March - Vol 70, No 6 - International Technology and Engineering ...

Understanding stem: current perceptions • President’s message • 2011 leaders to watch 

March 2011 

Volume 70 • Number 6 

www.iteea.org

Check out the new videos at TeacherGeek.com 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Pick-Bot Remote Controlled Vehicle 

Super Power Geared Wind Turbine 

Bugs gone Crazy 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Mousetrap Racer 

Moon Buggy 

Powerful Direct Drive Turbine 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Re-Engineering a Hill Climb Vehicle 

Wind Water Pump 

Advanced Hydraulic Arm 

® 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Penguin Waddler 

Building a Transmission 

Incredible Hydraulic Arm 

Was your budget cut? Visit TeacherGeek.com to see how to do amazingly more while spending less. 

TeacherGeek.com ▪ 888-433-5345 

© TeacherGeek Inc.

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. 

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

preregistration deadline has now passed, but there is still time to attend! On-site registration kicks off on 

Wednesday, March 23rd at 11am. Don’t miss this unique networking and professional development opportunity! 

See you in Minneapolis! 

On-site Registration begins March 23rd!

Contents 

March • VOL. 70 • NO. 6 

ITEEAs 73rd Annual Conference 

Minneapolis, MN 

March 24-26, 2011 

Departments 

1 

2 

3 

ITEEA Web News 

STEM Education 

News 

STEM Education 

Calendar 

10 Resources 

in Technology 

and 

Engineering 

18 Classroom 

Challenge 

21 

Design Squad 

Nation (NEW!) 

5 

24 

29 

32 

36 

Features 

Understanding STEM: Current Perceptions 

Students in the STEM Education and Leadership Program at Illinois State University were 

questioned about their perceptions and understanding of the term “STEM.” 

Ryan Brown, Joshua Brown, Kristin Reardon, and Chris Merrill 

Improve or Perish, Revisited—Again 

Revisits and addresses concerns about the health of technology and engineering 

education and provides examples of how the profession has laid a foundation for the 

improvement of general education in the U.S. 

Johnny J Moye and Petros J. Katsioloudis 

President’s Message 

ITEEA’s President-Elect shares his beliefs and his intended focus for the coming year. 

Thomas P. Bell, DTE 

2011 Leaders to Watch 

Branding: Putting a Little Dent in the Universe! 

From a November 2010 presentation given at the 97th Mississippi Valley Technology 

Teacher Education Conference. 

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE 

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: 

PREPARING THE STEM WORKFORCE: 

THE NEXT GENERATION 

There’s Still Time to Join the STEM Movement in 

Minneapolis in 2011! 

On-site registration will be in full swing at ITEEA’s Conference in 

Minneapolis, March 24-26, 2011. The hotels are waiting for your 

reservation. Your friends, colleagues, and STEM leaders will share their 

experiences and ideas about the role of technology and engineering in a 

quality STEM education. There are over 100 professional development 

learning sessions, as well as educational tours, workshops, learning labs, 

and networking opportunities. 

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 

Editorial Policy 

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 

Are you interested in: 

• Biotechnology 

• Recruiting girls into technology and engineering careers 

• Green construction and energy 

• Perkins IV 

• Engineering standards 

• Nanotechnology 

• STEM funding 

• Strategies for engaging students 

• Teaching sustainability through design and technology 

No matter what your interests are, you will leave this conference with 

valuable tools and resources that you can implement directly into your 

classroom environment. 

Prepare yourself to prepare the future workforce! See you in Minneapolis! 

Find all the conference information as well as the Conference Guide online 

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

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 • March 2011

STEM Education News 

Are you planning to join the STEM movement in 

Minneapolis this month? 

Are you interested in the technical side of technology and 

engineering? If so, you will find presentations on such 

topics as biotechnology, green construction and energy, 

nanotechnology, and teaching sustainability through design 

and technology. 

Are you interested in funding for your program? Attend the 

sessions on Perkins IV and STEM funding. 

Are you interested in becoming a better technology or 

engineering teacher? Attend the session on engineering 

standards, strategies for engaging students, recruiting more 

girls into technology and engineering careers, and more. 

No matter what your interests might be, this conference will 

prepare you for dealing with the STEM Workforce for the 

Next Generation. This is your chance to hear your colleagues 

and experts in your field and also to participate in over 

100 professional development learning sessions. That’s in 

addition to educational tours, workshops, learning labs, and 

great networking opportunities. These offerings will give you 

real “take home value” that you can implement directly into 

your classroom environment. 

Preregistration has closed, but you can still register on-site 

in Minneapolis for Preparing the STEM Workforce: The 

Next Generation. It’s not too late to participate in the one 

educational event this year you can’t afford to miss. On-site 

registration opens at 11:00am on Wednesday, March 23rd at 

the Minneapolis Convention Center. You can pay by credit 

card, check, cash, or valid PO when you arrive. 

And the ITEEA conference rates will be extended if there 

is availability at the conference hotels. So call the hotels 

directly (full information is available on our website, www. 

iteea.org/conference/housing.htm). We hope you can make 

last-minute plans to join us. This is one conference you 

don’t want to hear about from a colleague who attended 

and you didn’t! 

Go to the Minneapolis Conference Guide (www.iteea.org/ 

Conference/conferenceguide.htm) for complete conference 

information. And don’t forget that your ITEEA membership 

must be current through March 2011 in order to qualify for 

member rates, which offer terrific discounts. You can join or 

renew on-site at the Minneapolis Convention Center. 

Be part of the STEM movement in Minneapolis in 2011 

and 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. Your New Year’s resolution should include 

joining your colleagues for “Preparing the STEM Workforce: 

The Next Generation” in Minneapolis, March 24-26. 

See you soon in Minneapolis! 

NEW Saturday Specialized Workshop Open to ALL 

Minneapolis Conference Attendees 

EbDLab HS: Pathway Extension – Robotics, 

Engineering, and Automation EbDLab This High School 

workshop provides in-depth, hands-on exercises for teachers 

and administrators on the new EbD-PathwayExtension 

in Robotics, Engineering, and Automation. Participants 

build, program, and compete with robots using the same 

curriculum featured in EbD’s Robotics PathwayExtension. 

Each participant will receive a copy of easyC® for Cortex 

robotic programming software and “Introduction to 

Competitive Robotics” curriculum for use in the classroom! 

Space is limited—register soon! Laptops are required. This 

POST-conference, full-day workshop takes place Saturday, 

March 26th, 8:30am-4pm and has a fee of $95. 

Details can be found at www.iteea.org/Conference/ebdlabs. 

htm. Be sure to register early, as space is limited. 

ITEEA’s Council for Supervision and Leadership 

(CSL) to Present Workshops in Minneapolis 

The Council for Supervision and Leadership plans to present 

three workshops on Thursday March 24 at the ITEEA 

Annual Conference in Minneapolis, MN. These workshops 

are open to all conference attendees. 

1:00-1:50pm, CSL Workshop Session #1 – Supervision and 

Leadership from Three Perspectives. 

Come listen to Technology and Engineering leaders 

from ITEEA, the State level, and the local level. Areas of 

discussion: (1) Developing a Culture; (2) Financial; (3) How 

to Serve; (4) Curriculum; (5) Partnerships, etc. 

2:00-2:50pm, CSL Workshop Session #2 – Your Issues 

(Think Tank Roundtable). 

Come discuss your state, district, and local issues with 

like-minded people. Topics could range from curriculum to 

funding to mandates, etc. See how others are doing things. 

3:00-3:50pm, CSL Workshop Session #3 – TECA 

Employability Strategies (Roundtable). 

This will be a time for prospective candidates and employers 

to interact in mini interviews. Teachers and future teachers 

looking for employment should bring their resumes and 

dress to impress. All participants are welcome to stay for the 

roundtable reception immediately following this session. 


STEM Education News and Calendar 

President Obama Signs the Competes Act 

President Obama signed the America Creating 

Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence 

in Technology, Education, and Science (Competes) 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 on Tuesday, January 4, 2011, 

ending a year-long battle over extending research grants 

prized by the technology community. According to the 

White House, the bill “reauthorizes various programs 

intended to strengthen research and education in the United 

States related to science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics.” 

The act also distributes a significant portion of research 

funding through a series of contests, most of which will 

be posted on Challenges.gov. The Obama administration 

has emphasized distributing financing through contests in 

hopes of increasing the amount of publicity and the range of 

participants eligible for federal research funding. 

Read the article at: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/ 

technology/135991-overnight-tech 

Source: The Hill, Friday, January 7, 2011 – © 2011 

Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News 

Communications, Inc. 

The Power of Recycling 

What can you do with the energy saved by recycling one 

aluminum can? In the newest Green Career profile added to 

NASA’s Climate Kids website, Kate Melby explains recycling 

as a powerful way that individuals, businesses, and schools 

can help the environment. Read her profile and see what 

one can can do! http://climate.nasa.gov/kids. 

Source: Laura K. Lincoln on behalf of the Space Place team 

Check out these other great NASA sites for kids: 

http://scijinks.gov and http://spaceplace.nasa.gov. 

Calendar 

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. There will be many schools, universities, and 

educational organizations from many European countries, 

as well as from the USA, Canada, and Russia. 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 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. 

April 1-2, 2011 The OTEEA Spring Conference will 

take place at Granville Middle School in Granville, Ohio. 

Information is available at www.otea.info/conferences.html. 

May 17-20, 2011 DeVilbiss, Binks and Owens Community 

College have teamed up to present two intensive training 

programs in Toledo, Ohio. A half-day NESHAP Subpart 

HHHHHH “6H” training program is scheduled for May 17, 

2011. Training will be conducted from 1-5 pm and includes 

both classroom and “hands-on” sessions. Certification 

is awarded upon successful completion. Information is 

available online at: https://www.owens.edu/workforce_cs/ 

spray2011-flier.pdf 

In addition, a Spray Finishing Technology Workshop will 

be presented on May 18-20, 2011. Classes for this threeday 

intensive training program will meet from 8:30am to 

4:00pm daily at the college and include both classroom and 

hands-on sessions. Two Continuing Education Units will 

be awarded. Attendees should be involved with industrial, 

contractor, or maintenance spray finishing applications, 

or spray equipment sales and distribution. Information is 

available online at https://www.owens.edu/workforce_cs/ 

spray2011-brochure.pdf 


STEM Education News and Calendar 

To register, or for additional information about 

either of these workshops, contact Jaime Wineland at 

sprayworkshop@netscape.net. 

June 2, 2011 The 78th Annual Connecticut Technology 

Education Association Spring Conference will take place 

at Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, 

Connecticut. For information, contact conference 

chairperson Jim Brochinsky at jbrochinsky@darienps.org. 

July 1-5, 2011 PATT 25/CRIPT 8 will take place in London, 

England. PATT 25 provides a unique opportunity, bringing 

together the research, discussion, and debate of previous 

PATT conferences and previous CRIPT conferences. As a 

result, the planners anticipate a rich and diverse gathering 

of international colleagues whose interests span all phases of 

education, from early years through higher education. The 

conference website is www.gold.ac.uk/patt/. 

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. 

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! 


Understanding STEM: 

Current Perceptions 

By Ryan Brown, Joshua Brown, Kristin Reardon, 

and Chris Merrill 

Many in the field of technology 

education have embraced STEM 

education, but there is a lack of 

understanding of STEM education 

in schools. 

Readers of The Overlooked STEM Imperatives: 

Technology and Engineering (ITEA/ITEEA, 2009) 

are invited to “explore the power and promise of 

a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics) education” (p. 2). Those who believe in the 

virtues of STEM education feel that it can contribute to 

increased problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and 

analytical thinking in students as well as lead to better 

real-world connections in the curriculum. (Brophy, Klein, 

Portsmor, Rogers, 2008; National Science Board, 2007). 

The promise of STEM education has caught on in the field 

of technology education as evidenced by incorporation of 

the STEM acronym in many of the resources produced by 

the International Technology and Engineering Educators 

Association (ITEEA). A quick review of ITEEA’s website 

(www.iteea.org) will reveal the hold that the concept of 

STEM has on the profession, as one would find that the 

most recent annual conference, the newest publication 

(ITEA/ITEEA, 2009), and the association newsletter all have 

a STEM focus. The change in tide toward STEM education 

has encouraged this exploration of the current teacher and 

administrator perceptions of STEM education. 

The Push for STEM Education 

In many ways, the push for STEM education appears to 

have grown from a concern for the low number of future 

professionals to fill STEM jobs and careers (ITEA/ITEEA, 

2009) and economic and educational competitiveness 

(Brophy, Klein, Portsmor, & Rogers, 2008; Congressional 

Research Service, 2006; Ehrlich, 2007; National Science 

Board, 2007). The proponents of STEM education believe 

that by increasing math and science requirements in 

schools, along with infusing technology and engineering 

concepts, students will perform better and be better 

prepared for advanced education or jobs in STEM fields 

(often referred to as the STEM pipeline). The lasting result 

would be that the United States would again rise to the top 

of international rankings. 

While the outcome remains to be seen, many in the field 

of technology education have taken the idea of STEM 

education and have attempted to either integrate more 

math and science into their courses or highlight the ways 

in which those concepts were already being integrated. The 

believed benefits of doing so are that students experience 

real-world problems making more connections to STEM 

fields and the ever-changing workforce, sparking interest 

in STEM fields. Creating these links earlier in the students’ 

educational careers could potentially result in an increased 

number of students entering into fields associated with 

STEM (Brophy, Klein, Portsmor, Rogers, 2008; Merrill 

& Daugherty, in press; NHSA; NSB, 2007; Suddreth & 

Itamura, 2007). 

Understanding of STEM 

As STEM education becomes a greater focus for an 

increasing number of schools and teachers, it becomes 


clearer that there is a need to better define what is meant by 

the term STEM education. The term STEM is often defined 

only by having the terms science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics follow in parentheses, (see ITEA/ITEEA, 

2009). However, STEM education has been defined as “a 

standards-based, meta-discipline residing at the school 

level where all teachers, especially science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers, teach 

an integrated approach to teaching and learning, where 

discipline-specific content is not divided, but addressed 

and treated as one dynamic, fluid study” (Merrill, 2009). 

However, which sciences are included, and does the level of 

math matter, and how is technology defined? The National 

Science Foundation includes sciences such as psychology, 

economics, sociology, and political science in the STEM 

definition (Green 2007 as cited in NCES, 2009). Other 

definitions include the technologies that are included in 

Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study 

of Technology (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), while some 

solely focus on computer and information technology/ 

science (NCES, 2009). 

The types of science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics that are included in the concept of STEM 

education is not the only concern in defining STEM 

education. An additional concern is how STEM education 

is implemented. According to Merrill (2009), “STEM 

teaching and learning focuses on authentic content and 

problems, using hands-on, technological tools, equipment, 

and procedures in innovative ways to help solve human 

wants and needs.” For many teachers, administrators, and 

policy makers, questions still remain. Is it STEM education 

when all four concepts are taught in separate classes? If 

a student takes a course in each of the four STEM areas, 

is he or she receiving a STEM education? If so, Sanders 

(2009) would argue that STEM education is not new. Or 

does a student only receive a STEM education when the 

four areas are integrated in one or more courses? These 

questions are paramount to the understanding of how 

STEM education is to operate in schools and what it will 

look like in classrooms. 

