3
Leveraging Existing Standards to Improve K–12 Engineering Education

In Chapter 2, the committee concluded that, although it is theoretically feasible to develop content standards for K–12 engineering education, there would be little value in doing so at this time. In this chapter, the committee describes two ways that standards in other subjects can be leveraged to boost the presence and improve the quality and consistency of K–12 engineering education in the United States. These complementary approaches, “infusion” and “mapping,” involve working with existing educational standards at the national and state levels. If used widely and successfully, these complementary approaches could set the stage for a reconsideration of the need for traditional standards for K–12 engineering, but they have value even if such standards are never developed. For infusion and mapping to have the most impact, there must first be a consensus on the core ideas in engineering. Fortunately, although formal agreement on the most important ideas has not yet been achieved, the groundwork for it has been laid (Box 3-1).1

The Infusion Approach

In the context of standards and this report, infusion means including the learning goals of one discipline—in this case engineering—in educational standards for another discipline. Infusion would take advantage of times when standards were being revised to reinforce or articulate connections between ideas in the standards and engineering. Successful infusion would mean: (1) engineering content would be more prominent in standards for science, technology, and mathematics; (2) the relationship between engineering and other STEM disciplines would be clearer; and (3) engineering would be included in student assessments based on the standards.

Existing national and state standards documents present logical opportunities to infuse engineering learning goals. Thus they provide a basis for including engineering in curricula, instruction, assessment, and professional development, which will help establish engineering as a legitimate subject in K–12 education. This does not mean that school systems would suddenly require engineering for graduation or that there would be a widespread demand for engineering courses and stand-alone engineering standards. However, infusion would be a step toward putting engineering on a par with other school subjects in the eyes of students, educators, and the

1

For additional discussion of core ideas, see Chapter 4.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 23
3 Leveraging Existing Standards to Improve K–12 Engineering Education In Chapter 2, the committee concluded that, although it is theoretically feasible to develop content standards for K–12 engineering education, there would be little value in doing so at this time. In this chapter, the committee describes two ways that standards in other subjects can be leveraged to boost the presence and improve the quality and consistency of K–12 engineering education in the United States. These complementary approaches, “infusion” and “mapping,” involve working with existing educational standards at the national and state levels. If used widely and successfully, these complementary approaches could set the stage for a recon- sideration of the need for traditional standards for K–12 engineering, but they have value even if such standards are never developed. For infusion and mapping to have the most impact, there must first be a consensus on the core ideas in engineering. Fortunately, although formal agree- ment on the most important ideas has not yet been achieved, the groundwork for it has been laid (Box 3-1).1 The Infusion Approach In the context of standards and this report, infusion means including the learning goals of one discipline—in this case engineering—in educational standards for another discipline. Infusion would take advantage of times when standards were being revised to reinforce or articulate connections between ideas in the standards and engineering. Successful infusion would mean: (1) engineering content would be more prominent in standards for science, technology, and mathematics; (2) the relationship between engineering and other STEM disciplines would be clearer; and (3) engineering would be included in student assessments based on the standards. Existing national and state standards documents present logical opportunities to infuse engineering learning goals. Thus they provide a basis for including engineering in curricula, instruction, assessment, and professional development, which will help establish engineering as a legitimate subject in K–12 education. This does not mean that school systems would suddenly require engineering for graduation or that there would be a widespread demand for engineering courses and stand-alone engineering standards. However, infusion would be a step toward put- ting engineering on a par with other school subjects in the eyes of students, educators, and the 1 For additional discussion of core ideas, see Chapter 4. 23

