineering are “world class” and suggest a positive 

contribution of international competitiveness? 

Seventh, what are the strategic plans AFTER standards? 

What strategies will be formulated to assure a positive and 

effective influence of the standards (NRC, 2002)? 

To conclude, in this era of standards-based reform and 

STEM education as the disciplinary emphasis for reform, 

engineering has been ignored. The opportunities are clear, 

but so are the barriers. Developing standards may be easy; 

overcoming the barriers related to implementation present 

the most difficult challenges. Assuming a “build them and 

they will come” posture would be a fatal mistake. Seizing 

the opportunity may benefit the nation, education system, 

and especially the students in our schools. 

References 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

(AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 

2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and 

technology. Washington, DC: AAAS. 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

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

York: Oxford University Press. 

Bybee, R. & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (1997). Guest Editorial. 

School Science and Mathematics, (October) 97(6): 281- 

282. 

Collins, A. (1995). National science education standards in 

the United States: A process and a product. Studies in 

Science Education, 26: 7-37. 

DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. 

New York: Teachers College Press. 

DeBoer, G. (2006). History of the science standards 

movement in the United States. In D. Sunal & E. Wright 

(Eds.). The impact of state and national standards on k-12 

science teaching, pp. 7-49. Information Age Publishing. 

Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project (1971). The manmade 

world. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the 

NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics 

Education, 30(1): 3-19. 

Holdren, J. (2009). Science in the White House. Science, 324, 

1 May 2009. 

Hurd, P. (1999). Standards are fine, but they are not a 

reinvention. Education Week, November, 24: 31. 


International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ 

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

literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: 

Author. 

Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Seder, M. (Eds.). (2009 in press). 

Engineering education in k through 12: Understanding 

the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press. 

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

Science framework for the 2009 national assessment of 

educational progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education. 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). 

A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 

(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school 

mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. 

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 

(2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. 

Reston, VA: Author. 

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

science education standards. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 

National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Investigating 

the influence of standards. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press. 

Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: Primer. 

The Technology Teacher, 68(4). 

Sizer, T. (1964). Secondary schools at the turn of the century. 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Van Scotter, P., Bybee, R., & Dougherty, M. (2000). 

Fundamentals of integrated science: What teachers 

should consider when planning an integrated science 

curriculum. The Science Teacher, 67(6): 25-28. 

Rodger W. Bybee is Executive Director 

(Emeritus) of the Biological Science 

Curriculum Study (BSCS) in Colorado 

Springs, CO. 

This article was presented at a July 8, 

2009 workshop at the National Academy 

of Engineering. Copyright National Academy of 

Engineering. Reprinted with permission. 


Bridges With Trigonometry Equals 

Engineering Achievement 

By Ahmed L. Gathing 

The advantage of integrating these 

math concepts into this exercise 

allows [students] to stop the bridge 

at the first point of failure rather 

than crushing the bridge. 

Introduction 

Exemplary and fun technology education classes in high 

schools are always welcome. I introduce bridge building 

to my ninth graders and other students who comprise 

the Introduction to Engineering and Technology course 

within the first two months of the fall semester. In Georgia, 

Introduction to Engineering and Technology is the first of 

four technology education classes that students take in high 

school. Incoming students’ knowledge will consist of at 

least basic algebra and science concepts. As students enter 

my class for the first time, they are excited to build while 

learning about different engineering concepts. Building 

bridges is a great beginning project that allows students 

to build upon their math skills using basic trigonometry 

formulas while learning how forces act upon a structure. 

They also get to enjoy building and testing their bridges. 

Integrating math into technology education activities is 

important to enhance their value as “engineering-oriented” 

activities. Math-related engineering projects have been 

a missing component in many technology education 

programs, but activities such as this bridge project will 

provide credibility to engineering programs. Since most 

technology education teachers are familiar with the balsa 

wood project, the implementation of math concepts will 

not be a difficult concept to conceive. 

Background 

Bridges 

There are many different types of bridges. I introduce truss 

bridges to students at this level. Students are given the 

option to build from one of three types of truss bridges: 

Figure 1. Warren, Figure 2. Pratt, or Figure 3. Howe. These 

three types of bridges are symmetrical, so, mathematically, 

members on each side of the bridge should be equal. 

Another reason I chose these bridges is that students are 

able to build them within the necessary time period. 