Methods 

These questions, among others, were posed to students in 

the STEM Education and Leadership program at Illinois 

State University. The STEM Education and Leadership 

program is a graduate degree program designed to increase 

“STEM-related teacher content knowledge, instructional 

practices, student achievement, quality of professional 

development, and organizational support” (Merrill & 

Daugherty, in press). The 27 students enrolled in the 

program were charged with determining how STEM is 

defined and the importance that is placed on it by their 

school administrators and teaching peers. The students’ 

task was to interview their administrators and other math, 

science, and technology teachers with a focus on the 

following questions: 

1. What is STEM education? 

2. How does your definition of STEM Education affect the 

curriculum and instruction in your class? 

3. What do the “T” and “E” in STEM Education mean? 

4. Is STEM Education broader than science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics? 

5. Is STEM Education important? If so, why? If not, why? 

6. Is STEM Education for all students? If so, why? If not, 

why? 

7. How much time do you talk with other teachers in the 

STEM disciplines about what you are doing in your 

class? Do you ever collaborate with other teachers by 

doing theme-based lessons/units or co-teaching? 

8. Do you access information related to STEM Education 

to stay professionally developed? If so, where do you 

obtain this information? What is the typical information 

you access? 

The 29 students interviewed/surveyed over 200 teachers 

and administrators. Of the initial interviews, 172 were 

determined to be usable for the purposes of data analysis. 

However, not all of the 172 interviews were complete, so 

the data presented in this article will include the number of 

responses to the question. The breakdown of participants in 

this study by job title/discipline can be found in Figure 1. 

The most sizable group of teachers in this study was 

mathematics teachers, followed by science and technology 

teachers. The “not stated” category includes those teachers 

and administrators who were not identified by a content 

area. The “other” category includes teachers from special 

education and social studies. 

Figure 1: Participants by content area. 


The survey data were analyzed with two research questions 

in mind: 

1. Do administrators and STEM teachers have a basic 

understanding of STEM education? 

2. What do administrators and STEM teachers believe 

about STEM education? 

Findings 

The findings are presented in terms of the two research 

questions. The findings for research question one are based 

on survey questions one and three, found in the above 

list. These questions were used to gauge the participants’ 

understanding of STEM and the nature of the “T” and “E” 

within STEM. The other questions in the survey were used 

to respond to research question two. Only select findings 

from research question two will be addressed in this article. 

Research Question 1 

The data shows that among the participants who responded 

to the question “What is STEM education?” (N=149), one 

half were able to adequately define it as education involving 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. A 

number of participants responded that they were initially 

unsure of the meaning of STEM education when they 

were contacted for this study, but later used the Internet to 

determine its meaning. 

When the data is disaggregated by position/discipline, the 

findings show differences between the groups. This data is 

displayed in Figure 2. The data shows that administrators, 

mathematics teachers, and “other” teachers were at least 

able to appropriately define STEM education. The group of 

administrators (comprised of principals, assistant principals, 

and assistant superintendents) was able to correctly define 

STEM education less than half of the time. Ten of the 22 

administrators had a clear definition for STEM education. 

Several were even frustrated for being asked about it. One 

administrator responded “there is not enough time in the 

day to talk about STEM education” while another stated 

that they were “highly insulted to be expected to know 

this acronym.” All of the administrators surveyed were in 

schools in which at least one teacher was enrolled in the 

STEM Education and Leadership program at Illinois State 

University. 

The data related to teachers in the three traditional STEM 

areas; science, technology/engineering, and mathematics 

also showed differences among the three areas. Mathematics 

teachers were the least able to appropriately define STEM 

education, as only 15 of 36 could define the term. Science 

and technology teachers correctly defined STEM education 

over 60% of the time (13 of 21 and 12 of 19, respectively). 

Those who answered incorrectly either defined it narrowly 

as just integrating computer technology into a classroom, 

defined it as a program for either students with disabilities 

or gifted students, or simply did not know. 

Research Question 2 

The data related to research question one demonstrated that 

only one-half of those interviewed had a clear definition of 

STEM education. After the initial question, “What is STEM 

education,” those participants who were unsure of the 

definition were often provided with the definition so that 

they could formulate answers for the remaining questions, 

while others opted to not continue with the survey/ 

interview. The remaining questions focused on their beliefs 

toward STEM education and its importance. 

When asked whether STEM education is important, 

75% of the 103 participants answered “yes.” Nineteen 

participants answered “unsure,” and seven responded “no” 

(see Figure 3). Those who responded to this question did 

Figure 2: Knowledge of STEM (by position/discipline). 

Figure 3: The importance of STEM education. 


so for a number of reasons. Several participants stated 

that STEM was an important way to bridge disciplines, 

provide cognitive building blocks for students, and to teach 

needed skills (often problem-solving skills). One participant 

stated that STEM education “provides relevance to the 

concepts presented in traditional core classes as it applies to 

technology and other related disciplines.” Another teacher 

responded that “it is good for students to see that things do 

not exist in a bubble, and they are all intertwined.” However, 

others questioned the appropriateness of STEM education. 

Several of the teachers and administrators who responded 

that they were “unsure” and “no” regarding the importance 

of STEM education stated that it was because they believed 

it is not for all students. 

These ideas led to the next question that focused on the 

universality of STEM education. The responses were quite 

varied. One teacher who believed that STEM education 

has a role in the teaching of problem solving responded 

that “it should be for all students because, if you cannot 

solve problems, you cannot be a player in our technical 

society.” Another participant stated that all students 

would benefit from STEM education because “any career 

a student decided to go into, they must be able to analyze, 

synthesize, evaluate, and utilize higher-order thinking,” 

which this respondent believes is possible through STEM 

education. Those who do not believe STEM education is for 

all students often stated that the academic needs for STEM 

education would be too demanding for some students. One 

participant stated that “some students will be unable to 

process the basics, much less apply the theory to a hands-on 

project.” Another teacher responded that “not all students 

are academically heading in that direction.” 

A small number of participants (n=28) were asked whether 

an integrated class in STEM would be beneficial for their 

schools. Over half of the participants (16), responded 

“yes,” while the remaining 12 participants answered 

“unsure” or “no” (8 and 4, respectively). Those who were 

not sure of the benefit of an integrated course had several 

concerns, including adding something else to the school 

day and the worry that the course would just be a response 

to a new and trendy initiative and would not be given the 

necessary resources. 

One of the final questions asked of most of the participants 

was related to their current level of collaboration with 

teachers outside of their content area on issues related 

to STEM education. While a number of teachers stated 

that they talk with their peers within their discipline 

on curriculum matters, very few responded that they 

collaborate, plan integrated lessons, or co-teach with 

peers outside their discipline. Of the 125 participants who 

responded, nearly 90% (111 participants) stated that they do 

not collaborate with peers in other STEM fields. 

Conclusions/Implications 

The first conclusion is that STEM education is not well 

understood. Fewer than one half of the administrators 

(with teachers in their building participating in a STEMfocused 

Master’s Degree) understood the concept and/ 

or could describe it. Even teachers in the STEM fields had 

varying levels of understanding of STEM education. It 

is believed that this finding may even be artificially high 

due to self-selection of participation. The researchers who 

collected the data stated that they had a number of informal 

conversations with teachers and administrators who opted 

not to participate in the study, as they did not know about 

STEM and thought that their responses would not be 

helpful. Had those teachers participated in the study, it is 

expected that the findings would have reflected a greater 

proportion of teachers and administrators who are unaware 

of the concept or definition of STEM education. 

This conclusion has important implications for those 

teachers who are intending to start a STEM-focused course 

or program. The implication is that there is a great need for 

awareness-raising at both the administrator and teacher 

levels. Many in the field of technology education have 

embraced STEM education (as evidenced by the ITEEA 

website, conference, and publications) but there is a lack of 

understanding of STEM education in schools. 

A second conclusion of this research is that there is not a 

clear vision for STEM education even amongst those who 

believe it is important. The vast majority of those who 

responded to the question of importance agreed that it 

was an important concept, but for a number of reasons 

and for a range of students. Some believed it could help all 

students gain an understanding of the basics in each of the 

STEM areas when taught as an integrated lesson. Others 

thought it was for more advanced students to enhance 

their application of theory to hands-on projects. Yet others 

believe it is a way to teach problem-solving skills. So, even 

when the definition of STEM education is understood, 

the implementation can be very different and focused on 

different purposes. This implies that there is not only a need 

for definitional awareness-raising, but also for discussion of 

how STEM education would be implemented. Without that 

step, it is likely that those in the school who agree on STEM 

education may have different ideas of what it should look 

like, who should be involved (both in terms of students and 

teachers), and how it should be implemented. 


The final conclusion is that there is little evidence that STEM 

education exists in the school in this survey, based on the 

lack of collaboration that exists. STEM education often 

requires collaboration, as teachers have not been trained in 

STEM areas outside of their specific discipline. However, the 

results of this study show that there is very little collaboration 

taking place, as nearly 90% of the participants stated that 

they do not collaborate with peers in STEM areas. When the 

responses of those who stated that they do collaborate with 

peers in STEM areas were examined along with the number 

of participants who understand STEM education and view 

it as important, it is still less than 20% of the participants. 

So, while a number of teachers understand and value STEM 

education, few implement it. The implication is that, in 

order for STEM education to become a reality, those who 

understand and value it must find like-minded peers with 

whom to collaborate and implement STEM education. This 

again may require an awareness-raising effort on the part of 

the teacher who wishes to truly implement STEM education. 

Hughes (2009) stated that “unfortunately the number of 

well-intentioned institutions, educators, and potential 

employers touting STEM far surpasses those who have 

brought the idea to fruition” (p. 28). If your vision of STEM 

education is going to come to fruition, it must start with 

raising the awareness and understanding levels of your 

administrators and fellow teachers to develop a common 

understanding of STEM education. This must be followed 

closely by collaboration with those who share the vision and 

interest in STEM education. 

References 

Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). 

Advancing engineering education in p-12 classrooms. 

Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387. 

Congressional Research Service. (2006). Science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues 

and legislative options. (CRS Publication No. RL33434). 

Washington, DC: Author. 

Ehrlich, E. (2007). A call to action: Why America must 

innovate. National Governors Association. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

Hughes, B. (2009). How to start a STEM team. The 

Technology Teacher, 69(2), 27-29. 

International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ 

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

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

Author. 


ITEEA). (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: 

Technology and engineering. Reston, VA: Author. 

Merrill, C. (2009). The future of TE masters degrees: 

STEM. Presentation at the 70th Annual International 

Technology Education Association Conference, 

Louisville, Kentucky. 

Merrill, C. & Daugherty, J. (2010). STEM education and 

leadership: A mathematics and science partnership 

approach. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2). 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Students 

who study science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education. 

(NCES 2009-161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

National High School Alliance. (n.d.). STEM education. 

Retrieved July 27, 2009 from www.hsalliance.org/stem/ 

FAQ.asp 

National Science Board. (2007). A national action plan 

for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics education 

system. (Publication No. NSB-07-114). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

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

Suddreth, D. & Itamura, V. (2007). Perspectives of Utah 

educators on strategies to encourage the pursuit of 

mathematics and science. Utah State Office of Education. 

Ryan Brown is an assistant professor in the 

Department of Curriculum and Instruction 

and Associate Director of the Center for 

Mathematics, Science, and Technology at 

Illinois State University, Normal, IL. He can 

be reached at rbrown@ilstu.edu. 

Joshua Brown is an assistant professor in 

the Department of Technology at Illinois 

State University, Normal, IL. He can be 

reached at jbrown4@ilstu.edu. 

Kristin Reardon is an internal evaluator 

for the STEM Education and Leadership 

program at Illinois State University, Normal, 

IL. She can be reached at kc@mcmains.us. 

Chris Merrill is an associate professor in 

the Department of Technology at Illinois 

State University, Normal, IL. He can be 

reached at cpmerri@ilstu.edu. 

This is a refereed article. 

9 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • February 2011

Resources in Technology and Engineering 

Nanotechnology: 

The Incredible Invisible World 

By Amanda S. Roberts 

With emphasis on environmental 

issues, health care, and business/ 

industry accomplishments, this 

article will provide insight into 

some of the potential of the field 

of nanotechnology. 

As we look at inventions and discoveries throughout 

the ages, we can see that many of them have had 

incredible impacts on science, engineering, and 

technology and the way that we live and work. 

Inventions such as the plow changed they way that food 

was grown and produced. The invention of the steam 

engine changed the way that we traveled and moved 

goods and services. We can see that the invention of the 

telegraph, telephone, radio, and television have made 

our world smaller in the way that we communicate with 

each other and others in distant lands. More recently, 

the invention of the satellite and the mobile phone have 

enabled individuals to be in touch globally in real time. The 

invention of the telescope has been heralded as one of the 

great inventions of the seventeenth century, as it enabled 

humans to see into the depths of our solar system and 

what others had not seen before. Galileo Galilei made the 

telescope famous. He assembled a 20-power telescope and 

made observations about Earth’s Moon. He discovered the 

four satellites of the planet Jupiter and resolved nebular 

ways into stars. Subsequently he published Sidereus 

Nuncius in March 1610, which is noted as the first scientific 

treatise on observations made through a telescope (Galileo 

Project, 2003). 

Another invention that we learn about in elementary school 

is the invention of the microscope. Imagine the world that 

the microscope opened up to scientists and researchers 

in those early years. We generally know that the telescope 

and microscope are optical devices that are based on the 

properties of lenses to magnify an image or view. However, 

we give little thought to the fact that the discovery of 

glass played a significant role in these and other optical 

inventions. Nearly every field of science has benefitted in 

some manner from the invention of the microscope. The 

invention of the microscope dates back to the sixteenth 

century and a Dutch eyeglass maker named Zacharias 

Janssen. Janssen’s work would have an impact on scientific 

discoveries in the centuries to come (Chodos, 2011). 

However, the invention of the electron microscope would 

move science from the microscopic world of optical 

instruments to the world of atoms! James Hiller and Albert 

Prebus, graduate students at the University of Ontario, 

would build the first practical electron microscope that 

enabled scientists to see objects not by magnification and 


light shining through a specimen, but rather by focusing a 

beam of electrons through a specimen. Hiller would later 

accept a job at the Radio Corporation of America where 

he worked with a team to develop the first commercial 

electron microscope. The invention of the electron 

microscope enabled scientists to see molecular structures 

and manipulate atoms that would eventually lead to the field 

of nanotechnology (MIT, 2003). 

The concept of nanotechnology was first introduced in 

1959 by Richard Feynman at a meeting of the American 

Physical Society. His speech, entitled There is Plenty of 

Room at the Bottom, postulated that there was merit to 

the idea of building from the “bottom up” through the use 

of atoms as the building blocks (Klusek, 2007; Lindquist, 

Mosher-Howe, & Liu, 2010). Thirty years later, Drexler 

further developed Feynman’s concepts of nanotechnology 

by defining the way small and large structures could be built 

atom by atom or molecule by molecule using nanorobots 

(nanobots) as assemblers and replicators. In 2000, 

nanotechnology entered into U.S. public policy through 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (Klusek, 2007; 

Lindquist, Mosher-Howe, & Liu, 2010), demonstrating 

it was a research priority for the United States. In 2005, 

there was a request for roughly $1 billion dollars for federal 

research across a wide range of federal agencies (Porod, 

2004). Today nanotechnology is an emerging technology 

globally in which the United States currently demonstrates 

a healthy investment. According to Ernst (2009, p. 1), “the 

National Academies (2006) indicated that 33 percent of 

all nanotechnology patents awarded from 1990 to 2004 

were granted to researchers in the United States.” In a 

distant second, “Japan held 19 percent of the worldwide 

patents during the same period of time” (Ernst, 2009, p. 1). 