OCR for page 23
24 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? public. It would also put engineering in a position to become more of a partner in improving teaching and learning in science, technology, and mathematics. BOX 3-1 Core Engineering Concepts, Skills, and Dispositions in K–12 Education The committee reviewed eight papers that attempt to identify core concepts, skills, and dispo- sitions appropriate to K–12 engineering education (see annex to this chapter.) Most of these docu- ments provided analyses of existing reports, articles, and other materials, and more than half also included opinions solicited from experts, mostly engineers and engineering educators. Although no two authors or research groups used exactly the same methodology or examined exactly the same source materials, all eight papers identified doing or understanding design—or both—as a “big idea” in engineering. This was the only concept or skill recognized by all. In four of the papers, systems were identified as important, either as a concept or as a skill or disposition (i.e., “systems thinking”), and four identified constraints as a core concept. Four or more identified as important optimization, modeling, and analysis, which are both concepts and practices in engineering design. Communication was judged to be a critical skill in five papers, the same number that identified understanding the relationship between engineering and society as important. Making connections between engineering and science, technology, and mathematics, although a rather general idea that does not fit neatly into any of the three categories, emerged as highly relevant in six of the eight papers. National Standards Science Education Standards. At the national level, the infusion approach is evident in several existing STEM standards (e.g., Sneider and Rosen, 2009; see also Appendix B). For example, National Science Education Standards (NSES) emphasizes the interdependence of science and technology and suggests that students should understand and acquire the capabilities of engaging in technological design (NRC, 1996). In fact, engineering appears in numerous instances in NSES (Box 3-2). Although these do not add up to a comprehensive portrayal of the role of engineering in scientific activities, they do suggest an acknowledgment of the importance of engineering. Although the other set of national science standards, Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), is predicated on a “scientific enterprise” of which mathematics, engineering, and technology are critical components, engineering is rarely mentioned. However, in Science for All Americans (SFAA; AAAS, 1989), which makes a case for scientific literacy and was the foundation for Benchmarks, considerable attention is paid to engineering, especially in the discussion on the nature of technology. Since Benchmarks is presented as an online publication (http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online), it might be possible to transpose the SFAA engineering properties into graded benchmark statements and insert them appropriately. Engineering learning goals could also be inserted elsewhere in Benchmarks—particularly in the chapter on the designed world. The NRC has initiated a new project to develop a framework for the next generation of K–12 science education standards (Robelen, 2010). Because one of four project “design teams” is charged with elucidating the big ideas in engineering and technology, the framework will almost certainly encourage learning goals related to engineering education. The new framework is

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS 25 expected to inform the development of new science standards by Achieve, Inc. (www.achieve. org), which has worked with ACT and The College Board in developing common core standards for English language arts and mathematics (Box 3-3). BOX 3-2 Selected Engineering-Related Concepts, Skills, and Dispositions in the National Science Education Standards Students should make proposals to build something or get something to work better; they should be able to describe and communicate their ideas. Students should recognize that designing a solution might have constraints, such as cost, materials, time, space, or safety. (Grades K–4, p. 137) Children should develop abilities to work individually and collaboratively and to use suitable tools, techniques, and quantitative measurements when appropriate. Students should demonstrate the ability to balance simple constraints in problem solving. (Grades K–4, p. 137) Scientific inquiry and technological design have similarities and differences. Scientists propose explanations for questions about the natural world, and engineers propose solutions relating to human problems, needs, and aspirations. (Grades 5–8, p. 166) Perfectly designed solutions do not exist. All technological solutions have trade-offs, such as safety, cost, efficiency, and appearance. Engineers often build in back-up systems to provide safety. (Grades 5–8, p. 166) Students should demonstrate thoughtful planning for a piece of technology or technique. Students should be introduced to the roles of models and simulations in these processes (Grades 9– 12, p. 192) The daily work of science and engineering results in incremental advances in our understanding of the world and our ability to meet human needs and aspirations. (Grades 9–12, p. 203) SOURCE: NRC, 1996. BOX 3-3 K–12 Engineering Education and the Common Core The goal of the common core initiative, coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, is to increase the rigor and narrow the content of standards for core subjects in grades K–12, as well as to encourage consistent implementation of standards among the states. Although the vast majority of states have indicated a willingness to consider adopting the core standards, the fate of the initiative is still uncertain. Attempts to set common performance measures for student achievement could reveal dramatic differences that have been largely obscured until now by variations among state student assessments. Participating states will be allowed to add as much as 15 percent more content of their choosing to the common standards. This could be an opening for engineering, especially if science is the next subject taken up in the common core process. However, one goal of the com- mon core effort is to restrict the number of student learning goals, which could limit how much engineering content can be added. Even if common core science education standards are not forthcoming, the NRC framework for a new generation of science education standards is expected to include engineering content. Interestingly, one of the states that have indicated they may not participate in the common core initiative is Massachusetts, a leader in K–12 engineering education.