Figure 1: Warren 

Figure 2: Pratt 


Figure 3: Howe 

Forces 

Four forces are introduced during this lesson: compression, 

tension, shear, and torque. Compression and tension are 

the two primary forces acting on the bridge; therefore, I 

describe them in depth. Compression is a pushing force, 

and tension is a pulling force, and these can be calculated 

and described mathematically as will be shown in the 

explanation of the project that follows. 

Project 

Students choose a bridge and have to build the bridge using 

the following teacher-supplied constraints and criteria: 

• Using 1/8" graph paper, each student individually must 

produce a rough drawing of a balsa wood frame bridge 

(3” wide x 3" high x 8" long). 

• The bridge must be constructed with no more than 

20' (240") of 1/8" x 1/8" square balsa wood stock, 

and no less than 16' (192") of 1/8" x 1/8" square balsa 

wood stock. 

• The final drawing will only consist of the front view of 

the bridge, and the graph paper will also be used to do 

the math calculations for the amount of stock needed 

to produce the bridge. 

After the students design their bridges and provide 

mathematical documentation that their bridges are 

within the constraints, they are given the amount of wood 

they calculated. 

Math Portion 

Students will use math equations to predict how the loads 

acting on the joints are going to affect each member of 

the bridge. While calculating the loads, students will 

also learn which members are in tension and which are 

in compression. If a member is in tension, the answer is 

positive; if the member is in compression, the answer is 

negative. I chose dimensions for the bridges that fit within 

the criteria, but any dimensions will work with your class as 

long as the equations are correct. The basic math equations 

needed for this exercise are shown in the next column. 

Math equations needed 

ΣF y 

= 0, ΣF x 

= 0 

A 2 + B 2 =C2 

Sin θ = opposite/hypothesis 

Cos θ= adjacent/hypothesis 

Load per joint = Number of joints/total load 

Weight = mass*gravity 

Sample Exercise 

Step 1. 

Figure 4. Full diagram of side of bridge. 

Determine the loads of joint U, V, and W 

Mass 7 kg 

Mass*Gravity = Weight 7kg * 9.81m/s = 68.67 N 

Load per joint = 68.67/ 6 = 11.45N (There are 6 joints 

because there are 3 (U,V,W) on each side of the bridge). 

Step 2. 

Determine the reaction forces at RM and RS of the bridge. 

This is a necessary step because the reaction forces will help 

you start with a known force at joint M. This step is started 

by listing all the forces in the Y direction and setting them 

equal to zero. 

Σ F y 

= 0 

R M 

+ R S 

-11.45N - 11.45N -11.45N = 0 

2R M 

= 34.35N 

R M 

& R S 

= 17.2N (Since the bridge is symmetrical R M 

and 

R S 

have the same value) 

The next steps needed are to calculate the internal forces: 

• Pick a joint (the easier method is to start from a known 

force, so we will start at RM) 

• Draw a free body diagram of all the loads and 

internal members acting upon that joint. A free body 

diagram is a sketch of the outlined shape of the body 

that represents it as being isolated or free from its 

surroundings. On this sketch it is necessary to show 


all the forces on the body so that these effects can be 

accounted for when the equations of equilibrium 

are applied. 

• Calculate the forces and loads in the y and x directions. 

Key point: Start with the joint that has the most known 

loads. 

Step 3. 

Use the Pythagorean Theorem below to calculate the 

unknown side of the triangle if the triangle is 90 degrees 

and two of three sides are known. The two sides were given 

in Figure 1. 

A 2 + B 2 = C 2 

A = 7.6cm, B = 3.4cm C = ? 

7.6cm 2 + 3.4cm 2 = 56.76 + 11.56 = 68.32 = 8.3cm 

(The answer was derived by taking the square root of 68.32) 

Step 4. 

Calculate the sine and cosine of the triangle from Step 3. 

The derived hypotenuse (8.3cm) calculated in Step 3 helps 

to determine the sine and cosine that will be used when 

calculating the internal forces in the y and x direction. 

Sine = Opposite/Hypotenuse. Take the inverse sine to 

calculate the angle. 

Sine θ = 7.6/8.3 = .916 

Cosine = Adjacent /Hypotenuse. Take the inverse cosine to 

calculate the angle. 

Cos θ = 3.4/8.3 = .41 

Step 5. 

Draw a free body diagram (Figure 5) around Joint M. 

Then calculate all the forces in the Y and X directions. 

Set the equation in the Y to equal 0 and then set the X 

direction to equal 0. Forces in the Y direction with an 

angle will be represented with sine value, and forces in 

the X direction will be represented with the cosine value. 