Ernst explains that nanotechnology is “the fastest growing 

industry in history” (Ernst, 2009, p. 2) and cites Wilson, 

Kannagara, Smith, Simmons, and Raguse (2002) to predict 

it will have a “significant impact on war, crime, terrorism, 

law enforcement, and commercial goods” (Ernst, 2009, p. 2). 

Resources in Technology and Engineering will review 

several major applications of nanotechnology as well as 

describe possible future applications of nanotechnology. 

The range of fields to which nanotechnology may be 

applied today includes “electronics, communications, 

automotive, aerospace, materials, chemicals, 

pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, energy technology, space 

exploration, the environment, national security, health 

care, and other life sciences” (Porod, 2004, p. 2). Holley 

(2009, p. 11) reinforces this by reminding us of Uldrich 

and Newberry’s 2003 prediction that, “it is difficult to 

think of an industry that isn’t going to be disrupted by 

nanotechnology.” With emphasis on environmental issues, 

health care, and business/industry accomplishments, this 

article will provide insight into some of the potential of the 

field of nanotechnology. 

What is Nanotechnology? 

Definitions for nanotechnology are as numerous as its 

functions. Some of the confusion lies in the fact that there 

are “naturally occurring nanosize materials residual in 

individual processes” (Holley, 2009, p. 11). The National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) advocates a strict 

definition of nanotechnology by “including only activities 

at the atomic, molecular, and supermolecular levels, in the 

length scale of approximately 1 – 100 nm range that create 

materials, devices, and systems with fundamentally new 

properties and function because of their small structure” 

(Holley, 2009, p. 11). Nanotechnology, as defined by the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as cited 

in Mnyusiwalla, Daar, & Singer, 2003), is managing matter 

on the nanometer scale to form purposeful materials, 

devices, and systems (Ernst, 2009). In essence, it is a branch 

of science and engineering that deals with creating objects 

smaller than 100nm in size (Bottero, Rose, & Wiesner, 

2006). Just how big is a nanometer? Wolfgang Porod, 

Director of the Center for Nano Sciences and Technology 

explains, “Nano is a prefix derived from the Greek word for 

dwarf, and it means one-billionth of something” (2004, p. 1). 

Therefore, to refer to a nanosecond is to mean one billionth 

of a second, and a nanometer is one billionth of a meter 

(Porod, 2004). Today, we have the technology available to 

see with electron microscopes, manipulate, and work with 

this length of scale (Porod, 2004). 

The National Science Foundation has declared that a major 

outcome goal is to maintain a competitive workforce of 

scientists, engineers, and technologists who are diverse 

and globally engaged in the U.S. workforce (Ernst, 2009). 

Because nanotechnology is developing into the science 

of the future, this can only be accomplished through 

the studies in the applications and developments of 

nanotechnology. Therefore, it is imperative for nations to 

become aware of the work being accomplished through the 

use of nanotechnology and be encouraged to continue the 

efforts as students complete their degrees. 

Applications of Nanotechnology 

The summer of 2010 left Pakistan devastated by flooding. 

Roads, bridges, and villages were destroyed, ruining years 

of progress made in the building of their infrastructure 

(Gillani, 2010). People were displaced from their homes, 

with little access to basic necessities, including fresh 


water, and were forced to rely on a less than adequate 

filtering process to create fresh drinking water. Typical 

water purification processes in developing countries 

are slow. Small amounts of water may be cleaned at a 

time, which means large amounts of shortages become 

prevalent. Furthermore, the process relies on pumps, 

which require substantial quantities of electrical power. 

This may be difficult to access, especially in a flooding 

situation like Pakistan’s (Dillow, 2010). In a study 

conducted by Salamanca-Buentello, et al. (2005), of the 

top ten applications of nanotechnology for developing 

countries, water purification and remediation needs came 

in third. Clearly, a need for an improved system for water 

purification is required. Stanford University is seeking 

to develop an inexpensive, efficient, and portable way of 

purifying water from the Escherichia coli bacteria to create 

a filter that could be applied in many different situations, 

including water purification (Schoen et al., 2010). Through 

gravity and a weak electric current, regular cotton fabric 

obtained at a local Wal-Mart can be used to create such a 

water purifying filter (Evans, 2010). 

Yi Cui, lead researcher, and a team from Stanford University, 

created a three-component filter. Cotton was chosen as 

the backbone because it is cheap, available, chemically and 

mechanically robust, and the pores in cotton are far enough 

apart to prevent clogging when filtering the bacteria. The 

second component is silver. Silver is chosen because it is 

known to be a solid bactericidal agent. Synthetic silver 

nanowires (AGNWs) are created through a previously 

developed technique and are used to create a secondary 

mesh. The final component of their filters is the carbon 

nanotubes (CNTs). They provide a malleable coating that is 

highly conductive (Schoen et al., 2010). 

The process of creating a filter begins with producing 

nanowires through the predetermined process. A 

CNT ink is then prepared by dispersing “1.6 mgmL 

laser ablation CNTs in water with 10 mg/mL sodium 

dodecylbenzenesulfonate (SDBS) as surfactant” (Schoen 

et al, 2010). Once the CNT ink and the silver nanowires 

are ready, a piece of cotton is submerged in the CNT ink. 

The fabric is then rinsed with distilled water to remove 

excess surfactant. At this point, the CNT ink clings to 

the cotton readily, and the now prepared piece of cotton 

is able to conduct electricity. However, adding the silver 

nanowires by pipetting them directly from a methanol 

solution enhances conductibility. The cotton piece is dried 

for 30 minutes on a 95°C hot plate, followed by more rinsing 

(Schoen et al., 2010). Once the prepared fabric is dried, it is 

exposed to a 12-volt battery or a hand-cranked generator. 

Photo 1: A scanning electron microscope image of the silver 

nanowires in which the cotton is dipped during the process of 

constructing a filter. The large fibers are cotton. Credit: Yi Cui, 

Stanford University. 

As contaminated water passes through the electrified fabric, 

bacteria are destroyed, up to 98% of the Escherichia coli 

bacteria (Dillow, 2010). 

The results from this method of water purification are 

very encouraging. Not only could large amounts of water 

be purified with a very small amount of electricity, but 

the researchers postulate that if 98% of the bacteria 

could be destroyed, then perhaps a compound filter with 

layers of different materials might be able to increase 

the number of bacteria destroyed to closer to 100% for a 

variety of bacteria known to cause water-borne illnesses 

(Dillow, 2010). Furthermore, while the only bacteria 

exposed to this process at the time was the Escherichia 

coli bacteria, it is expected to be as effective on other 

microorganisms because silver is an extremely general 

agent (Schoen et al., 2010). 

Another industry heavily impacted by nanotechnology is 

medicine. When nanotechnology is applied to medicine 

it is referred to as nanomedicine (Freitas, 2009). Medical 

researchers continue to seek ways in which nanotechnology 

may benefit consumers. For example, researchers at Johns 

Hopkins University, together with colleagues at the Johns 

Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, are very enthusiastic 

about the work they are pursuing through the use of 

nanotechnology to find cancer. A highly sensitive test, 

referred to as “MS-qFRET: a quantum dot-based method for 

analysis of DNA methylation,” has been developed to seek out 

DNA attachments, which are often early indicators for cancer 

(Johns Hopkins University, 2009; Science & Children, 2009). 


Jeff Tza-Huei Wang (2009), an associate professor of 

mechanical engineering, whose laboratory team played a 

leading role in developing this particular technique, says the 

test offers several significant bonuses. First, the test has the 

potential to lead to early diagnosis of cancer. It could also 

be used to help doctors determine how well their patients 

are responding to treatment (Science & Children, 2009). 

Bailey (2009), a biomedical engineering doctoral student in 

Bangalore, India and one of the lead authors of the Genome 

Research project, adds other potential benefits for the test. 

She states that the test is accomplished by obtaining a 

simple blood sample. Therefore, it allows those patients who 

have been identified with a positive methylation to undergo 

more frequent cancer tests. Also, because different types 

of cancer display their own genetic markers, it could be 

possible to use the test to determine which particular cancer 

a patient may be inclined to develop, such as leukemia or 

lung cancer. Early results show that this test appears to be 

more sensitive and provides results more quickly than other 

current methods (Johns Hopkins University, 2009; Science 

and Children, 2009). 

The test seeks to target a biochemical change called DNA 

methylation, “which occurs when a chemical group called 

methyl attaches itself to cytosine, one of the four nucleotides 

or base building blocks of DNA” (Science and Children, 

2009, p. 9). The accumulation of methylation at critical gene 

locations results in an inability to produce proteins that 

help to suppress tumors. If this occurs, it is easier for cancer 

to develop. Consequently it becomes less complicated to 

detect a person’s likelihood of developing cancer when the 

presence of the abnormal gene DNA methylation is detected 

(Johns Hopkins University, 2009). 

According to the researchers at Johns Hopkins University 

(2009), the process of detecting the DNA methylation begins 

by using a chemical process called bisulfite conversion. 

The purpose is to single out the DNA strands that have a 

methyl group attached to them. The bisulfate conversion 

enables any DNA segments that lack a methyl group to be 

transformed into another nucleotide. 

After this process has been completed, then the lab will use 

a second procedure to create copies of the remaining DNA 

strands that are linked to cancer. It is during this process 

when two molecules are linked to either end of the DNA 

strand. One of the molecules is a protein called biotin. The 

other molecule attached at the opposite end of the DNA 

strand is a fluorescent dye. The purpose for attaching these 

molecules to the DNA strands is to enable researchers to 

detect and count the DNA strands that are associated with 

cancer (Johns Hopkins University, 2009). 

Once the DNA strands have been prepared, they are then 

mixed with specially designed quantum dots. A quantum 

dot is a crystal of semiconductor material that is only a few 

nanometers in length. The quantum dots are a necessary 

component of the process because they easily transfer 

energy. Consequently, when light shines on a quantum dot, 

it transfers the energy to the molecule, which then reflects 

a fluorescent glow. This makes the potential cancerous 

DNA strands obvious and easily identifiable (Johns Hopkins 

University, 2009). 

The quantum dots are effective because they have been 

specially treated with a chemical that is attracted to biotin. 

This chemical enables up to 60 of the targeted DNA strands 

to connect to just one quantum dot. A blue laser or an 

ultraviolet light shone on a sample causes the quantum dots 

to grab the energy and immediately transfer that energy 

to the fluorescent dye that was previously attached to the 

selected DNA strands. These dye molecules use the energy 

to light up (Johns Hopkins University, 2009). 

After the light has been exposed to the sample, a 

spectrophotometer is used to detect the fluorescence 

signals. The results allow the researchers to not only 

determine if there is a presence of cancer-linked DNA but to 

also observe the quantity of DNA methylation in the sample. 

Photo 2: In this illustration, quantum dots are depicted as gold 

spheres that attract DNA strands linked to cancer risks. When the 

quantum dots are exposed to certain types of light, they transfer 

the energy to fluorescent molecules, shown as globes, which emit a 

glow. This enables researchers to detect and count the DNA strands 

linked to cancer. Credit: Yi Zhang 


If there is a high amount of DNA methylation, it would 

be associated with a higher risk of cancer (Johns Hopkins 

University, 2009). 

Other endeavors to incorporate the benefits of 

nanotechnology into the medical world include the 

theory of the development of the microbivore or medical 

nanorobot: “a machine the size of a bacterium, comprising 

many thousands of molecule-sized mechanical parts 

(resembling gears, bearings, and ratchets), possibly 

composed of a strong diamondlike material” (Freitas, 

2009, p. 1). Freitas (2009) further describes the appearance 

of the nanorobot. It will require motors to run, arms to 

manipulate, and legs for mobility. It will also require a 

power supply, guidance sensors, and an onboard computer 

to control behavior. This nanorobot must be small 

enough to travel through the blood stream or the smallest 

capillaries in the human body. Freitas (2009) also predicts 

that, with diligent effort, such a nanorobot could be in 

existence and operable by the 2020s. 

The purpose of these nanorobots could vary. For example, 

one medical nanorobot might be used in the form of a 

white blood cell. Its objective would be to seek out any 

undesirable pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, or fungi 

in the bloodstream. A patient could be injected with 

about 100 billion microbivores. They would hunt for the 

Photo 3: Medical applications of nanotechnology include 

incredibly small robots called microbivore. This illustration 

shows a microbivore, which would be made of many molecularsized 

parts such as a power supply, motors, arms, and legs to 

move about and complete its tasks. Credit: © 2001 Zyvex Corp. 

and Robert A. Freitas Jr. (design), additional design Forrest 

Bishop. All Rights Reserved 

different bacteria and consume them into amino acids. The 

nanorobot would then harmlessly eliminate the amino acids 

through an exhaust port (Freitas, 2009). 

Freitas (2009) explains the enormous potential for such 

nanorobots. Instead of subjecting the entire body to a 

drug whose purpose is to eradicate a single bacteria while 

at the same time increasing the potential for several 

unwanted side effects, creating a nanorobot whose job is 

to seek and devour the unwanted pathogen without the 

use of drugs could be done. The potential these robots 

could offer is incredible. For example, patients would be 

monitored by doctors continuously through the robots’ 

onboard computers resulting in benefits such as: virtual 

instant blood work results, early detection of disease, and 

monitoring of slowly developing chronic diseases. 

Nanotechnology has been applied to biomimicry as well. 

Biomimicry (derived from bio, which means life, and 

mimesis, which means to imitate) is a new science and an 

art created to emulate nature’s biological development to 

solve human problems (Biomimicry Institute, 2007). The 

Biomimicry Guild has developed a Biology Design Spiral. It 

is used as a tool that guides an innovator through the design 

process to create a more sustainable design. The first step is 

to identify the real problem to be solved by writing a design 

brief. Second, the innovator must interpret the design brief 

to determine the specific function from nature for which 

they are looking. Next, they must discover models in nature 

that accomplish the same task successfully. Once the initial 

phases of identifying the problem have been completed, 

the designer must work through the abstract phase where 

they seek to find repeating patterns that achieve the success 

desired. Next, the designer would seek to emulate the same 

processes that nature uses, and finally, they would evaluate 

their results (Biomimicry Institute, 2007). 

Using the biomimicry method, The University of Michigan 

has developed a layered plastic based on the brick-andmortar 

molecular structure of a seashell (Biomimicry and 

Nanotechnology, 2007). Kotov describes the synthetic 

material, which is stronger than plastic but lighter and more 

transparent, as nearly “a plastic steel” (Biomimicry and 

Nanotecnology, 2007, p. 1). The potentials for this plastic 

could lend to lighter, stronger armor for military personnel 

and police officers as well as their vehicles. There could 

also be applications “in microelectromechanical devices, 

microfluidics, biomedical sensors and valves, and unmanned 

aircraft” (Biomimcry and Nanotechnology, 2007, p. 1). 

Kotov (2007) and his associates describe how they were 

able to solve a significant problem that has baffled scientists 


and engineers for years. “Individual nano-size building 

blocks such as nanotubes, nanosheets, and nanorods are 

ultrastrong. But larger materials made out of bonded nanosize 

building blocks were comparatively weak” (Biomimicry 

and Nanotechnology, 2007, p. 1). Kotov explained “When you 

tried to build something you can hold in your arms, scientists 

had difficulties transferring the strength of individual 

nanosheets or nanotubes to the entire material. We’ve 

demonstrated that one can achieve almost ideal transfer of 

stress between nanosheets and a polymer matrix” (p. 1). 