OCR for page 23
26 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? Technology Education Standards. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL; ITEA, 2000) has the most engineering content of the national STEM education standards. Three of the 20 STL standards are explicitly focused on engineering-related ideas and skills (Box 3-4), reflecting the close relationship between technology and engineering. Even STL, however, could increase the infusion of engineering, for example by adding engi- neering in Standard 3 (“The relationships among technologies and the connections between technology and other fields”) and Standard 4 (“The cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology”). This might mean rewording to emphasize the engineering connection rather than adding new content. Reducing, or at least not increasing, the number of student learning goals would be important for STL standards, as it would be for the Benchmarks standards. A change in the emphasis on engineering in STL could most easily and logically be made if and when the standards, now 10 years old, are revised. The timing for such a revision seems advantageous in light of the recent vote by members of the International Technology Education Association to change the name of the organization to the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA, 2010). BOX 3-4 Technological Literacy Standards with an Explicit Focus on Engineering Standard 8: Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design. Standard 9: Students will develop an understanding of engineering design. Standard 11: Students will develop the abilities to apply the design process. SOURCE: ITEA, 2000. Mathematics Education Standards. In contrast to science and technology standards docu- ments, which define technology in very broad terms, mathematics standards have tended to define technology more narrowly (i.e., as electronic tools) and do not refer to engineering at all, except as one of many fields in which mathematics is used (NCTM, 1989, 2000). Nevertheless, connections to engineering are implied in NCTM standards related to (1) problem solving and (2) making connections to subjects outside the mathematics curriculum. For a long time, the mathematics education community has sought to embed the learning of mathematics in actual or concrete problems. The infusion of engineering-related ideas could be one way to accomplish that goal. However, the recently released common core state standards for mathematics do not even contain the word engineer or engineering (CCSSO and NGA, 2010). Other Subjects. Engineering is relevant to many other subjects for which national K–12 content standards have been developed, and infusion could be attempted in these cases as well. The committee did not have the time or resources to examine in depth the standards for geogra- phy, social studies, history, civics, and the arts, but each of these provides potential opportunities for including engineering-related materials.

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS 27 National Assessments. Infusion of engineering-related concepts is also occurring in national assessments, which are based largely on current standards documents. For example, the 2009 science assessment framework of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) requires that 10 percent of test items be devoted to assessing students’ understanding of technological design, which is defined as a “science practice” (WestEd, 2007). A planned assessment of “technology and engineering literacy” being developed by the National Assessment Governing Board places significant emphasis on students’ knowledge of the engineering design process (WestEd, 2010). NAEP results, which are based on national sampling techniques, are important tools for tracking trends in student achievement and are used as benchmarks against certain international assessments. However, because NAEP assessments are considered to be “low stakes,” that is, there are no meaningful consequences tied to good or poor performance, they have had minimal influence on teachers’ instructional practices or students’ motivation (Wise and DeMars, 2003). State Standards Currently, standards at the state level vary widely. Infusion thus will depend on the status of engineering education, the standards already adopted, openness to considering engineering as a significant K–12 discipline, and the level of involvement of postsecondary engineering faculty in K–12 education. Historically, as was noted in Chapter 2, the implementation of national content standards begins when states adapt them for their own purposes. Although both sets of national science education standards and the technological literacy standards are infused to varying degrees with engineering concepts—and more infusion is possible—the question is to what extent these concepts appear—or might appear in the future—at the state level. The possible emergence of common core science standards raises new possibilities, as well as constraints, for the inclusion of engineering learning goals. A few states, including Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington, already include engineering learning goals, often in combination with technology concepts, in their science education standards2 (Jacob Foster, Massachusetts Department of Education, personal communication, 2/3/10).3 Infusion at the state level can take numerous forms. In Minnesota, Nature of Science and Engineering, one of four science-content strands, is meant to be embedded and used in the other three: Physical Sciences, Earth and Space Sciences, and Life Sciences (MDE, 2010). In Washington State, engineering ideas related to systems and problem solving are included as cross-cutting “essential academic learning requirements” (State of Washington OSPI, 2009)). In New York, science standards related to Analysis, Inquiry, and Design include learning goals related to engineering design (NYSDE, 1996a), and standards related to Interconnectedness: Common Themes, address a 2 Although the committee considers it unlikely, one or more state standards for mathematics may include engineering-related content. However, because of budgetary and time constraints, the committee was unable to investigate this possibility. 3 Koehler et al. (2006) mapped concepts from their own framework (Koehler et al., 2005) for high school engineering education to state science standards and found some alignment in nearly every state, with higher correspondence in states in New England and the Mid-Atlantic region. The researchers’ alignment methodology relied on a very broad definition of engineering, however, and it is not clear that all of the instances of engineering in science standards would be classified that way by others.

