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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. 28 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011
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. 29 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011
Page 1 and 2: Bridges with trigonometry equals en
Page 3 and 4: From napkin sketch to prototype in
Page 5 and 6: On the ITEEA Website: Now Available
Page 7 and 8: STEM Education News and Calendar Ex
Page 9 and 10: Drafting with Design in Mind By Mic
Page 11 and 12: students should determine the curri
Page 13 and 14: Resources in Technology and Enginee
Page 15 and 16: the junction, it is more difficult
Page 17 and 18: ooftops in the United States carrie
Page 19 and 20: On Target Hands-On Challenge Invest
Page 21 and 22: More on Force and Energy Extend you
Page 23 and 24: Let students conduct research to de
Page 25 and 26: K-12 Engineering Education Standard
Page 27 and 28: The Idea of K-12 Engineering Standa
Page 29 and 30: Engineering/ Technology Ranking Top
Page 31: Research indicates that individuals
Page 35 and 36: Figure 3: Howe Forces Four forces a
Page 37 and 38: ΣFy = 0 -F MT sin θ -F NT - F OT
Page 39 and 40: Minneapolis Conference Exhibitors (
Page 41 and 42: Pitsco Education Curriculum* Booths
Page 43 and 44: Join the STEM MOVEMENT in Minneapol

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?