The process of making such a plastic is possible due to the 

creation of a special machine that is able to build material 

one nanoscale layer after another. In much the same way, 

Mother of Pearl, the silver lining of mussel and oyster 

shells, is also built layer by layer. It is described as one of 

the toughest natural mineral-based materials. Imitating this 

same process, the machine uses a robotic arm to take a small 

piece of glass, about the size of a stick of gum, and dip it 

into a vial containing a glue-like polymer solution and then 

into a second vial holding liquid consisting of a dispersion of 

clay nanosheets. Once those layers have dried, the process 

is repeated. It required 300 layers to create a piece of 

material as thick as a sheet of plastic wrap (Biomimicry and 

Nanotechnology, 2007). 

Kotov (2007) explains that the success of the project is due 

to what he refers to as a “Velcro Effect,” which is created 

when the two chemicals are merged on the piece of glass. 

The glue-like polymer is actually polyvinyl alcohol. This 

substance, combined with the clay nanosheets, allows the 

mixture to form cooperative hydrogen bonds. If these bonds 

are broken, they are able to reform another bond in a new 

place. This is one reason why the material is so strong. A 

second reason for its unique strength is in the placement of 

the bonds. They are layered in much the same way as bricks 

would be stacked, in an alternating layer (Biomimicry and 

Nanotechnology, 2007). 

Using much the same technology, National Polymer 

Laboratories in Chagrin Falls, OH, are working to create 

polymeric materials that are used to enhance the capabilities 

of adhesives, coatings, and nanocomposites. Their materials 

can be used to “improve adhesion and bonding properties, 

barrier properties, fire retarding properties, chemical 

resistance, dimensional stability, impact resistance, 

conductivity, electrostatic discharge, and EMI shielding” 

(National Polymer Laboratories, nd, para. 3). 

Risks of Nanotechnology 

While the future of nanotechnology is very promising 

and lucrative, it is still a relatively new form of science/ 

engineering. Consequently, risks are inherent and 

unpredictable. Nanotechnology is multiplying its 

applicability exponentially. Unfortunately, those who are 

researching the social and ethical consequences of the 

applications of these studies have been unable to keep up. 

Therefore, for many nanotechnology developments, those 

risks are still undefined. 

In regard to the process created by the researchers at 

Stanford University for water purification, there lie 

questions about unanticipated health effects. Although 

initial studies did not reveal a release of mass material from 

the coated cotton fabric, it does not mean that over time 

there will not be at least trace amounts of carbon nanotubes 

(CNTs) and silver nanowires (AgNWs) present. At that 

point, it is necessary to know what effect that will have, 

particularly on individuals’ health (Schoen et al., 2010). 

Questions concerning the use of nanotechnology in 

medicine are also of significance. To employ microscopic 

robotic “bugs” to infiltrate the blood stream and annihilate 

foreign intruders in a human may cause many potential 

patients to wonder about their safety and predictability. 

Questions such as: “Can these ‘bugs’ be absorbed by the 

brain?” “What are the required exposure rates to such 

medical robotic bugs?” and “What will be the level of 

damage done?” exist in the minds of medical doctors and 

patients alike. 

Science Daily (2008) published work accomplished by 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHO) describing 

a study they have conducted on the effect of the process 

of making nanotubes on the environment. The benefits 

of carbon nanotubes are exciting. They are 10,000 times 

thinner than a human hair, stronger than steel, more 

durable than a diamond, and they conduct heat and 

electricity with efficiency that competes with copper wires 

and silicon chips. However, the cost to the environment of 

creating such technology has not been studied sufficiently. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution researchers analyzed ten 

commercially made carbon nanotubes. Where toxicity 

studies done before had assumed that all nanotubes were 

the same, this study revealed that the ten nanotubes were 

made of different compositions. The significance of this 

study predicts it will now be more difficult to trace the 

effects of the carbon nanotubes on the environment. In 

studies conducted in the past, these colleagues found that 

the process of manufacturing nanotubes resulted in at least 

15 aromatic hydrocarbons, including four different types 

of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons similar to those found 


health. Nanotechnology is a new science and technology 

just beginning to touch the surface for what it has to 

offer. Many activities that could be incorporated into the 

classroom could be exploratory in nature. Below are a few 

suggestions to guide student research. 

Understanding the nano scale is difficult to grasp. Ask 

students to go to www.nanozone.org/index.htm and click 

on the Super Small icon. Students can use the “Measure 

Yourself” ruler to determine how many nanometers they 

are. This site also offers several interesting activities to 

serve as an introduction to nanotechnology. 

Nanotechnology has been adopted by several industries. 

Students can be divided into groups and asked to pick an 

industry and research how that industry has incorporated 

nanotechnology to meet its needs. Ask students to prepare 

a short presentation describing their results. 

Photo 4: Concerns arise about the ability to control nanoparticles 

once they are admitted into the bloodstream. This illustration 

demonstrates the possibility of nanoparticles passing into the 

brain. Credit: Provided by How Stuff Works. Retrieved from 

www.howstuffworks.com/nanotechnology.htm/printable 

in cigarettes and automobile emissions, being disposed 

into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the study found the 

waste was not handled efficiently. Much of the raw carbon 

was unconsumed and disposed into the atmosphere. The 

research will continue to seek further understanding of the 

costs of such production on the environment (Science Daily 

Staff, 2008). 

However, while the risks to the applications of 

nanotechnology have yet to be defined, and while the 

social and ethical debates about the use of nanotechnology 

are still in development, Congress and President Obama 

have not taken a back seat in this process. These concerns 

have become a “high priority” status. Yet, despite the 

undefined risks, most Americans aware of nanotechnology 

claim to hold a positive attitude toward continued work in 

the field. They expect science and nanotechnology to offer 

greater benefits than risks, and they anticipate new and 

better ways to overcome human disease and improve life 

(Holley, 2009). 

Student Activities 

There are many STEM connections that can be made 

with explorations into the world of nanotechnology. As 

we have seen, there are significant efforts in the field of 

medicine, materials science, manufacturing, and public 

NASA has created a nanotechnology video applicable 

to Grades K-4 and 5-8. It is found at http://search.nasa. 

gov/search/edFilterSearch.jsp?empty=true. To learn 

more about the research NASA is completing in regard 

to nanotechnology, go to http://search.nasa.gov/search/ 

search.jsp?nasaInclude= nanotechnology. 

Interactive websites are also available for teachers to 

provide students fun and interesting ways to learn more 

about nanotechnology. The National Nanotechnology 

Initiative, found at www.nano.gov/html/edu/eduk12. 

html, offers several links through its Education Center. 

The University of Wisconsin-Madison has also created 

a nanotechnology kit to help with instruction. Teacher 

Modules can be downloaded from its site at www.mrsec. 

wisc.edu/Edetc/supplies/kit/index.html to accompany 

the kit. 

Summary 

Nanotechnology opens the door to an exciting new science/ 

technology/engineering field. The possibilities for the uses 

of this technology should inspire the imagination to think 

big. Many are already pursuing such feats through medical 

research in cancer treatment options and environmental 

efforts to aid in water purification and environmental 

protection. Risks associated with this technology have yet to 

be discovered. Consequently, it is imperative that we handle 

the new information we learn daily with responsibility and 

care. We must be cautious to not allow our enthusiasm for 

the potential of great accomplishments to come at the cost 

of what we have already gained. 


References 

AZoM.com Pty.Ltd. (2007). Biomimicry and nanotechnology 

team up to create transparent plastics as strong as steel. 

The A to Z of Nanotechnology. Retrieved from 

www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=5066 

Biomimicry Institute. (2007). Biomimicry Institute. 

Retrieved from www.biomimicryinstitute.org/ 

Chodos, Alan (Editor). American Physical Society. 

(2011). Lens crafters circa 1590: Invention of the 

microscope. Retrieved from www.aps.org/publications/ 

apsnews/200403/history.cfm. 

Dillow, C. (2010, August 31). Electrified cotton filter soaked 

in nanotech cheaply and quickly purifies large volumes of 

water. PopSci. Retrieved from www.popsci.com/science/ 

article/2010-08/cotton-filter-soaked-nanotech-cheaplyand-quickly-purifies-large-volumes-water. 

Ernst, J. (2009). Nanotechnology education: Contemporary 

content and approaches. Journal of Technology Studies, 

35(1), 3-8. 

Evans, J. (2010). Nano-engineered cotton promises to wipe 

out water bugs. Retrieved from www.newscientist. 

com/article/mg20727765.900-nanoengineered-cottonpromises-to-wipe-out-water-bugs.html. 

Freitas, R., Jr. (2009). The future of nanomedicine. Futurist, 

44(1), 21-22. 

Gillani, W. (2010, September 16). U.S. envoy vows to help 

Pakistan rebuild after flooding. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/world/ 

asia/17pstan.html. 

Holley, S. (2009). Nano revolution – big impact: How 

emerging nanotechnologies will change the future of 

education and industry in America (and more specifically 

Oklahoma), an abbreviated account. The Journal of 

Technology Studies, 35(1), 9-19. 

Johns Hopkins University. (2009). New DNA test uses 

nanotechnology to find early signs of cancer. Retrieved 

from http://releases.jhu.edu/2009/08/17/new-dna-testuses-nanotechnology-to-find-early-signs-of-cancer/. 

Klusek, Z. (2007). Nanotechnology: Science or fiction? 

Materials Science-Poland, 25(2), 283-294. 

Lindquist, E., Mosher-Howe, K., & Liu, X. (2010). 

Nanotechnology...what is it good for? (absolutely 

everything): A problem definition approach. Review of 

Policy Research, 27(3), 255-271. 

MIT, The Lemelson-MIT Program. (May 2003). Inventor of 

the Week: James Hiller. Retrieved from http://web.mit. 

edu/invent/iow/hillier.html. 

National Polymer Laboratories. (nd). National Polymer 

Laboratories. Retrieved from www.nationalpolymerlabs. 

com/?gclid=CMLAgpDBm6QCFZZM5QodmDdRGA. 

National Science Teachers Association. (2009). 

Nanotechnology to find cancer. Science and Children, 

47(3), 9-11. 

Porod, W. (2004, November). Nanotechnology: The 

possibilities of a new science. Address delivered to the 

Metropolitan Club, New York, NY. 

Rice University. (2003). The Galileo project. Retrieved from 

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/instruments/telescope.html. 

Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D., Court, E., Martin, 

D., Daar, A., & Singer, P. (2005). Nanotechnology and the 

developing world. PLoS Med 2(5), 383-386. 

Schoen, D., Schoen, A., Hu, L., Kim, H., Heilshorn, S., & 

Cui, Y. (2010). High speed water sterilization using onedimensional 

nanostructures. Stanford, CA: Department 

of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford 

University. 

ScienceDaily. (2008). Nanotechnology in the environment: 

Making sure wonder materials don’t become wonder 

pollutants. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/ 

releases/2008/04/080408132129.htm. 

Amanda S. Roberts is a Ph.D. student 

in the Department of STEM Education 

and Professional Studies at Old Dominion 

University studying teaching methodologies 

for STEM education. Amanda can be 

reached at arobe048@odu.edu. 

Ad Index 

TeacherGeek, Inc............................................C2 

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher...................... 35 

Kelvin...................................................................4 

PTC....................................................................C3 

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

Valley City State University.......................... 40 


Classroom Challenge 

First Aid Challenge 

By Harry T. Roman 

Often, everyday products 

provide examples of technology 

education in action. 

Introduction 

In this challenge, students will be asked to develop a design 

for an off-the-road first aid kit, the kind that can be stored in 

a recreational vehicle (RV). 

Preparing for the Challenge 

There is a bounty of rich literature on first aid that can be 

tapped. Information abounds in books, videos, pamphlets, 

brochures, and via the Internet. This should be mined first 

to understand the most critical aspects of first aid . . . boiling 

it down to its most essential elements to preserve life in the 

event of emergencies in isolated areas. There is also a wealth 

of information available in your school library, and perhaps 

through the nurse’s office. First aid courses taught in your 

school are yet another excellent source of information. 

Consider bringing in members of the community who 

are knowledgeable in first aid materials, equipment, and 

techniques to help orient and educate the students, such as 

visitors and speakers from: 

• Fire department personnel 

• Paramedics 

• Police 

• Emergency services and ambulance providers 

• Hospital emergency room personnel 

• Doctors/nurses 


The Challenge 

The challenge is to design a portable first aid kit that is 

normally carried in an RV, but can also be hand-carried 

or backpacked off road for distances of approximately 1-2 

miles. The limit on the weight of this kit is 20 pounds. 

Consider bringing in members of the community who are 

knowledgeable in first aid materials, equipment, and techniques. 

These presenters can provide lots of experiential knowledge 

about first aid, giving tips about remaining calm and 

concentrating on the most important aspects. They will 

be able to provide guidance on the types of injuries most 

likely to be encountered and the important and potentially 

dangerous post-injury conditions that can often follow, such 

as shock and trauma. 

Other sources of firsthand information to consider, 

especially as they apply to injuries in the outdoors and 

backcountry areas are: 

• Forest rangers 

• Forest firefighters 

• National Park Service rangers 

• Military branches (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force) 

• Boy and Girl Scout organizations 

This phase of the challenge is about gathering important 

information and background knowledge about first aid 

techniques and when and how to apply them. The students 

can summarize the information and experience they gain on 

cards and posters that can show other students what they 

have learned. You can also use this activity as a way to study 

how first aid techniques and procedures have changed over 

the decades. 

The most critical aspect of first aid is to boil it down to its most 

essential elements to preserve life in the event of emergencies in 

isolated areas. 

It seems most prudent, based on what the students have 

learned in the previous section, to identify the kinds of 

injuries most likely to occur out in the wild and prepare to 

include the necessary first aid supplies in their kit to address 

these problems. For instance, the injuries listed below might 

be some likely candidates: 

• Broken bones 

• Deep cuts 

• Falls 

• Eye injuries 

• Puncture wounds 

• Sprained ankles/knees 

• Heat exhaustion/heat stroke 

• Head trauma 

• Back injuries 

• Temperature exposure 

• Water-related injuries/trauma 

• Snakebites 

• Bee stings 

• Allergic reactions 


This is by no means an exhaustive list, but one to get the 

thinking process underway. Mine the information from 

the previous discussions above to fully understand what 

outdoors frequenters might encounter. 

How have medical supplies advanced and changed over the years? 

Should the kit contain a mobile phone in case an injury requires 

quick removal via helicopter? 

Another interesting aspect of this challenge would be to 

investigate how first aid kits have changed. Like any other 

technology, medical technology has seen changes and 

advances. When the professionals discussed earlier come 

to visit your students, maybe they can bring a variety of 

first aid kits so students can see how medical supplies are 

packaged and labeled, as well as the size and shape of the 

products. There are also some other sources of first aid kit 

information that can be looked into. How about contacting: 

• Manufacturers of first aid kits 

• Medical supply manufacturers 

• Large companies with safety staffs 

Ultimately, students involved in this challenge must develop 

ideas to package their first aid products. Their challenge is 

to keep the weight of this kit under 20 pounds. Might they 

use a nylon/lightweight tubular plastic backpack type of 

design to hold all the supplies? Might the kit also contain 

an optional handle for carrying? Should it contain some 

easy-to-view and understand information about treating 

injuries—perhaps laminated and color-coded cards for 

quick reference? 

If an injury is encountered for which quick removal via 

helicopter or other all-terrain vehicle(s) becomes necessary, 

how would such services be contacted? Should the kit 

contain a GPS locator or a way to contact the car’s locator to 

send a message out that way? What about a mobile phone? 