OCR for page 23
28 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? number of key engineering ideas, such as systems thinking, models, and optimization (NYSDE, 1996b). Engineering design is also addressed in the New York standards for technology education. Tennessee K–12 science standards include “embedded technology and engineering standards” alongside science standards at each K–12 grade band (TDE, 2009). Design and Tech- nology, one of seven sections in Vermont’s science, mathematics, and technology standards, includes standards related to technological systems, outputs and impacts, and designing solutions (State of Vermont DOE, 2000). Massachusetts’ Standards for Science and Technology/Engineering includes a separate set of “engineering/technology” standards (MDOE, 2006). The state also has an assessment in place that includes engineering-related items. One way to satisfy the science requirements for gradua- tion in Massachusetts is to pass the technology/engineering assessment. However, very few students at the high school level have opted to take the test. In 2009, just 2 percent of ninth grad- ers and 1 percent of tenth graders did so (MDESE, 2009). Most students chose to satisfy this requirement by taking an assessment in either biology or physics. The 10-year process that led to the inclusion of engineering in the Massachusetts K–12 stan- dards highlights some of the challenges to the infusion approach. For example, three of the key stakeholder groups—science educators, technology educators, and the engineering community— often disagreed about where engineering belonged in the curriculum.4 Foster (2009) noted that this disagreement affected how readily technology/engineering was accepted as an element in the science curriculum. The state has added licensure processes for new technology/engineering teachers, but very few are being trained. The fact that the existing pool of technology educators was grandfathered into the new system has caused confusion about who is actually qualified to teach engineering. A remaining problem, according to Foster, is that technology/engineering coursework is not counted as science credit for the purposes of college admission by the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education or by the National Collegiate Athletic Association for the purposes of scholarship eligibility. These examples illustrate some of the difficult issues involved in stan- dards implementation. The Mapping Approach In this report, “mapping” is understood as drawing attention explicitly to how and “where” core ideas from one discipline relate to the content of existing standards in another discipline. Unlike infusion, which is a proactive effort to embed relevant learning goals from one discipline into standards for another, mapping is a retrospective activity to (1) draw attention to connections that may or may not have been understood by the developers of the standards; (2) increase the likelihood that educators will use engineering contexts as vehicles for making other subjects, such as science, more engaging; and (3) suggest that engineering materials might be used as a basis for developing curricula or teacher professional development programs. One limitation of mapping is that some important engineering concepts or skills may not map to existing standards. 4 A similar debate occurred recently in New Jersey with a different result. In June 2009, the New Jersey Board of Education elected to add engineering learning goals to revised standards for technology education rather than to science standards, although the latter was seriously considered by state officials (McGrath, 2009).

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS 29 Examples of Standards Mapping Mapping has been used in other disciplines with some success. For instance, the ocean science community launched a mapping effort in 2004 that culminated, in 2007, with the identification of seven “essential principles” and 44 “fundamental concepts,” which were then mapped to NSES (NRC, 1996). The mapping has been illustrated as a matrix in a brochure suit- able for classroom use or as a resource for curriculum development (NGS, 2007). Since 2007, an informal network of ocean literacy organizations has continued to refine this approach and recently released a set of “conceptual flow diagrams” linking the ocean literacy principles to specific learning goals in four K–12 grade bands (see http://www.coexploration.org/ocean literacy/usa/ocean_science_literacy/scope_and_sequence/home.html). The diagrams resemble the concept mapping in the two-volume AAAS Atlas of Science Literacy (2001, 2007). The ocean literacy mapping exercise has contributed to the establishment of grant programs at the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), has influenced the development of new K–12 and postsecondary instructional materials, has been incorporated by several states into revisions of K–12 science standards, and has influenced programming at informal science education institutions (NMEA, 2009; Strang, 2008). The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2009), in concert with more than two dozen partner organizations, mapped ideas in climate literacy to both NSES and the Benchmarks to Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993). These efforts were influential in grant decisions by federal agencies, and several states have indicated that they intend to use the mapping in revisions of their science standards (Frank Niepold, NOAA, personal communication, February 2, 2010). Similar mapping exercises have been conducted in neuroscience (SFN, 2008), Earth science (www.earthscienceliteracy.org), and atmospheric science (http://eo.ucar.edu/asl/pdfs/ASLbro- chureFINAL.pdf). As an alternative to adding environmental science to the curriculum, the Resources for Environmental Literacy series (NSTA, 2007) uses environmental “essential questions” to foster specific learning goals from NSES and Benchmarks. It was developed by the Environmental Literacy Council and the National Science Teachers Association. Mapping Engineering to Other Standards In theory, engineering concepts, skills, and dispositions could be mapped not only to standards in the closely related STEM subjects of science, mathematics, and technology, but also to standards in other subjects, such as history, civics, and art, in which advances in technology and engineering have been important factors. As attention increases on the importance of K–12 education in preparing young people for jobs and postsecondary education, engineering-related links to readiness standards for the workforce and college provide another opportunity for mapping. In career technical education, for example, the State Career Clusters Initiative (www.career clusters.org) promotes knowledge and skill statements in 16 areas, including STEM subjects, as well as architecture and construction; arts, audio/video technology, and communication; information technology; and manufacturing. A 2007 survey revealed that 23 of 46 states were at a “mid-level stage” of implementing programs of study consistent with the career clusters framework (NASDCTEc, 2007).