This will be the same for every free body diagram in 

this exercise. 

ΣFy = 0 (Forces set in the Y direction to equal zero) 

R M 

+ F MT 

sin θ = 0 

17.2 N + F MT 

.916 = 0 

F MT 

= -17.2/.916 = -18.77N (Compression) 

ΣF X 

= 0 (Forces set in the Y direction to equal zero) 

F MT 

cos θ + F MN 

= 0 

-18.77(.41) + F MN 

= 0 

F MN 

= 7.68N (Tension) 

If the answer is negative, the force is in compression. If the 

answer is positive, the force is in tension. 

Step 6. 

Draw a free body diagram (Figure 6) around Joint N. 

Figure 6. 

ΣFy = 0 

F NT 

= 0 

The answer is zero because there is no force acting upon 

Member NT. 

ΣF X 

= 0 

0 = F MN 

+ F NO 

0 = -7.68N + F NO 

F NO 

= 7.68N (Tension) 

Step 7. 

Draw a free body diagram (Figure 7) around Joint T. 

Figure 5. Joint M 

Figure 7. Joint T. 


ΣFy = 0 

-F MT 

sin θ –F NT 

– F OT 

sin θ = 0 

-(-18.77)(.916) – 0 –F OT 

(.916) = 0 

-17.19/-.916 = F OT 

18.77 N = F OT 

(T) 

ΣF X 

= 0 

-F MT 

cos θ + F OT 

cos θ + F TU 

= 0 

-(-18.77)(.41) + 18.77(.41) + F TU 

= 0 

-7.67 -7.67 = F TU 

-15.35 N = F TU 

(C) 

Step 8. 

Draw a free body diagram (Figure 8) around Joint O. 

Figure 8. 

ΣF y 

= 0 

-F NO 

– F OT 

cos θ + F OP 

= 0 

-(7.68) – 18.77(.41) + F OP 

= 0 

F OP 

= -7.68 -7.68 

F OP 

= -15.35 N (T) 

ΣFX = 0 

F OT 

sin θ + F OU 

= 0 

18.77(.916) + F OU 

= 0 

F OU 

= -17.2 N (C) 

Step 9. 

Draw a free body diagram (Figure 9) around Joint U. 

Figure 9. Joint U. 

ΣF y 

= 0 

-11.45 –F OU 

– F PU 

sin θ = 0 

-11.45 – (-17.2) – F PU 

(.916) = 0 

F PU 

= -5.75/-.916 = 6.28 (T) 

ΣF X 

= 0 

-F TU 

+ F PU 

cos θ + F UV 

= 0 

-(-15.34) + 6.28(.41) + F UV 

= 0 

F UV 

= -17.9 N (C) 

Since the bridge is symmetrical, the other side of the bridge 

has the same forces acting upon its members. Below is a 

table that reflects which members are equal on both sides of 

the bridge. If the bridge is not symmetrical, the remaining 

joints on the other side of the bridge will need free body 

diagrams and equations of equilibrium to determine the 

remaining members. 

MT, SX = 18.77 N (C) 

NO, QR = 7.68 N (T) 

UV, VW = 17.9 N (C) 

MN, RS = 7.68 N (T) 

TU, WX = 15.35 N (C) 

PV = 11.45 N (C ) 

NT, RX = 0 

OU, WQ = 17.2 N (C) 

OP, PQ = 15.35 (T) 

OT, QX = 18.77 N (T) 

PU, PW = 6.28 N (T) 

Figure 10. Bridge with Compression and Tension 

Summary 

Bridges can be a very good tool for reinforcing 

mathematical concepts with engineering and technology 

students. The equations above are a template for any 

teacher to use with his or her students when teaching 

students about bridge building. This template can lead to 

in-depth discussions about compression and tension and 

give students an understanding of how bridges actually 

work. Building and crushing bridges is fun for students, 

but this activity can also be a means for them to implement 

math and science skills through predictive analysis. 


There is more than one way to teach bridge building, 

especially with students at the freshman level. They can 

learn to build bridges without the mathematical analysis; 

however, they would just be building and crushing bridges 

without really understanding why their bridge failed. 

The advantage of integrating these math concepts into 

this exercise allows them to stop the bridge at the first 

point of failure rather than crushing the bridge. Using the 

mathematical equations that were derived for each member, 

students can use analysis to determine which members 

are failing, whether those members are in compression 

or tension, and, if the bridge was pulling apart or pushing 

together when it failed. 