This can be a very practical challenge for the students 

because it touches everyone. We all recognize the 

importance and necessity of being prepared for medical 

emergencies, and yet it also provides an excellent example 

of how good thinking, organization, and planning can 

result in a valuable first aid kit. Often, everyday products 

provide examples of technology education in action. Even 

what appear to be mundane products require a great deal 

of effort so that they work effectively when they are needed. 

How about stretching the activity a bit to see if students 

can also develop a small brochure about safety in the 

woods—including tips and suggestions to avoid injuries in 

the first place. Common sense safety tips can go a long way 

to reducing the need for emergency first aid. 

Be safe and happy. 

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. 


Helping Hand 

Hands-On Challenge 

Show How Engineering Makes a Difference with 

PBS’s Design Squad Nation 

By Lauren Feinberg 

“Helping Hand provided an ‘ah ha’ moment for my students— 

they had this epiphany that engineering really does make life 

easier for people.” 

—Doug Shattuck, Tech Ed Teacher, Concord, MA 

Engineers solve problems and design things 

that matter—they save lives, reduce poverty, 

and protect our planet. Because of engineers, 

airplanes are safer, diseases are prevented, and 

water can be recycled. 

The Helping Hand activity from Design Squad 

Nation invites kids to explore one way engineering 

can help people who have physical challenges, 

such as wheelchair users, by building a grabbing 

device that can pick up and let go of objects at a 

distance. You can spotlight the science concepts 

and drive home the message that engineers make 

a difference by incorporating the related Design 

Squad Nation resources featured in this article: an 

animation explaining how levers work, an episode 

about underwater prostheses, and a video profile 

about an engineer who designs parts for spinal 

implants. 

Everything you need to lead the Helping Hand 

activity is in the Parents, Educators, and 

Engineers section of the website within the 

resource topic Health. Find it at pbskidsgo.org/ 

designsquadnation/parentseducators. 

Identify the Problem 

Challenge your students to build a Helping Hand grabbing 

device that opens and closes and can pick up and move an 

object that is at least two feet away. Discuss who might use 

a device like this. Have kids squeeze their hand to get them 

thinking about the gripping motion. Ask, How does your 

hand help you grip things? (Your thumb and fingers give 

you two sides for pinching something and your muscles 

can apply pressure.) What are some other grabbing devices 

that people use? (Cooking 

tongs, chopsticks, hair clips, 

tweezers, pliers, binder clips, 

etc.) Draw attention to the 

things all grabbing devices 

have in common—two arms 

that grip an item and a way 

Use a 30-second animation to visually 

explain the concept of levers. 

to press the arms 

together in a pinching 

motion. Talk about 

how some grabbing 

devices have a pivot 

connecting the two 

arms (use a pair of 

scissors or pliers as an 

example). Explain that 

the arms are levers 

that pivot around a 

fulcrum. Illustrate 

the concept by showing the 

animation, How Does a 

Lever Work? 

21 • Technology and Engineering Teacher • March 2011 

Download Helping Hand’s Student 

Handout and Leader Notes (which 

have helpful tips for running the activity).

Brainstorm and Design 

Show kids the materials they have to work with (brass 

fasteners, rubber bands, cardboard, sandpaper, string, 

toothpicks, wooden skewers, and a yardstick or paint 

stirrers) and tell them to think about how they’ll use these 

materials to make a Helping Hand grabber. Ask, How will 

your device open and close? How will you make your device 

long enough to reach two feet? How will you control your 

grabber when the device is fully extended? Have kids sketch 

their designs on paper. 

Build and Test 

Your students should choose their best design and build it. 

When they’re ready to test, provide different types of objects 

for them to grab (like tennis balls, cotton balls, plastic 

bottles, paper cups, etc.). Let kids know their grabbers 

may not work as planned and that when engineers solve a 

problem, their first solution is rarely their best. 

Evaluate and Redesign 

Does the grabber have a weak grip? Students can make the 

grabber’s jaws stronger by adjusting the length of the arms 

and the position of the fulcrum. Do objects fall out? Tell kids 

to make sure the jaws close tightly enough, are wide enough, 

and have enough friction to hold on to the objects. Do the 

jaws bend or twist? They can be reinforced with something 

stiff. Students should continue to make adjustments until 

their grabbers are working as intended. 

Share 

Have your students present their Helping Hand grabbers to 

each other. Ask, What are some situations where having a 

longer reach would be handy? What are some examples of 

things engineers make that improve people’s lives? Show the 

Water Dancing episode. Ask kids, What ideas do you have 

for new inventions that would improve people’s lives? Have 

kids share their ideas in the Projects section of the Design 

Squad Nation website. 

In Water Dancing, teams compete to build swim fin prosthetics for a doubleamputee 

dancer who performs underwater. 

Engineering Health: 

A Real-World Connection 

Engineers help people live healthier lives. They make brain 

surgery tools, develop cancer treatments, design prosthetic 

limbs, and even create robots that rescue people from 

dangerous situations. Naphysah Duncan, a biomedical 

engineer and former rhythmic gymnast, designs parts for 

spinal implants that enable people with injured or deformed 

spines to move more freely and naturally. Share her video 

profile, Spinal Implants, with your students. 

Download or stream two-minute video profiles in which kids see real engineers 

in diverse, creative careers. 

Photo: Helen Tsai 


Design Squad Nation co-host Judy Lee Featured 

on NOVA’s Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers 

Photo: Courtesy of WGBH 

What is Judy’s secret? Find out by watching the Emmy-nominated web video 

series NOVA’s Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers. Every two weeks, Secret 

Life of Scientists and Engineers premieres a set of intimate, engaging, and funny 

videos about a new scientist or engineer…who happens to have a secret. Not 

surprising to you, Judy’s secret is that she’s the host of Design Squad Nation! 

Hear Judy talk about the important role her STEM education played in her 

career and how she uses her engineering skills in her everyday life—renovating 

her house, creating a vegetable garden, and even building a doggie door for her 

pug Rosie. View Judy’s video at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/secretlife/ and 

check her out on Design Squad Nation on PBS KIDS GO! (check local listings). 

More on Engineering That 

Makes a Difference 

Extend your students’ learning with more hands-on 

challenges. Look for these activities that let kids explore the 

ways in which engineers improve our lives: 

• Convenient Carrier: Invent a convenient way for 

someone using crutches or a wheelchair to carry small 

personal items. 

• Speedy Shelter: Design an emergency shelter that can fit a 

person and is sturdy and quick to build. 

Order a printed copy of the Design Squad Nation 

Teacher’s Guide. Go to pbskidsgo.org/designsquadnation/ 

parentseducators/guides/ 

Lauren Feinberg is an associate 

editor at WGBH Boston. The 

activity featured in this article 

was developed by the Educational 

Outreach department. WGBH is 

PBS’s single largest producer of TV 

and Web content, serving the nation 

and the world with media resources that inform, 

inspire, and entertain. 

Helping Hand corresponds to ITEEA’s STL Content Standards 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. 


Improve or Perish, Revisited—Again 

By Johnny J Moye and Petros J. Katsioloudis 

The technology and engineering 

profession has not remained 

stagnant and has changed with 

the technological and educational 

requirements of the time. However, 

there is still work to do. 

Students use geometry and spatial awareness to enlarge images 

used in lino-printing. 

Those who do not remember the past are condemned 

to repeat it. One does not have to be a historian 

to realize the truth in those words. It is true of 

words written years ago concerning the health and 

well being of the technology and engineering education 

profession. Karnes (1959) published A Major Problem 

in Education: Improve or Perish and Gallagher (1993) 

published a follow-up to that article with Improve or 

Perish–Revisited. Both authors identified issues critical 

to industrial arts and technology education respectively. 

This article revisits and addresses some of Karnes’ and 

Gallagher’s concerns as well and provides examples of 

how the technology and engineering profession has laid a 

foundation for the improvement of general education in the 

United States. 

In his article, M. Ray Karnes (1959) identified three specific 

concerns facing the industrial arts profession. They were: 

1. “Industrial arts programs may be sharply curtailed.” 

2. As “competition for a place in the curriculum increases, 

industrial arts personnel in America seem to assume, in 

far too many instances, a defensive posture.” 

3. Professionals should take a “positive approach” when 

addressing industrial arts programs. (p. 5) 

In 1993, John V. Gallagher revisited Karnes’ article and 

provided a very detailed list of concerns for what was then 

called technology education. Gallagher opened his article by 

stating: “Except for this author’s substitution of ‘technology 

education’ for ‘industrial arts,’ the warning to the profession 

. . . applies more today than ever before” (Gallagher, 1993, 

p. 28). Two of Gallagher’s concerns were that “colleges 

graduate fewer technology teachers than ever before,” and 

that a “number of technology teacher education programs 

have been discontinued or are scheduled for closing” (1993, 

p. 28). He also discussed how “current national trends 


in education [did] not include technology education nor 

the subject of technology as an imperative area of study” 

(Gallagher, 1993, p. 28). Gallagher’s introductory paragraph 

concluded by stating: “...the profession must dramatically 

increase professional performance and leadership, and cut 

new paths in technology education at all levels” (Gallagher, 

1993, p. 28). 

It was a very different world when M. Ray Karnes (the then 

American Industrial Arts Association President) published 

his article in 1959. A major concern of the United States 

government was “evidence and rumor relating to gains being 

made on the educational front in Russia” (Karnes, 1959, 

p. 5). On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the 

first Sputnik satellite, and “politicians and press attacked 

the nation’s educational system for inadequate math and 

science training. Engineering students flocked to American 

universities” (Miller, 2007, 1). Today, students are no 

longer flocking to universities; in fact the United States 

struggles to produce enough scientists, technologists, 

engineers, and mathematicians (Moye, 2009). 

There is evidence that the technology and engineering 

education profession has evolved over the years to address 

current and future educational needs, but there is still no 

firm consensus concerning the direction of the profession. 

In 1985 the American Industrial Arts Association (AIAA) 

changed its name to the International Technology Education 

Association. In 2010, the International Technology 

Education Association membership voted to change the 

organization’s name to the International Technology and 

Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). Some ITEEA 

members may offer differing views concerning what the 

name change means to them. To the authors of this article, 

the change represents the idea that improving students’ 

technological (STEM) literacy is much more than teaching 

technology; it requires students to learn design and 

engineering principles as well as developing the cognitive 

ability to apply those principles to solve problems. When 

discussing the name change, Starkweather (2008) summed it 

up nicely when he stated, “The real questions ahead may not 

be so much related to a name, but rather to what teaching 

and learning for the current generation of students should 

be like in the years ahead” (p. 26). 

Technology and engineering education presents students 

with problem-based activities that require them to use 

design and engineering principles. These principles 

require a student’s understanding and utilization of STEM 

subject content. Technology and engineering education 

is an excellent vehicle to integrate STEM as well as social 

science information into technology and engineering lesson 

planning (Moye, 2008). It is important to remember that 

the STEM acronym is still relatively new to our vocabulary. 

The ITEEA name change and the fact that technology and 

engineering comprise one half of the STEM acronym (and 

education approach) are examples that the technology 

and engineering profession has not remained stagnant 

and has changed with the technological and educational 

requirements of the time. However there is still work to do. 

A student solders a surface-mounted device in his Electronics 

2 class. 

One of Karnes’ (1959) concerns was that “industrial 

arts programs may be sharply curtailed” due to budget 

constraints, increased core academic requirements, and 

the “increase in tendency to counsel pupils away from 

industrial arts elective courses” (p. 5). Fifty years later, these 

concerns continue to exist. Technology and engineering 

education courses are considered electives in most states, 

and it is difficult for students to include more courses 

into their schedules. Wright, Washer, Watkins, and Scott 

(2008) found that technology education teachers felt that 

there was a strong “lack of respect/status/program value” 

(p. 89) for their programs and that they believed that 

technology education “was used as a dumping ground in 

public secondary education” (p. 90). Gray and Daugherty’s 

(2004) study of what factors influenced students to enroll 

in technology education programs found that respondents 

indicated that high school counselors were not influential 

in their career choice of technology education. These 

feelings may indicate that both faculty and student 

respondents believed that high school counselors did not 


fully understand technology education and thus did not 

direct students into those courses. When asked of the most 

important issues facing the technology and engineering 

profession today, the Pennsylvania state technology 

education supervisor stated: “The major problem facing 

Technology Education is the misunderstanding of 

what we are and offer students” (W. Bertrand, personal 

communication, January 20, 2010). 

Both the Karns (1959) and Gallagher (1993) articles 

expressed concerns that the number of technology 

education programs and the number of teachers those 

programs produced were decreasing. Very much a concern 

then, the situation has become even more critical (Moye, 

2009). So critical that Volk (1997) predicted the demise 

of technology education preparation programs by 2005 

due to decreased enrollment trends. When discussing 

problems facing the profession, Len Litowitz (Millersville 

University) stated that: “There are many problems facing 

technology teacher prep today. Perhaps the greatest 

problem is simply the lack of technology teacher prep 

programs in the U.S.” (personal communication, January 

16, 2010). Wright and Devier (1989) reported that, in 

1987, there was an approximate surplus of 70 industrial 

arts/technology education teachers in the United States, 

“compared to a surplus of 100 the year before” (p. 3). They 

also identified that the number of students enrolled in 

industrial arts/technology teacher education programs 

declined significantly during the 1980s (Wright & Devier, 

1989). Ndahi and Ritz (2003) found that, in 2001, 71 

institutions produced 672 technology education teachers. 

In 2007/2008, 32 institutions produced 258 teachers 

(Moye, 2009). The Ndahi and Ritz (2003) and Moye 

(2009) studies concluded that between 2001 and 2008 the 

number of institutions producing technology teachers 

decreased by 45%, and the number of teachers produced 

decreased by 38%. The demise of technology education 

teacher preparation programs as Volk (1997) had suggested 

has yet to occur, but maintaining the required number 

of technology and engineering teachers is certainly at a 

critical stage. 

Gallagher identified that “technology teachers must change 

the ways they do their professional tasks” (Gallagher, 

1993, p. 28). The technology and engineering education 

profession has taken many steps between 1959, 1993, and 

the present to improve the education it provides students. 

Two very significant events concerning professional task 

guidance were the development of the Jackson’s Mill 

Industrial Arts Curriculum (Snyder & Hales, 1981) and 

the creation of Standards for Technological Literacy: 

A student completes a bread board project in his Electronics I class. 

Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA/ITEEA, 

2000/2002/2007). The Jackson’s Mill document placed 

a focus on the areas of communication, construction, 

manufacturing, and transportation laying the foundation 

for the content that is currently being taught in most 

technology and engineering courses. STL “presents a vision 

of what students should know and be able to do in order 

to be technologically literate” (p. vii). Program names 

(industrial arts/technology education/technology and 

engineering education) and the content taught in those 

programs have evolved over the years. That evolution 

persists, as programs continue to change in order to 

prepare students for science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics-related professions and continued 

education. Program name and content changes are not the 

only concern. Technology and engineering teachers must 

prepare themselves to meet current and future needs. In 

some respects, teachers could be considered the weak 

link in the evolution of change. Sanders (2001) stated 

that “Programs calling themselves ‘technology education’ 

now outnumber ‘industrial arts’ programs six to one” (p. 