OCR for page 23
30 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? The goal of the American Diploma Project (ADP; www.achieve.org/ADPNetwork) by Achieve, Inc. is to promote college readiness through the adoption by states of ADP benchmarks in English and mathematics. Four cross-disciplinary proficiencies are embedded in the bench- marks, all of which are potentially relevant to engineering: research and evidence gathering; critical thinking and decision making; communications and teamwork; and media and tech- nology. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills has developed an outcomes-based framework (P21, 2009) that suggests the skills, knowledge, and expertise students will need to succeed in the workplace and in their lives outside of work. Among the recommended skills are creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration, traits consistent with engineering habits of mind proposed by the Committee on K–12 Engineer- ing Education (NAE and NRC, 2009). Mapping at the State Level Because of the strong influence of state standards on what happens in classrooms and on teacher preparation in public institutions of higher education, a mapping strategy at the state level might be very effective. However, given the number and variability of standards from state to state, mapping efforts will have to overcome significant practical challenges. For example, a core engineering idea that maps to the science standards in one state may or may not map to the standards in another state, and determining the alignment for 50 different states would be a major undertaking. (If common core science standards are adopted, the alignment problem would be less difficult, at least in theory.) Software has been developed by the Syracuse University Center for Natural Language Processing (www.cnlp.org) that can be used to find content matches between and among state standards. Teach Engineering (www. teachengineering.org), a project of the National Science Digital Library, is using this and related software to map the content of national and state science, technology, and mathematics standards5 to its collection of more than 800 engineering-related curricular units, lessons, and activities. Conclusion This chapter describes infusion and mapping as complementary approaches that offer alternatives to the development of stand-alone content standards for K–12 engineering education. Engineering-related ideas have already been infused into some national and state standards, and more infusion will be possible as existing standards are revised. A few examples of standards mapping and some evidence of the efficacy of this approach suggest that mapping may be a viable tactic. Both approaches could be impacted by what happens with common core standards, particularly if standards for science, which has provided more fertile ground for connecting to engineering than mathematics, are developed. The prospects for infusion and mapping will almost certainly improve if an agreement can be reached on the core concepts, skills, and 5 The standards used in the analysis are in the collection of the Achievement Standards Network (www.achievementstandards.org),