This bridge activity is meant to enhance the student’s ability 

to analyze a variety of projects in technology education 

classrooms. Because each student’s bridge will be slightly 

different, they will have many values to compare based 

on the bridge they chose to build and their method of 

construction. 

Reference 

Hibbeler, R.C. (2004). Engineering mechanics: Statics and 

dynamics. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. 

Ahmed L. Gathing is a graduate student 

at the The University of Georgia in Athens, 

GA. He can be reached via email at 

gathing@gmail.com. 

This is a refereed article. 

VISIT WWW.KELVIN.COM 

Experimental Wind Turbine 

Students have the opportunity to test 

rotor and blade designs. Options include a 

motor or generator gearbox; assembled or as kits. 

Vary the rotor sweep, blade size and blade shape to 

change the electrical output. Test the rotors output 

with the included multimeter or see how many LED’s 

the turbine will light. Fold a cardstock model house 

and create an LED circuit to plug into the wind turbine. 

EDUCATIONAL 

® 

FOR OUR BIG CATALOG! 

FIND MORE GREEN 

ACTIVITIES IN OUR 

ONLINE CATALOGS! 

#842267 

AS $ 

99 95 

LOW 

AS 

NEW ! 

Stands over 45” 

high from Base 

to Top of Blade! 

Design and Test 

Turbine Blades 

for the Most 

Electronic Output, 

Generators, and 

Gearboxes 

Economy Solar Racer 

Kit includes 200mA/2V DC solar 

cell, DC solar motor, wood or 

corrugated plastic base for body, 

gear wheels with plastic axles, and 

DesignGrid sheets. Requires 

soldering and a light source. 

Wood Base Kit, 841236, 

$8.95 or $8.75 ea./10+ or $8.45 ea./25+ 

Bulk Pack for 25 Students, 

841415, $165 

AS 

LOW 

AS 

$ 

6 60 

PER 

STUDENT 

Build Your Own ® 

Fuel Cell Racer 

KELVIN ® is pleased to 

offer the first U.S. 

contest for design, 

testing, improving and 

racing fuel cell cars! 

#842118 

AS $ 

49 95 

LOW 

AS 

KELVIN ® carries a wide variety of products including: comprehensive activities, labs, software, hardware, 

kits, building materials (wood, foam, metal, plastic), electronics components, tools and much more! 


Minneapolis Conference Exhibitors 

(As of 1/4/11) 

A 

Adobe Systems, Inc. 

Booth 314 

345 Park Avenue 

San Jose, CA 95110 

Phone: 636-357-3138 

Email: kamrhein@adobe.com 

Website: www.adobe.com/education 

Adobe provides software for integrating 

technology into the classroom around graphic 

design, print, web, video, multimedia, eportfolios 

and more. 

B 

Ball State University 

Booth 121 

Department of Technology, AT 131 

Muncie, IN 47306 

Phone: 765-285-5642 

Fax: 765-285-2162 

Email: rshackelford@bsu.edu 

Website: www.bsu.edu/technology 

BSU offers a bachelor’s degree in Technology 

Education and master’s degrees in Technology 

Education and Career and Technical Education. 

Both master’s degrees are offered 100% online. 

C 

CNC Software Inc./Mastercam* 

Island 209 

5717 Wollochet Drive, 2A 

Gig Harbor, WA 98335 

Phone: 253-858-6677 

Fax: 253-858-6737 

Email: education@mastercam.com 

Website: www.mastercam.com 

Because Mastercam is the most widely used 

CAD/CAM software in industry, Mastercam 

expertise is key to your students’ success in the 

job market. Mastercam is the only CAD/CAM 

software company with a division dedicated to 

the educational market, providing schools with 

unparalleled customer support. With an easy-tolearn 

interface and a knowledgeable support team, 

Mastercam is the right choice. 

D 

Delmar, Cengage Learning* 

Booth 323 

5 Maxwell Drive 

Clifton Park, NY 12065 

Phone: 800-998-7498 

Fax: 518-373-6200 

Email: esales@cengage.com 

Website: www.cengage.com/delmar 

Delmar, Cengage Learning offers a wide variety 

of innovative learning solutions such as books, 

software, videos, and online training materials, 

including custom-built technology solutions. Find 

learning solutions to boost your career, augment 

your curriculum, improve your training courses, or 

help you master new skills that best fit your needs 

today and for the future. 