51); however, “Four programs in ten still associate with 

vocational education, a slightly higher percentage than did 

so in 1979” (p. 52). When discussing technology teacher 

preparation, Lewis stated: 

The implications for teachers are that they would need at 

minimum to possess some measure of domain knowledge 

in the main disciplinary areas of the standards (such as 


manufacturing, construction, or transportation). Teachers 

should also possess some agreed-upon competence level 

in mathematics and science. There are implications here 

for the retooling of both preservice and inservice teacher 

development programs (2005, p. 50). 

In closing, Karnes (1959) stated: 

The plea here is that every industrial arts teacher in 

America engage in a critical analysis and evaluation of 

industrial arts education in his community, that he make a 

concerted effort in the interest of continued improvement 

of the education program in general and of industrial 

arts in particular. Programs of the highest quality are 

not likely to evolve under the restrictive influences of a 

defensive attitude. Teachers in all phases of education 

are working energetically and aggressively to strengthen 

their respective programs. Poor programs in any field will 

find it increasingly difficult to gain and maintain support; 

the future for industrial arts programs of high quality is 

indeed bright (p. 5). 

Gallagher (1991) concluded his article by stating, “We must 

save our profession. No one else will do it for us” (p. 31). 

The Future is Bright 

In these authors’ opinions, not all is doom and gloom, 

but as previously mentioned, there is still work to do. To 

use an old nautical term, the technology and engineering 

profession must keep a steady strain to move technology 

and engineering education into the future. 

Many indicators show that our profession has maintained 

a steady strain, and the future is bright. Today there are 

more females and minorities enrolling in technology and 

engineering courses than in the past (Sanders, 2001). 

There is an “increase in the number of states that include 

technology education in the state framework” (Dugger, 

2007, p. 14). There is research indicating that technology 

and engineering education helps students perform better 

on their standardized core academic tests (Reed, Harrison, 

Moye, Opare, Ritz, Skophammer, Wells, Kwon, Carlson, 

& Figliano, 2008). Another indicator is that, in 2008-2009, 

the National Assessment Governing Board/National 

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAGB/NAEP) 

developed an assessment tool designed to gauge student 

technological and engineering literacy. The development 

of this assessment tool indicates that the United States 

Government realizes the benefit of the technology and 

engineering education profession and the necessity to 

measure the progress of American students’ technological 

and engineering knowledge. 

A defensive attitude is a deterrent to progress (Karnes, 

1959). Our profession has demonstrated many successes, 

and we must advertise those successes rather than take 

a defensive posture! The technology and engineering 

profession has changed more than just its name over the 

past 40 years. It has changed what is to be taught and how 

to teach and assess what has been taught as well as how 

to perform program evaluations (ITEA/ITEEA, 2003). 

It is time to broadcast what technology and engineering 

education is all about and how it benefits students and our 

nation! For many years our profession has, as Karnes stated, 

“taken a defensive position” (1959, p. 5) when discussing 

our profession. The future is bright for the technology and 

engineering profession, and a defensive position is not 

necessary. 

Karnes (1959) and Gallagher (1993) suggested that 

the industrial arts/technology education profession 

must continue to improve in order not to perish. 

The programs have prospered because leaders have 

recognized this fact and addressed past concerns. Our 

profession will not perish, because we recognize that the 

key to continuous improvement is to visit and revisit 

concerns, again and again. 

References 

Dugger, W. E. (2007). The status of technology education in 

the United States: A triennial report of the findings from 

the states. The Technology Teacher, 67(1), 14-21. 

Gallagher, J. V. (1993). Improve or perish revisited. The 

Technology Teacher, 52(4), 28-32. 

Gray, M. & Daugherty, M. (2004). Factors that influence 

students to enroll in technology education programs. 

Journal of Technology Education, 15(2), 5-19. 



literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, 

VA: Author. 


ITEEA). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological 

literacy: Student assessment, professional development, 

and program standards. Reston, VA: Author. 

Karnes, M. R. (1959). A major problem in education: 

Improve or perish. The Industrial Arts Teacher, 19(2), 5. 

Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design 

as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37-54. 

Miller, B. (2007). Countdown to Sputnik’s 50th anniversary. 

Retrieved from http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item. 

html?action=page&id=1663 

Moye, J. J. (2008). Starting a new technology course? An 

opportunity to develop student technological literacy. 


The Technology Teacher, 68(2), 27-31. 

Moye, J. J. (2009). Technology education teacher supply and 

demand – A critical situation. The Technology Teacher, 

69(2), 30-36. 

Ndahi, H. B. & Ritz, J. M. (2003). Technology education 

teacher demand, 2002-2005. The Technology Teacher, 

62(7), 27-31. 

Reed, P., Harrison, H., Moye, J., Opare, P., Ritz, J., 

Skophammer, R., Wells, J., Kwon, H., Carlson, J., & 

Figliano, F. (2008, February). Yes, there is research 

support for technology education! Paper presented at the 

International Technology Education Association Annual 

Conference. Salt Lake City, UT. 

Sanders, M. E. (2001). Web-based portfolios for technology 

education: A personal case study. Journal of Technology 

Studies, 26(1), 11-18. 

Snyder, J. F. & Hales, J. A. (1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial 

arts curriculum theory. Charleston: West Virginia 

Department of Education. 

Starkweather, K. N. (2008). ITEA name change survey: 

Member opinions about terms, directions, and 

positioning of the profession. The Technology Teacher, 

67(8), 26-29. 

Volk, K. S. (1997). Going, going, gone? Recent trends in 

technology teacher education programs. Journal of 

Technology Education, 8(2), 66-70. 

Wright, M. D., Washer, B. A., Watkins, L., & Scott, D. G. 

(2008). Have we made progress? Stakeholder perceptions 

of technology education in public secondary education in 

the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 

78-93. 

Wright, M. D. & Devier, D. H. (1989, December). An 

impending crisis: The supply and demand of Ohio 

industrial technology teachers 1988-1992. Paper 

presented at the annual convention of the American 

Vocational Association, Orlando, FL. 

This is a refereed article. 

Johnny J Moye, Ph.D. is Supervisor 

of Career and Technical Education in 

Chesapeake, VA. He may be reached at 

johnnyjmoye@gmail.com. 

Petros J. Katsioloudis, Ph.D. is an 

assistant professor in the Department of 

STEM Education and Professional Studies 

at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, 

VA and Ambassador to Cyprus for the 

International Technology and Engineering 

Educators Association. He can be reached 

via email at pkatsiol@odu.edu. 

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. 

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. 

Available in CD format only. Shipping and handling fees apply. 


President’s Message 

By Thomas P. Bell, DTE 

We believe that technological 

literacy can best be achieved in a 

hands-on laboratory environment 

and that we are the ones best 

prepared to deliver it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to serve as your 

President. I can’t begin to tell you how special it is to 

be here. I could begin by thanking everyone who has 

been influential in my development and career but 

I’m sure I would miss someone. I want to thank you, each of 

you, for being a member of ITEEA. I realize I’m singing to 

the choir. Most of my observations revolve around you and 

the value of professional associations. 

If the research is correct, each of you represents all that 

is good in our profession. You are active professionally, 

you seek professional development to improve yourself, 

and you encourage the people around you to do the same. 

You believe in the potential of youth and your ability to 

nurture their development. Believe it or not, your students 

subconsciously monitor the leadership traits you exhibit. 

You lead by example. You are enthusiastic and excited about 

learning, and this trait can be contagious and motivating to 

your students. 

I was fortunate to have had teachers who inspired and 

motivated me—though I was unaware of it at the time. As 

the son of a career army officer, I have moved around my 

entire life. My first experience with industrial arts was in 

a traditional wood shop in Mannheim, West Germany. I 

spent three years of high school there and still reflect on 

the lessons I learned in that shop class. As an Army Brat, 

I learned early on about the five “Ps.” The military is big 

on abbreviations and acronyms, and the five Ps translate 

to: Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. What we 

are really talking about here is another P: Preparation. As 

teachers, you know that preparation for class is imperative. 

An aspect of teaching not often seen by the general public is 

the amount of time that is dedicated to class preparation. A 

prepared teacher walks into class and makes teaching look 

easy. We actively engage students in meaningful activities 

that we ourselves have tested and tried to ensure their 

success. In addition to personal professional development, 

being active in a professional association affords you the 

opportunity to network with other dedicated professionals 

and share ideas. Many of you are active on ITEEA’s 

IdeaGarden listserv. The shared information and resources 

have helped numerous members locate the necessary 

materials they need. It is a wonderful community that all 

members should consider joining—even if you just “lurk.” 

“Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” 

If you recognize this statement you remember The Brady 

Bunch. Marcia was the very popular and perfect older sister 

of Jan. Jan, the middle child, was constantly looking for 

ways to stand out and create her own identity. We could 

easily replace “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia” with “engineering, 


engineering, engineering.” To many, this may sound like 

a threat to technology education, but rest assured that 

technology education and engineering can coexist. Our goal 

remains the same. We believe that technological literacy 

can best be achieved in a hands-on laboratory environment 

and that we are the ones best prepared to deliver it. I believe 

our inclusion of engineering is an appropriate move. It 

is a natural evolution and extension of our technology 

and technological studies. It is an area with which we feel 

somewhat comfortable, yet at the same time we recognize 

its associated challenges. 

By its very nature the engineering community includes 

and embraces the study of technology. However, the 

larger educational community fails to realize the value 

of engineering education, which is well documented by 

its obvious omission in most public schools. The current 

influence of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) initiative has placed increasing 

pressure on schools to better prepare their students for 

a technologically advanced workforce and future. While 

professional development opportunities are prevalent for 

the individual disciplines of science, mathematics, and 

technology, professional development opportunities for 

engineering education are limited at best. If ITEEA is to 

honestly state that it represents the “T” and “E” in STEM, 

we need to do a better job of addressing the needs of the 

engineering education aspect of our mission. According to 

Spence (2010), the study of engineering uses tools such as 

math and science to solve technical problems. If engineers 

view math and science as tools, then we have to ask 

ourselves if we are providing our members with the right 

tools and how to use them. 

If technology educators are going to incorporate engineering 

concepts into their curriculums, several issues need to 

be discussed. First, the two professions must become one 

unified profession. Engineers have the expertise of their 

content, and technology teachers have their expertise in 

pedagogy. It has been suggested that technology teachers 

lack an understanding of what engineering is and what 

engineers do. It has also been stated that engineers don’t 

know how to teach. Together we can share our expertise and 

strengths to form a powerful alliance. 

Second, according to Custer & Erekson (2008), there is 

the serious deficiency in mathematics and science held by 

technology teachers and technology teacher educators. If 

some type of merger between engineering and technology 

education is to be viewed as legitimate, we need to address 

this deficiency. 

Third, we need to address the issue of professional 

development on all levels. The need for better preservice and 

inservice professional development can only be accomplished 

through communication and cooperation between the two 

groups. ITEEA is uniquely situated to provide the necessary 

venue for professional development of both preservice and 

inservice populations of both technology and engineering 

content. The Technology Education Collegiate Association 

(TECA) is an established organization that can support 

the preservice teacher preparation curriculum with 

appropriate technological competitions and experiences. 

These activities need to take on topics that better reflect 

the engineering emphasis we expect of our future teachers. 

The Council on Technology Teacher Education (CTTE) is 

uniquely positioned to address the teacher educator’s needs. 

CTTE’s annual conference presentations and publications 

provide much for the professional development needs of its 

members. This needs to be expanded to include the unique 

needs of engineering educators. 

Lastly, it is through research that we create new knowledge. 

It has been postulated that we in the technology 

education profession lack a research base. A review of the 

presentations given at the ITEEA conferences indicates that 

they often consist of “show and tell”-type presentations. 

Teachers share what they do in their classroom with no 

apparent analysis based on structured research. Other 

professional organizations require presentations to be 

research-based. The engineering profession relies heavily 

on research to optimize the efficiency of its knowledge 

and designs. In an effort to increase our research base and 

expand our research agenda, proposed presentations at the 

ITEEA conference must be critically evaluated for their 

research merit. 

We have been positioning ourselves as a team player within 

the STEM education initiative. To be a good team player 

we need to do more than just assign open-ended problemsolving 

activities. The problem with these activities is that 

the student only brings to the problem his or her knowledge 

from past experience. We need to do a better job of teaching 

them something first and then putting them in a position 

to apply that knowledge. This builds a knowledge base 

and, when coupled with hands-on experiences, it builds 

innovation skills. To be called innovative is a compliment, 

but to be innovative you must first know something and be 

able to apply it. It is through this application and innovation 

of knowledge that we build wisdom. 

In conclusion, let there be no misunderstanding: we look 

to professional associations for opportunities to grow and 


develop professionally. Let us not forget that education is a 

business, and so is the supporting network of professional 

associations. As I think about the competitive nature of 

business, I am reminded about an African proverb that goes 

something like this: 

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. 

It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will 

be killed. 

Every morning a lion wakes up. 

It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve 

to death. 

The moral of the story is: 

It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle. 

When the sun comes up, you better start running. 

I want you to know that your professional association, 

ITEEA, is up and running and providing you with 

exceptional service and products to help you prepare and 

excel in your chosen profession. With your continued 

involvement, we can provide the type of professional 

development opportunities our members expect. 

Resources: 

Custer, R. & Erekson, T. (Eds.)(2008). Engineering and 

technology education: 57th yearbook of the Council on 

Technology Teacher Education (CTTE). 

National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in 

K-12 Education: Understanding the status and improving 

the prospects. 

Spence, A. (2010). Wind vehicles that maximize distance 

and minimize cost. Technology Association of Maryland 

(TEAM) 43rd Annual Conference. 

Thomas P. Bell, DTE is President-Elect 

of ITEEA and an associate professor at 

Millersville University in Millersville, PA. 

He can be reached via email at Thomas. 

Bell@millersville.edu. 

ITEEA’s Foundation for Technology and Engineering 

Educators would like to extend sincere thanks to the 

following donors for their generosity in a recent 

fundraising effort. FTEE awards support programs that 

make our children technologically literate; transfer 

industrial and corporate research into our schools; 

produce models of excellence in technology and engineering teaching; create 

public awareness regarding the nature of technology and engineering education; 

and help technology and and engineering teachers maintain a competitive edge. 

ITEEA’s Foundation for 

Technology and Engineering 

Educators 

Thomas Bell, DTE 

M. James Bensen, DTE 

John R. Brown, DTE 

Jerry Drennan, DTE 

William E. Dugger, Jr., DTE 

William Havice, DTE 

Van Hughes 

Steven W. Moorhead, DTE 

Richard Seymour 

Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE 

Victor Stefan, DTE 


2011 Leaders to Watch 

Those who have contributed to the technology and engineering education field for many years are known for their teaching, 

written work, presentations, research, and recognition received from professional groups. The selected individuals who are 

highlighted here have shown outstanding leadership ability as educators early in their careers. 

This list is by no means inclusive. There are many other professionals in the field with similarly impressive qualifications. 

Individuals who want to recognize other technology and engineering educators with outstanding qualifications should 

forward their vitae and a sponsoring letter to ITEEA for consideration. 

The leaders of our field are our future; we should promote and encourage them to realize their potential. 

Henry L. (Hal) Harrison, III 

Visiting Assistant Professor 

Department of Teacher Education 

Clemson University 

Clemson, SC 

Henry L. (Hal) Harrison III is a visiting 

assistant professor in the Department 

of Teacher Education at Clemson 

University. Hal’s current responsibilities include teaching a 

variety of technical courses within the technology education 

major and updating the undergraduate technology 

education program to align with the International 

Technology and Engineering Educators Association’s 

(ITEEA) Standards for Technological Literacy. Hal holds 

an undergraduate degree from Clemson University and a 

Master’s degree from North Carolina State University. He 

received his Ph.D. from Old Dominion University with a 

major in Occupational and Technical Studies in 2009. 

Hal’s professional experience includes serving on the 

Editorial Review Board for ITEEA’s Technology and 

Engineering Teacher journal, Chairman of the Board of 

Directors for the South Carolina Technology Student 

Association (SCTSA), Secretary/Treasurer for the 

Southeastern Technology Education Conference (STEC), 

and member of the Technology Student Association’s (TSA) 

Competitive Regulations Committee (CRC) among many 

other duties. His research agenda focuses on technological 

literacy, integrative STEM education, television production 

and its incorporation into the STEM classroom, preengineering 

education and its relation to STEM education, 

and children’s engineering concepts. Hal has over 15 

publications and 20 regional and national presentations. 

Recently, Hal has served on the writing team for a National 

Science Foundation Noyce Scholarship that was written 

through a joint effort between Clemson University’s 

Eugene T. Moore School of Education and the newly 

formed Department of Engineering and Science Education. 

In March 2010, Hal received ITEEA’s “Top Rated Peer- 

Reviewed Article Written by College Faculty” Award 

for an article he and Dr. Thomas Loveland published in 

Technology and Engineering Teacher and was also recently 

trained as an Engineering byDesign (EbD) Technological 

Systems course specialist. 

Laura Johnson Hummell 

Assistant Professor 

Applied Engineering and Technology 

Department 

California University of Pennsylvania 

California, PA 

Laura Johnson Hummell has taught 

a multitude of subjects and grade 

levels over the last twenty years. She teaches at California 

University of Pennsylvania as an assistant professor in 

the applied engineering and technology department and 

enjoys being co-advisor for the Technology Education 

Association of California (TEAC) club. Her main duties 

include supervising technology education student 

teachers and teaching technology education assessment, 

instructional methods, and digital communications. 

Her research interests include: 

• Incorporating art and design in engineering and 

technology education. 

• Incorporating service learning projects’ effects on 

technology education recruitment and retention. 

• Designing and implementing effective online education 

instructional strategies. 

• Making science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) courses and careers accessible to 

all students. 


• Integrating students with specials needs in laboratorybased 

courses. 

• Using animation, animatronics, applied robotics, 

nanotechnology, and/or career and technical student 

organizations (CTSO) to increase kindergarten through 

twelfth grade students’ participation in STEM courses 

and careers. 

Laura earned a Bachelor of Science in Education with a 

major in secondary English from The Pennsylvania State 

University, a Master of Science in Education from Old 

Dominion University with a concentration in occupational 

and technical studies, and a doctorate in educational 

leadership with a concentration in instructional 

design from East Carolina University. At ECU, Laura’s 

dissertation focused on how leaders staff and implement 

successful online distance education programs across the 

United States. 

While pursuing her doctoral studies, Laura was a technology 

education teacher and Technology Student Association 

(TSA) advisor in Manteo, Dare County, NC. Her honors 

include the Dare County Teacher of the Year, North 

Carolina TSA Advisor of the Year, First Flight Centennial 

Teacher of the Year, and ITEEA Teacher Excellence awards. 

She is a member of Epsilon Pi Tau, ITEEA, TEEAP, TEAC/ 

TECA, and TSA. 

Todd R. Kelley 

Assistant Professor and P-12 sTEm 

Researcher 

Engineering/Technology Teacher 

Education Program 

Purdue University 

West Lafayette, IN 

Todd Kelley is an assistant professor 

of Engineering/Technology Teacher Education. In April 

of 2008, Todd was hired through a unique P-12 sTEm 

education initiative at Purdue with a specific emphasis on 

the “T” and “E” in STEM. 

Todd received his B.S. in technology education from 

S.U.N.Y Oswego, an M.A. from Ball State University, 

and Ph.D. from the University of Georgia. Dr. Kelley was 

a National Fellow with the Center for Engineering and 

Technology Education. He taught middle and high school 

technology education for nine years in both New York and 

Indiana. As a middle school teacher in Bloomington, IN, 

Todd received a Lilly Creativity Fellowship and a Fulbright 

Memorial Scholarship to travel to England and Japan. 

Todd also received a Monroe County Educator of the Year 

award in 2001. August of 2004 provided an opportunity for 

Todd to teach at the college level at Ball State University 

in Muncie, IN for the 2004-2005 school year before 

pursuing his Ph.D. at UGA under the advisement of Robert 

Wicklein, DTE. 

Todd has conducted several funded research projects 

that have investigated how design-based instruction has 

impacted student learning. The research results have been 

published in the Journal of Technology Education, The 

Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, and The Journal 

of sTEm Teacher Education. Other notable publications 

include co-authoring a chapter in the 2010 CTTE yearbook, 

as well as several articles in Technology and Engineering 

Teacher, the Journal of Technology Studies, and Children’s 

Technology and Engineering. 

Todd has assisted in revising the Ph.D. program in the 

College of Technology at Purdue. The new Ph.D. focuses 

on preparing future technologists for leadership in a 

global economy and teacher educators with an emphasis 

on STEM education. It will advance technology research 

and sharpen the technology definition while maintaining 

the integrity and vitality of the discipline. Its goals are 

to prepare future stewards and leaders of technology 

as a discipline who understand the advancing role and 

importance of technology in society. Todd has helped 

Purdue’s teacher education program revise courses to 

specifically focus on STEM. Todd developed and taught 

the first new graduate course: Building the Philosophy 

of Technology, a rewarding experience for Todd to help 

prepare future scholars, educators, and technologists. Todd 

believes strongly in promoting scholarship and leadership 

within the field of technology education, and these 

opportunities at Purdue help him reach these goals. 

Todd is a native of New York. He lives in West Lafayette, IN 

with his wife, Diane, and four children, Mark, Kate, Alyssa, 

and Ashley. 

Todd has received the following honors: 

• Silvius-Wolansky Outstanding Young Industrial 

Teacher Educator, November 2009. 

• Silvius-Wolansky Outstanding Scholarly Publication, 

March 2009. 

• Research Excellence Award, 2008 eTED Research 

Symposium. 

• International Technology Education Association’s 

Maley Scholarship, Spring 2008. 

• Three-time recipient of Philip Gray Memorial 

Scholarship, University of Georgia. 


Andrew M. Klenke 

Associate Professor 

Department of Technology and 

Workforce Learning 

Pittsburg State University 

Pittsburg, KS 

Andy Klenke is an associate professor 

of Technology Education at Pittsburg 

State University where he prepares students to become 

technology education teachers at the middle and high 

school level. He received his Associate’s degree from 

Brookdale Community College in New Jersey while 

serving in the United States Army. After seven years of 

military service, he moved to Pittsburg, KS and pursued a 

Bachelor’s degree in Technology Education at PSU. After 

graduating, he taught high school technology education 

for five years in Chanute, KS while pursuing his Master’s 

degree in Technology Education. Six of his former high 

school students have gone on to become technology 

education teachers. 

In 1998, Mr. Klenke began teaching the undergraduate 

and graduate courses at Pittsburg State University, where 

he has taught all courses in the technology education 

program, as well as developed courses in STEM and 

Automated Manufacturing. He actively serves on numerous 

departmental, university, and community committees 

promoting technology education at every level. He has 

served as a past officer in the Kansas Technology Education 

Association and has been the PSU TECA advisor and TECA 

Southwest Region Coordinator for 12 years. 

Mr. Klenke is a Council on Technology Teacher 

Education Twenty-First Century Leader Associate 

and has been recognized by International TECA as a 

Distinguished Faculty Advisor. He has recently served 

as the International TECA Advisor, providing change to 

the TECA organization at the national level. He currently 

serves on the ITEEA Board of Directors as the TECA 

Director. Andy is ABD and working towards a Doctorate at 

the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 

Upon completion of the Doctorate, his plans are to focus 

on the Kansas Technology Education Association by 

increasing membership at the state level and engaging 

teachers to become more involved at both the state and 

national levels. He plans to continue working with the 

state department of education to ensure that technology 

and engineering education remains a vital part of the 

educational system in Kansas. 

Johnny J Moye 

Supervisor, Career and Technical 

Education 

Chesapeake Public Schools 

Chesapeake, VA 

Dr. Moye became a Career and 

Technical Education supervisor for 

Chesapeake Public Schools, VA in 2008, 

where he supervises 121 technology education, family and 

consumer sciences, and trade and industrial teachers. After 

serving a successful 27-year United States Navy career, 

Dr. Moye earned his MS in Occupational and Technical 

Studies in 2003 and his Ph.D. in Education (concentration 

in Occupational and Technical Studies) from Old Dominion 

University in 2009. 

While teaching high school technology education in 

Chesapeake, VA for five years, Dr. Moye served as a 

Technology Student Association Co-Advisor, during which 

time his school’s TSA program realized tremendous growth 

and success. Each year several of his students advanced 

to the national level of competition. Dr. Moye’s TSA 

involvement continues, and he has coordinated and judged 

at regional and state events as well as served on the regional 

TSA planning committee. 

Dr. Moye has published articles in education, technology 

and engineering, and career and technical education 

professional journals. He has delivered presentations at 

the regional, state, and national levels. His articles and 

presentations have focused on technology education 

and core academic curriculum alignment as well as 

addressing future challenges facing the technology 

education profession. 

During 2008 and 2009, Dr. Moye participated as a 

steering team member and helped guide the specifications 

and development of the 2014 National Assessment of 

Educational Proficiency – Technology and Engineering 

Assessment. As a member of the Virginia Career and 

Technical Education Supervisors Future of Technology 

Education in Virginia committee, he is helping to 

determine future curriculum needs, delivery methods, 

and assessment. 

Dr. Moye is currently serving as the Virginia Technology 

Education Association (VTEA) President Elect. In 2008 he 

was selected as the VTEA High School Technology Teacher 

of the Year and was presented with the VTEA Achievement 

Award for his performance as the VTEA Elections 

Committee Chair. He was also awarded the Pitsco/Hearlihy/ 


FTE Grant in 2008. In 2009 he received the Old Dominion 

University Outstanding Technology Education Graduate 

Student Award and ITEEA’s Teacher Excellence Award and 

Outstanding Graduate Student Citation. 

Working closely with the school division core area 

supervisors, school administrators, and teachers, Dr. 

Moye will continue to advertise how technology education 

courses align with core academics and aid in student 

achievement. It is well known within the technology and 

engineering ranks that our programs put science and 

mathematics into context, which Dr. Moye hopes to help 

more teachers understand. 

Dr. Moye has been very fortunate to have been mentored by 

Dr. John M. Ritz, DTE of Old Dominion University and Mr. 

Robert F. Head, past Chesapeake Public Schools Career and 

Technical Education Program Director. Their direction, sage 

advice, and friendship have ensured Dr. Moye’s success. 

Terrie Rust 

Technology Education Educator from 

Arizona 

Serving as an Albert Einstein 

Distinguished Educator Fellow 

National Science Foundation 

Arlington, VA 

Terrie Rust has taught technology 

education and career exploration to middle school students 

for eighteen years at Oasis Elementary School in the Peoria 

Unified School District, Peoria, AZ. Her program was 

recognized through ITEEA’s Program Excellence Award in 

March 2010. Terrie’s enthusiasm for the field of technology 

led to the creation of a Girls Exploring Technology (G.E.T.) 

club at her school. The club’s purpose is to provide girls 

with a greater opportunity to explore areas of technology 

in which women are often underrepresented. The program 

was highlighted in the Fall 2006 issue of Illinois Journal of 

Technology Education entitled “Girls Exploring Technology: 

A Program to Involve Girls in Underserved Careers.” She 

was awarded the Visible Difference Award from the Arizona 

Association of Career and Technical Education in 2007 for 

her work with G.E.T. 

Terrie holds B.A., M.A., and M.Ed. degrees. She is a 

member of Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. Terrie serves 

as the AZ state affiliate representative to ITEEA. She is 

also a member of the Association of Career and Technical 

Education at the state and national levels, and the Computer 

Science Teachers Association. She serves on the Editorial 

Review Board for ITEEA’s Technology and Engineering 

Teacher journal. 

Terrie’s teaching merit was recognized by the Arizona 

Technology Industrial Education Association as the 

Industrial Technology Teacher of the Year in 2006, and 

through ITEEA’s Teacher Excellence Award, which she also 

received in 2006. 

In March 2010, Terrie was selected as an Albert Einstein 

Distinguished Educator Fellow. Her fellowship at the 

National Science Foundation’s Education and Resources 

Directorate, Division of Research in Learning in Formal and 

Informal Settings, Lifelong Learning Cluster (LLC) during 

this school year is providing a unique opportunity for input 

into STEM education issues and furtherance of lifelong 

learning opportunities for “students” of all ages. 

Content 

for 

SUCCESS 

Accurate Authoritative Dynamic 

Choose , the best products for 

Technology and Engineering Education 

Goodheart-Willcox Publisher 

800.323.0440 • www.g-w.com 


Branding: Putting a Little Dent 

in the Universe! 

By Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE 

technology and water; we cannot do without it and people 

will never get their fill of it. 

All we have to do is convince enough people that it is 

imperative to our daily lives. 

Our job is to unleash the human 

potential related to technology 

and engineering education and 

make it the most important 

subject in schools. 

“A person can have the greatest idea in the world— 

completely different and novel—but if that person cannot 

convince enough other people, it doesn’t matter.” 

Gregory Berns 

Technology and engineering education is destined 

to become the most important subject in future 

education. This is inevitable when we live in a society 

that needs and uses technology at the pace we are 

seeing today. After all, technology is like water in that: 

It is dynamic and can take on any shape. It can be 

beautiful or ugly. It can be calm or volatile. It gives 

you many advantages, but can cause disaster. It can be 

harnessed or run unabated. We can relate it to work or 

recreation. It creates various moods, from happiness to 

sadness. It can be so sophisticated that it seems like magic 

or so basic that it goes unnoticed. It is everywhere and can 

be linked to everything in our lives. Our opinion relates to 

how it is used or affects us. Two things are certain about 

Branding is personal, involves a commitment, and requires 

dedication to a belief and the enthusiasm to work in a logical 

manner to gain acceptance of an idea. Put another way, 

branding is our way to put a little dent in the universe as it 

relates to technology and engineering education. 

This article addresses the term “branding” and what 

our profession needs to do to “brand” the very essence 

of a subject to which most of us have committed our 

professional lives. Branding something, anything, is a 

personal issue. We are told that we will increase the 

probability of our own successes if we find something that 

we love to do so much that we cannot wait for the sun to 

rise to do it all over again. For many of us, technology and 

engineering education is that personal issue, core issue, and 

sense of purpose that consumes our professional career. Our 

job is to unleash the human potential related to technology 

and engineering education and make it the most important 

subject in schools. 

Branding: What it Means 

Choosing a brand is one thing—building one is another! 

This article will attempt to outline what a genuine brand is 

and how to build it. Branding is not the exclusive domain 

of such products as Coke, Pepsi, Ford, McDonalds, or L.L. 

Bean. It is something that we all can do if we pay close 

attention to our product and become relentless in our quest 

to deliver our brand. 

How can we create a genuine brand? What about our 

product lends itself to an ideal strategy for our brand? What 

kind of effort will it take, and will the payoff be worthwhile? 

These questions lead to others that need to be answered if 

the profession is to be an effective brand creator. 

• What about our product is distinctive? 

• What perception is important to us? 