DS SolidWorks Corporation* 

Booths 214, 216 

300 Baker Avenue 

Concord, MA 01742 

Phone: 978-318-5443 

Email: Christine.Morse@3DS.com 

Website: www.solidworks.com 

DS SolidWorks Corporation is a world leader in 

3D solutions that help millions of engineers and 

designers succeed through innovation. 

Dunwoody College of Technology 


818 Dunwoody Boulevard 

Minneapolis, MN 55403 

Email: kwirkkala@dunwoody.edu 

Website: www.dunwoody.edu 

Dunwoody College of Technology is a highly 

regarded institution for the technical trades. 

We have nearly one hundred years of success in 

preparing graduates for highly skilled careers. 

E 

Energy Concepts, Inc. 

Booth 104 

404 Washington Boulevard 

Mundelein, IL 60060 

Phone: 847-837-8191 

Fax: 847-837-8171 

Email: ecisales@ecimail.com 

Website: www.eci-info.com 

Energy Concepts will exhibit its line of STEM 

Compliant Contextual Training Systems including 

our new Engineering Principles Series and 

Biotechnology Series. 

G 

GEARS Educational Systems* 

Booth 220 

105 Webster Street 

Hanover, MA 02339 

Phone: 781-878-1512 

Fax: 781-878-6708 

Email: mnewby@gearseds.com 

Website: www.gearseds.com 

Hands-on STEM based projects using real 

engineering components and practices. Not toylike. 

Trebuchet kits, pneumatic kits, and a broad 

range of Robot kits starting at $229. 

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher* 

Booths 215, 217 

18604 West Creek Drive 

Tinley Park, IL 60477 

Phone: 708-687-5000 

Fax: 708-687-5068 

Email: custserv@g-w.com 

Website: www.g-w.com 

High quality presentation, authoritative 

content, sound topic sequence, an abundance 

of illustrations, involving pedagogy, real-world 

examples, and appropriate readability are 

hallmarks of Goodheart-Willcox products. 

H 

Hearlihy* 

Booth 205 

1002 E. Adams 

Pittsburg, KS 66762 

Phone: 877-680-2700 

Fax: 800-443-2260 

Email: Kbolte@hearlihy.com 

Website: www.hearlihy.com 

Hearlihy offers an extensive selection of 

traditional drafting and design supplies, screen 

printing equipment and curriculum, and hands-on 

technology activities. 

Hofstra Center for Technological Literacy 

Booths 112, 114 

773 Fulton Avenue 

Hempstead, NY 11549-7730 

Phone: 516-463-6482 

Email: mhacker@nycap.rr.com; m.d.burghardt@ 

hofstra.edu 

Website: www.hofstra.edu/ctl 

The display will highlight the activities of the 

Hofstra Center for Technological Literacy and 

summarize results of NSF-funded projects it has 

conducted. A primary feature will be “Survival 

Master,” a 3D computer game to teach STEM 

concepts. 

I 

IASCO 

Booth 401 

5724 W. 36th Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55416 

Phone: 952-920-7393 

Fax: 952-920-2947 

Email: Info@Iasco-tesco.com 

Website: www.Iasco-Tesco.com 

IASCO offers: Injection Molding, Blow Molding, 

Vacuum Forming, Acrylic, Moldmaking, and 

Science kits for classrooms, Pewter, CO 2 

Cars, 

Rockets, Electronics, Plastic sheets, Fiberglass, 

and Balsa. 

Illinois State University 


215B Turner Hall 

Normal, IL 61790-5100 

Phone: 309-438-2665 

Fax: 309-438-8626 

Email: camckay@ilstu.edu 

Website: www. tec.ilstu.edu 

Illinois State University offers comprehensive 

degree programs in Technology Education and 

Technology. Bachelor’s and master’s degree 

programs are available as well as research 

positions. 

* indicates Corporate Member 


intelitek, Inc.* 

Booth 301 

444 E. Industrial Park Drive 

Manchester, NH 03109 

Phone: 603-625-8600 

Fax: 603-625-2137 

Email: sales@intelitek.com 

Website: www.intelitek.com 

intelitek, a world-leading developer of STEM 

engineering and technology training programs, will 

demonstrate the LearnMate Management System 

(LMS) and LearnMate programs. intelitek has the 

best E-Learning product available for engineering, 

robotics, and automated manufacturing training 

programs. Our hybrid solutions leverage the best 

content with simulations and animations for an 

on-screen interactive learning experience, including 

virtual 3-D machines and state-of-the-art hardware 

for hands-on training. intelitek will be featuring the 

REC Robotics Engineering Curriculum and a new 

3-D Printer for engineering programs. 