• Who are our customers? 

• What do we want people to think about us? 

• How do we achieve our desired perception? 

• How do we inform people about who we are? 

• How do we get people to believe and trust in our 

products and services? 

Technology and Engineering Branding 

It is exciting to have an opportunity to address the branding 

issues of our profession. As an association executive, one 

constantly considers factors that position a profession. 

Those factors have to do with branding. The position of a 

profession is very important—and not dissimilar to how 

one’s personal actions position an individual within his or 

her own social community, work environment, or family. 

Associations and professions go through a similar process 

as they take action to position themselves within their 

own community, status within society, and to satisfy their 

professional family members for meaning. 

The very idea of technology and engineering literacy is 

synonymous with constant change. This is change created 

as the result of one’s mindset of never being satisfied with 

the status quo. It is change that is created by one’s ability 

to tinker with one’s own environment to satisfy wants and 

needs. It is also change aimed at constantly improving the 

world around us. 

To be genuine in branding our work, we have to do what 

many call “walking the talk” or “doing what we say we do.” 

It should be our profession’s way of life. The problem in our 

field has been one of walking in areas that are different than 

our talk, or simply just walking in too many different areas. 

Let’s reflect a moment on the brand mindset that many 

parents or educators have of our subject area from the past, 

much of which can only be described as self-sabotage. Have 

we not been thought of as some of the following? 

• Woods, metals, and drafting 

• Pump-handle lamps, gun racks, bigger projects in 

advanced courses 

• Not a place for the high-end student 

• Formerly industrial arts or shop 

• An elective to keep kids in schools 

• Easy course without much math and science 

• Weak sister (brother) to engineering 

• CTE? No, engineering? No, general education? 

This is painful and may be too harsh for many in our field. 

It is also a reason not to get involved in self-sabotage. We 

should be concentrating on where we want to take the 

profession rather than on glimpses of the present or past 

that don’t accurately reflect where the field of technology 

and engineering is headed. These thoughts do prove that 

industrial arts/technology education has had one of the 

strongest brands in all of education. 

Our mission must be one of creating the new brand that 

students of today will reference when they are our ages. It 

must be a brand that internalizes the sum of all impressions, 

a brand that results in a distinctive position in the mind’s 

eye based on perceived emotional and functional benefits. 

A genuine brand, to be truly professional, must have an 

organization that “thinks like a brand” and can count 

on professionals committed to the cause. Our field has 

addressed its needs in so many ways that it is difficult to 

determine the common characteristics of its brand. If the 

characteristics are found, it is equally difficult for those 

involved to achieve agreement. Characteristics of that brand 

should include some or all of the following: 

• Is holistic in thought 

• Not limited to what the teacher knows 

• Its teachers believe in student capabilities 

• Adjusts according to the advancements made in 

technology 

• Unleashes human potential to create, make, do, invent, 

innovate, and more 

• Helps to satisfy human wants and needs 

• Uses technology in the solution of societal problems 

• Integrates science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics 

• An education for ALL students 

Isn’t our brand also about? 

• Creating a better environment 

• Advancing energy solutions 

• Improving our habitats 

• Efficiency in manufacturing, construction, and 

production 

• Developing artificial intelligence 

• Producing new propulsion systems 

• Promoting innovative communication platforms 

• Addressing biotechnology issues 

• Exploring new frontiers 

The vastness of technology and engineering education 

has also been a factor in the branding of our profession. 

We have been diligent professionals addressing the many 

aspects of our field while sending a message that we are 

unfocused. Most of our educators have given little thought 

to creating, managing, or enhancing a genuine brand of 

technology and engineering literacy. As educators, we have 

not thought in terms of a brand, made any type of brand 

promise, communicated an optimal brand message, lived 

the brand, or leveraged the brand. We need to make a 


stronger attempt at doing all of the foregoing. Our success 

is questionable. 

Shaping the Brand 

The field of industrial arts was created to differentiate it 

from the manual training and arts days of the 1920s. Thus, 

in 1939, the American Industrial Arts Association was 

created by a group of professionals who were a part of the 

Epsilon Pi Tau Fraternity. In 1985, the American Industrial 

Arts Association (AIAA) became the International 

Technology Education Association (ITEA) for educational 

reasons, as the world was evolving from an industrial 

world to a technological world. The profession’s content 

was also changing to the technological nature we know 

today. From that educational reasoning came the political 

positioning that has been used by educators more recently 

to position the field within such areas as the science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

community and to further align our field more closely with 

the core subjects. This is viewed as moving the profession 

towards a stronger position within education. 

In 2010, the International Technology Education 

Association (ITEA) became the International Technology 

and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) for 

political reasons. The profession’s position within the 

entire education community was thought to be stronger if 

both technology and engineering content were addressed 

by our profession and association. From this political 

reasoning came the educational position that has become 

the “life’s work” of our educators and the association’s 

work toward having content and instruction that includes 

the engineering community. This “life’s work” began with 

selected educators some time ago and has ITEEA working 

toward the advancement of the COMMONALITIES of 

technology and engineering rather than their differences. 

As a result, ITEEA has become the primary promoter of 

the advancement of technology and engineering for ALL 

within the educational community. The result is a new 

branding and positioning process that will take years to 

grow and mature in the minds of various publics. 

A series of professional steps have been taken since the 

turn of the century that continue to have an influence 

on the field of technology and engineering literacy. 

One major, significant step for both technology and 

engineering literacy came about as a result of the 

Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for 

the Study of Technology document (ITEA/ITEEA, 

2000/2002/2007). Until this time, there was no one solid 

description of the content for teaching about technology. 

Of course, this content attracted the attention of 

engineering educators because of the commonalities of 

technology and engineering. 

Other studies that have provided food for thought and 

progressed thinking have included: 

• Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics, and 

Technology Education (AAAS, 1998) 

• Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving 

Public Understanding of Engineering (NAE, 2008) 

• The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New 

Century (NAE, 2004) 

• Tech Tally: Approaches to Assessing Technological 

Literacy (NAE, 2006) 

• Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the 

Status and Improving the Prospects (NAE, 2009) 

• Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? (NAE, 

2010) 

• Investigating the Influence of Standards: A Framework 

for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology 

Education (NAE, 2002) 

• 2014 Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework 

(NAEP, 2009) 

These studies and research have created content advances 

for technology and engineering literacy and compelled us 

to think about answering the basic branding questions in 

an attempt to describe what is important to our profession. 

They are as follows: 

What about our product is distinctive? 

• Making and doing 

• Invention and innovation 

• Need to achieve, better ourselves and the environment 

or culture around us 

• Teach to satisfy human wants and needs 

What perception is important to us? 

• Want respect 

• Want to contribute and provide education in a quality 

way 

• Provide what America’s kids need 

• Contribute to the betterment of society in this way 

Who are our customers? 

• Our nation’s children 

• The next generation 

• Current and next generation educators 

What do we want people to think about us? 

• That we provided the best education possible during 

our watch 


How do we achieve our desired perception? 

• Hard work 

• Dedication to our ideals 

• Gaining acceptance for technology, innovation, design, 

and engineering in the school curriculum 

• Being tremendous advocates of what we do 

• Constantly staying informed 

• Studying and working in a positive manner 

• Persuading the rest of society to value our subject as 

much as the other subjects in schools 

How do we inform people about who we are? 

• Through what our students can achieve 

• With a constant information campaign 

• By being a stronger part of the larger picture of 

education (STEM) 

• By staying involved with all aspects of education 

(curriculum development, assessment, and 

accreditation) 

• By giving more than we receive in all that we do. 

How do we get people to believe and trust in our products 

and services? 

• Provide positive images of what we do through student 

achievement 

• Complete research on student teaching and learning 

achievement to show the worth of education 

• Showcase successes 

• Constantly striving for success 

You have probably already come up with your additions or 

deletions while trying to answer these questions. That is 

good. However, the questions do not stop here. Branding 

is often thought to be something from a marketing 

department or a new website. Nothing could be further 

from the truth. Branding starts with building a culture 

focused on the needs of the customers. Genuine brands 

focus on the functional and emotional benefits for their 

customers. Every action impacts perception. Perception 

is everything! 

Brand creation begins with passionate leaders. Leaders 

such as Ray Kroc (McDonalds), L.L. Bean (L.L. Bean), 

and Sam Walton (Walmart) started small, but had vision, 

passion, and the leadership ability to build groups 

focused enough to create brands that became successful 

beyond what could be imagined. Building a brand is a 

lifetime commitment. A genuine brand is a “way of life.” 

It is understood and lived by every single person in 

the organization. 

Solidifying the Brand 

What challenges do we face in solidifying the brand that we 

desire? Don’t we have the following needs? 

• Consistency 

• Staying focused 

• Believing in ourselves 

• Being a stronger and more noted advocate 

• Providing strong models of technology and engineering 

education 

Further, it is time for our profession to (1) take another 

look at our standards in terms of establishing focused 

standards for K-12 technological literacy, (2) establish 

core understandings for K-12 engineering literacy, (3) 

integrate these standards to become core standards for K-12 

technological and engineering literacy, and (4) create core 

connections between the STEM subjects. 

The core subjects, such as language and mathematics, have 

now established standards with anticipated assessments 

that have actually narrowed the vastness of their previous 

standards into focal points. For example, the mathematics 

focal points address only the important mathematical topics 

for each grade level. It is believed that such streamlined 

standards will bring more coherence to education and 

consistency from state to state. It is time for technology 

and engineering education to move in this direction for no 

other reason than to make it simpler and easier to brand 

the contributions of this form of education in the minds of 

fellow educators, administrators, parents, the public, and 

more. It is important for technology and engineering to 

make the same advances as science and mathematics. Such 

research will actually enhance the teaching of science and 

mathematics by giving students a purpose for learning. 

Our Charge/Challenge 

I think you have to be a little different to be in our field. I 

believe technology/engineering teachers are some of the 

most creative thinkers in the world, regardless of their 

specialty. Our professionals don’t just want to teach, they 

want to share the fun of what they are doing with others, 

their students, parents, or anyone who will listen. That’s 

what our teachers are about. They may come across as 

shy or reserved. They are not. Put them with any type of 

student and find out. That’s the kind of teacher we want in 

our classrooms and laboratories. That’s the kind of teacher 

that we want related to our brand. 

Our charge or challenge should follow these lines: 

• Develop a profound sense of mission. 

• Challenge each student at his or her own ability level. 


• Unleash one’s human potential to tinker, create, invent, 

design, build, innovate, and more. 

• Capture your passion, turn it into your story, and 

achieve your vision. 

• Expect yourself to be one of the best educators 

possible. 

• Build a profession that is a yardstick of quality for all 

other subjects. 

We must be dedicated to addressing how to effectively 

brand what we do and play a key role in changing the way 

people perceive our profession. Each of us has to find what 

we love most about our profession. State that love simply, 

without the jargon, and then let the rest of the world know. 

All we have to do is make the personal commitment to 

address the concept of branding. Then we must pursue 

branding with the enthusiasm of one who can’t wait for each 

day to dawn, so that we can continue spreading the word. 

When that happens, we will have put our little dent in the 

universe. We will also have created the most important 

subject in future education as a part of our brand. 

Resources: 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

(1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics, and 

technology education. New York, NY: Author. 



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

Author. 


ITEEA). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological 

literacy: Student assessment, professional development, 

and program standards. Reston, VA: Author. 

The National Academies Press. (2004). The engineer of 2020: 

Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, 

DC: Author. 

The National Academies Press. (2006). Tech tally: 

Approaches to assessing technological literacy. 


The National Academies Press. (2009). Engineering in K-12 

education: Understanding the status and improving the 

prospects. Washington, DC: Author. 

The National Academies Press. (2010). Standards for K-12 

engineering education? Washington, DC: Author. 

National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing 

the conversation: Messages for improving public 

understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Academy Press. (2002). Investigating the influence 

of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, 

science, and technology education. Washington, DC: 

National Research Council. 

National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). 2014 

Technology and engineering literacy framework. 


•Completely Online 

•Based on the STL 

•Hands-on Activities 

Kendall N. Starkweather, Ph.D, DTE is 

Executive Director/CEO of the International 

Technology and Engineering Educators 

Association. 

•Designed for Certification 

•Master of Education 

•BS in Education 

Online Masters & Bachelors 

Technology Education Programs 

MORE INFORMATION 

http://teched.vcsu.edu 

teched@vcsu.edu 

800-532-8641 Ext 37444 


SPECIAL OFFER FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH! 

Engineering Design, Second Edition 

A Standards-Based High School Model Course Guide 

Regular Price: $69; Members $62 

Special Price for the Month of March: $49.00! 

Engineering Design offers students the opportunity to understand and apply knowledge 

and skills required to create and transform ideas and concepts into a product that satisfies 

specific customer requirements. 

Students will experience design engineering in the creation, synthesis, iteration, and presentation 

of design solutions and will coordinate and interact in authentic ways to produce 

the form, fit, and function documentation, with appropriate models to completely 

define a product. Highly rigorous. 

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. 

Available in CD format only. 

Shipping and handling fees apply. 


Have You Browsed The ITEEA Product Guide Lately? 

ITEEA’s online Product Guide, located at www.iteea.org/Publications/productguide.pdf is updated 

regularly with the latest in STEM Education Products to help you be the most effective instructor 

possible. 

The Product Guide illustrates ITEEA’s full line of publications and curriculum materials in detail. 

Materials such as: 

• Engineering byDesign 

• STEMCenter for Teaching and Learning 

• Human Exploration Project 

Also, take a look at brand-new products like Preparing the Class of 2020: STEM Education Activities 

for the Elementary Classroom and The Connection to the 21st Century Workforce: Technology 

and Engineering Education. 

If you haven’t checked it out lately, you could be missing important materials to help you in your 

classroom. Take a look today! 

http://www.iteea.org/Publications/productguide.pdf 


Copyrighted Work. All Rights Reserved. 

To define the CAD industry and UNLOCK POTENTIAL in the classroom, PTC has launched 

Creo–a powerful CAD design software suite that prepares your students to become the Engineers of the Future. 

Comprised of four breakthrough technologies, Creo helps users surmount the most pressing challenges in CAD: 

ease-of-use, software interoperability, technology lock-in, and assembly modeling. 

Put Creo to work in your classroom via PTC’s Global Academic Program. With free, comprehensive services, 

including software, training, student assessments, and certification tools–in a flexible curriculum aligned with 

national education standards–the PTC program helps you put students on the path to success. 

Discover first-hand how Creo and PTC’s Global Academic Program provide next-generation CAD solutions for 

next-generation technology students. Stop by PTC booth 315 at the 2011 ITEEA conference and see how Creo 

unlocks potential for today’s students. 

Visit PTC booth 315 and enter to win an Apple iPod Touch (32GB) 

PTC.com/go/schools • creo.ptc.com 


Manufacturing is Cool! 

Through creativity and teamwork, 

engineers make the world 

a better place. 

Peek into a world that inspires 

students to embrace this industry 

and create a positive future. 

manufacturingiscool.com is an 

essential resource for teachers 

to help students learn about 

the exciting, high-paying career 

of Manufacturing Engineering. 

Students will enjoy fun activities 

while exploring the 

future of innovation through 

interesting industry interviews 

and videos, information about 

summer youth programs, scholarship 

opportunities and much more! 

Let’s help our children live their 

dreams and be original thinkers! 

www.smeef.org 

www.manufacturingiscool.com 

313-425-3300

March - Vol 70, No 6 - International Technology and Engineering ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?