ITEEA – Engineering byDesign 

Booths 222, 224 

1914 Association Drive 

Reston, VA 20191 

Phone: 703-860-2100 

Fax: 703-860-0353 

Email: ebd@iteea.org 

Website: www.engineeringbydesign.org 

Engineering byDesign is an integrative STEM 

program that provides a rallying point for the 

profession. It is the first standards-based program 

model for Grades K-12 that delivers technological 

literacy. All curriculum, professional development, 

and assessments are based on STL, NCTM, and 

AAAS standards and have been endorsed by the 

NASDCTE Career Cluster’s Initiative. Information 

about design challenge lessons and the elementary, 

middle, and high school EbD courses is provided. 

Are you in a Consortium state? Whether “yes” 

or “no,” EbD has resources for you and your 

students. Come meet the EbD Curriculum 

Specialists and teachers from the national EbD 

Network; get information about the courses, 

lessons, and the end-of-course assessments; and 

sign up for the free raffle. 

K 

Kelvin* 

Booths 100, 102 

280 Adams Boulevard 

Farmingdale, NY 11735 

Phone: 631-756-1750 

Fax: 631-756-1763 

Email: avikelvin@aol.com 

L 

Lab-Volt Systems 

Booth 400 

PO Box 686 

Farmingdale, NJ 07727 

Phone: 732-938-2000 

Fax: 732-774-8573 

Email: us@labvolt.com 

Website: www.labvolt.com 

Lab-Volt’s award-winning technology education 

programs prepare the next generation of Tech Savvy 

students to succeed beyond High School and in the 

workforce. Lab-Volt also offers career and technical 

programs in Manufacturing, IT, Electronics, 

Electromechanical Systems, CNC, and other highgrowth 

job areas. 

LEGO Education North America* 

Booths 204, 206 

1005 East Jefferson 


Phone: 800-362-4308 

Fax: 888-534-6784 

Email: bpryor@legoeducation.us 

Website: www.legoeducation.us 

LEGO Education’s standards-based, hands-on 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematic 

curriculum includes robotics, simple machines, 

forces, structures, and energy that engage and 

motivate students. 

M 

MasterGraphics, Inc. 

Booth 321 

2979 Triverton Pike Drive, Suite 200 

Madison, WI 53711 

Phone: 800-873-7238 

Fax: 608-210-2810 

Email: Dan.coleman@mastergraphics.com 

Website: www.mastergraphics.com 

Autodesk Education partner, supplier of Autodesk 

software to all PLTW schools. ZCorp 3D-printer 

distributor Schroff Development Corp. line of CAD 

textbooks and Vex Robotics kits. 

McGraw-Hill School Education* 

Booth 317 

8787 Orion Place 

Columbus, Ohio 43240-4027 

Phone: 1-800-334-7344 

Fax: 1-800-953-8691 

Email: SEG_customerservice@mcgraw-hill.com 

Website: www.MHEonline.com 

Please visit McGraw-Hill School Education’s 

exhibit to discover the latest technology education 

and pre-engineering programs for Grades 6-12. All 

our programs support project-based learning and 

integrate STEM. 

N 

National Fluid Power Association 

Booth 108 

3333 N. Mayfair Road, Suite 211 

Milwaukee WI 53222-3219 

Phone: 877-430-4311 

Fax: 519-938-5523 

Email: steve@mechanical-kits.com 

Website: www.afpa.com 

The NFPA Education and Technology 

Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization 

that supports educational programs and research in 

fluid power. 

NCSU 

Booth 116 

2310 Stinson Drive, POE 326 

Box 7801 

Raleigh, NC 27695 

Phone: 919-515-1748 

Email: Jim_Haynie@ncsu.edu 

The Technology, Engineering & Design 

Education Program at NC State University has 

undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral degrees for 

technology education. Assistantships are available. 

P 

Paxton/Patterson* 

Booths 300, 302, 304 

7523 S. Sayre Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60638 

Phone: 800-323-8484 

Fax: 708-594-1907 

Email: sales@paxpat.com 

Website: www.paxtonpatterson.com 

Learning Systems for STEM, Technology 

Education, Construction Trades, Health Science, 

and Family, and Consumer Sciences that help 

students determine if their interests and aptitudes 

are well suited for the many careers they explore. 

See how these carefully crafted learning systems 

meet national and state standards while improving 

literacy, science, and math skills. We also stock 

over 12,000 tools, supplies, and related items for 

CTE programs. 

Pearson Career & Technology 

Booth 303 

501 Boylston, #900 

Boston, MA 02116 

Phone: 1-866-326-4259 

Email: Laura.Cutone@Pearson.com 

Website: www.PearsonSchool.com 

Pitsco Education Catalog* 

Booths 200, 202 

915 E Jefferson 


Phone: 800-835-0686 

Fax: 800-533-8104 

Email: bockovera@pitsco.com 

Website: shop.pitsco.com 

Visit Pitsco Education’s booth and discover 

opportunities to teach science, technology, 

engineering, and math concepts. You will find an 

array of activities and products that provide realworld 

relevance to STEM. 



Pitsco Education Curriculum* 

Booths 201, 203 

917 East Jefferson 


Phone: 800-744-4552 

Fax: 620-231-2466 

Email: mbrazil@pitsco.com 

Website: www.pitscoeducation.com 

Pitsco Education’s standards-based K-12 curricula 

promote student success through multimedia 

instruction and hands-on activities in core science, 

technology, engineering, and math courses. 

PTC* 

Booth 315 

140 Kendrick Street 

Needham, MA 02494 

Phone: 781-370-5000 

Fax: 781-370-6000 

Email: schools@ptc.com 

Website: www.ptc.com/go/schools 

Serving over 50,000 companies worldwide, PTC 

develops and supports superior Product Lifecycle 

Management (PLM) solutions. The PTC Schools 

Program provides industry-leading 3D CAD and 

mathematical computation software; along with 

a complete curriculum, training, and classroom 

materials to help educators and students succeed in 

a technological world. 

Purdue University 


401 N. Grant Street 

West Lafayette, IN 47907-2021 

Phone: 765-496-2383 

Fax: 765-496-2700 

Email: TRKelley@purdue.edu 

Website: www.tech.purdue.edu/it/academics/ 

undergraduate/curricula/te.cfm 

Purdue University offers BS, MS, and PhD 

in Engineering/Technology Education with 

certification in PLTW. Come learn about our 

scholarship and fellowship opportunities in P-12 

STEM Education. 

R 

Roland DGA 

Booth 111 

15363 Barranca Parkway 

Irvine, CA 92618 

Phone: 949-727-2100 

Fax: 949-727-2112 

Email: sales@rolanddga.com 

Website: www.rolanddga.com 

Roland education solutions teach graphics, 

packaging, product design, and manufacturing 

skills. Kits are priced to fit your budget and include 

everything needed for classroom projects. 

S 

SATCO SUPPLY 

Booths 415, 417 

441, Old Highway 8 NW, Suite 202 

St. Paul, MN 55112 

Phone: 800-328-4644 

Fax: 651-604-6606 

Email: sales@satcosupply.net 

Website: www.tools4schools.com 

Representing over 500 manufacturers of tools, 

supplies, furniture, and equipment for Technology 

and Industrial Education. To stretch your budget, 

request our 2011 Tools-for-Schools catalog. 

Stratasys 3D Printers & Production Systems* 

Booths 101, 103 

7665 Commerce Way 

Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

Phone: 952-937-3000 

Fax: 952-937-0070 

Email: info@stratasys.com 

Website: www.stratasys.com 

Stratasys manufactures additive fabrication 

systems using FDM technology. Its Dimension 3D 

Printers enable students to bring CAD files and 

design ideas to life in durable plastic. 

T 

Tech Ed Concepts, Inc. / RapManUSA* 

Booths 309, 311 

32 Commercial Street 

Concord, NH 03301 

Phone: 1-800-338-2238 

Fax: 603-225-7766 

Email: info@TECedu.com / info@RapManUSA.com 

Website: www.TECedu.com / www.RapManUSA. 

com 

Since 1987, TEC has been the Nation’s leader 

in “Best-in-Class” 3D-Engineering software and 

manufacturing equipment featuring budget-friendly 

RapManUSA & BFB 3000 3D-Printers, awardwinning 

KeyCreator CAD/CAM and Envisioneer 

Architectural-CAD, LaserPro Laser-Engravers, 

textbooks, and more! 

Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology 

Education (Albert Einstein Distinguished 

Educator Fellowship Program) 

Booth 305 

1840 Wilson Boulevard 

Suite 201 

Arlington, VA 22201 

Phone: 703-516-5960 

Fax: 703-516-5969 

Email: cudneye@triangle-coalition.org 

Website: www.trianglecoalition.org 

Learn more about the Albert Einstein Distinguished 

Educator Fellowship Program, managed by the 

Triangle Coalition, which brings K-12 math and 

science teachers to Washington, D.C. for a school 

year. Fellows serve in a Congressional office or 

within a Federal agency and receive a monthly 

stipend, moving expense, and a professional travel 

allowance. 

U 

Universal Laser Systems, Inc. 

Booth 316 

7845 E. Paradise Lane 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

Phone: 480-483-1214 

Fax: 480-315-3630 

Email: moreinfo@ulsinc.com 

Website: www.ulsinc.com 

Universal Laser Systems offers versatility, quality, 

reliability, and performance for promotional items, 

corporate identity, awards, and signage. Come by 

for a demonstration. 

V 

Vernier Software & Technology 

Booth 105 

13979 SW Millikan Way 

Beaverton, OR 97005 

Phone: 1-888-837-6437 

Fax: 503-277-2440 

Email: info@vernier.com 

Website: www.vernier.com 

Vernier Software & Technology carries over 50 

affordable data collection sensors for technology 

education, compatible with LEGO®’s NXT and our 

own SensorDAQ® USB interface. 

W 

WGBH Educational Foundation 

Booth 118 

1 Guest Street 

Boston, MA 02135 

Phone: 617-300-3634 

Fax: 617-300-1040 

Email: margot_sigur@wgbh.org 

Website: www.pbs.org/designsquad 

WGBH, America’s preeminent public broadcasting 

producer, is also a leading producer of educational 

programs and materials designed for educators 

working in formal and informal settings. These 

include engineering initiatives such as DESIGN 

SQUAD NATION and ENGINEER YOUR LIFE. 

Wisconsin Technology Education Association 


PO Box 1312 

Fond Du Lac, WI 54936 

Phone: 920-904-2747 

Fax: 920-922-0779 

Email: joe.ciontea@wtea-wis.org 

Website: www.wtea-wis.org 

The WTEA uses proactive leadership to 

provide professional development for classroom 

instructors, promote relevant curriculum, and 

create networking opportunities for technology and 

engineering educators. 

WhiteBox Learning* 

Booth 210 

14600 Woodbluff Trace 

Louisville, KY 40245 

Phone: 800-592-3460 

Fax: 866-436-6587 

Email: sales@whiteboxlearning.com 

Website: www.whiteboxlearning.com 

STEM-Intensive, Web-Based, 3D, Interactive, 

Pre-Engineering Learning Applications. Game-like 

simulations inspire students to apply their own 

STEM theories to their own designs. Engineering 

made FUN. 



NEW Publication Available from ITEEA 

Preparing the Class of 2020: 

STEM Education Activities for the Elementary Classroom 

This newly released publication contains over 30 classroom-tested 

STEM-based elementary activities written by classroom teachers and 

teacher educators. These activities will meet the needs of your students 

by integrating STEM across your curriculum, energizing students’ 21st 

Century skills, and allowing them to think on their own creatively. 

Preparing 

the Class 

of 2020 


Activities for 

the Elementary 

Classroom 

P245CD 102 Pages, 2011 

$20/ITEEA members 

$24/nonmembers 

To order, download an order form 

(www.iteea.org/Publications/pubsorderform.pdf 

) and fax 

completed form to 703-860-0353, 

or call 703-860-2100. 

Developed by the 

Available in CD format only. 

Shipping and handling fees apply. 

International Technology and Engineerng 

Educators Association and its 

Children’s Council

Join the STEM MOVEMENT 

in Minneapolis in 2011! 

The STEM movement has never been stronger than it 

is today, nor has the need for a future STEM-educated 

workforce ever been greater. Technology and engineering 

education will play a key role in preparing this 

future workforce for occupations that have not yet 

even been fully identified. 

Join the STEM leaders who will share their experiences, directions, and ideas that are specifically focused 

on the role of TECHNOLOGY and ENGINEERING in a quality STEM education. Join your colleagues in Minneapolis 

March 24-26, 2011 for Preparing the STEM Workforce: The Next Generation. 

Stretch your budget by taking advantage of the special preregistration pricing! 

Complete conference information is available at www.iteea.org/Conference/conferenceguide.htm. The 

preregistration and housing deadlines are fast approaching—February 11—but there is still time to save 

money while attending conference. Don’t miss this unique networking and professional development opportunity! 

See you in Minneapolis! 

Preregistration open until 2/11!

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.

K-12 Engineering Education Standards: - International Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?