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS 31 dispositions of engineering at the K–12 level. Some progress has been made in this regard, but more will be necessary to achieve a meaningful consensus. References AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1989. Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington, DC: AAAS. AAAS. 1993. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS. AAAS. 2001. Atlas of Science Literacy, Volume 1. Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS. AAAS. 2007. Atlas of Science Literacy, Volume 2. Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS. ASEE CMC (American Society for Engineering Education Corporate Member Council). 2008. K–12 STEM Guidelines for All Americans. Available online at http://www.asee.org/ activities/organizations/councils/cmc/upload/2009/CMC_K–12_STEM_Guidelines_for_all_ Americans.pdf. (January 27, 2010) CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) and NGA (National Governors Association). 2010. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Available online at http://www.core standards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf. (September 8, 2010) Childress, V., and C. Rhodes. 2008 Engineering student outcomes for grades 9-12. The Technology Teacher 67(7): 5–12. Childress, V., and M. Sanders. 2007. Core engineering concepts foundational for the study of technology in grades 6–12. Paper presented the National Symposium to Explore Effective Practices for the Professional Development of K–12 Engineering and Technology Education Teachers. Feb. 11–13, 2007. Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas. Available online at http://www. conferences.ilstu.edu/NSA/papers/ChildressSanders.pdf. (January 27, 2010) Custer, R.L., J.L. Daugherty, and J.P. Meyer. 2009. Formulating the conceptual base for secondary level engineering education—a review and synthesis. Paper presented at the NAE Workshop on Standards for K–12 Engineering, Washington, D.C., July 8–9, 2009. Available online at http://www.nae.edu/Programs/TechLit1/K12stds/WorkshoponStandardsforK–12 EngineeringEducation/15095.aspx. (January 27, 2010) Foster, J. 2009. The Development of Technology/Engineering Concepts in Massachusetts Academic Standards. Paper presented at the NAE Workshop on Standards for K–12 Engineering, July 8–9, 2009, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.nae.edu/ Programs/TechLit1/K12stds/WorkshoponStandardsforK–12EngineeringEducation/ 15163.aspx. (February 4, 2010) Hacker, M., M. DeVries, and A. Rossouw. 2009. CCETE Project: Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education—Results of the International Research Study. Available online at http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/ctl/ CTL_Edu_Initiatives_CCETE_revised.pdf. (March 12, 2010) ITEA (International Technology Education Association). 2000. Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Reston, VA: ITEA. ITEEA (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association). 2010. ITEA Officially Becomes ITEEA. News release, March 1, 2010. Available online at http://www.iteea.org/AboutITEEA/NameChange.pdf. (April 30, 2010) Koehler, C., E. Faraclas, S. Sanchez, S.K. Latif, and K. Kazerounian. 2005. Engineering Frameworks for a High School Setting: Guidelines for Technical Literacy for High School

OCR for page 23
32 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? students. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Available online at http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id=21254. (February 26, 2010) Koehler, C., D. Giblin, D.M. Moss, E. Faraclas, and K. Kazerounian. 2006. Are Concepts of Technical & Engineering Literacy Included in State Curriculum Standards? A Regional Overview of the Nexus between Technical & Engineering Literacy and State Science Frameworks. Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Available online at http://soa.asee.org/paper/conference/paper-view.cfm?id=1712. (February 5, 2010) McGrath, E. 2009. K–12 engineering standards in NJ. Presentation to the NAE Workshop on Standards for K–12 Engineering, Washington, D.C., July 8–9, 2009 MDE (Minnesota Department of Education). 2010. Minnesota Academic Standards. Science K–12. 2009 Version. May 24, 2010. Available online at http://education.state.mn.us/ mdeprod/groups/Standards/documents/Publication/013906.pdf. (September 2, 2010) MDOE (Massachusetts Department of Education). 2006. Massachusetts Science and Tech- nology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. October 2006. Available online at http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf. (March 31, 2010) MDESE (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education). 2009. Spring 2009 MCAS Tests: Summary of State Results. Table 30: 2009 statewide MCAS results: Classes of 2011 and 2012 number and percentage of students in grades 9 and 10 scoring Needs Improvement (NI) or higher in high school science and technology/engineering. Available online at http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2009/results/summary.pdf. (February 4, 2010) NAE and NRC (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council). 2009. Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Committee on K–12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. NASDCTEc (National Association of Directors of Career and Technical Education Consortium). 2007. Career Clusters and Programs of Study: State of the States. April 2007. Available online at http://www.careerclusters.org/resources/publications/State_of_the_States_Report.pdf. (February 12, 2010) NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Stan- dards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. NCTM. 2000. Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. NGS (National Geographic Society). 2007. Ocean Literacy. The Essential Principles of Ocean Sciences. K–12. An Ocean-Oriented Approach to Teaching Science Standards. Available online at http://www.coexploration.org/oceanliteracy/documents/OceanLitChart.pdf. (February 10, 2010) NMEA (National Marine Educators Association). 2009. Special Report #3: The Ocean Literacy Campaign. Impacts of the Ocean Literacy Principles. December. Ocean Springs, MS: NMEA. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) Press. 2007. Resources for Environmental Literacy Series: Five Teaching Modules for Middle and High School Teachers. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. NYSDE (New York State Department of Education). 1996a. Learning Standards for Mathe- matics, Science, and Technology. Revised Edition, March 1996. Standard 1: Analysis,

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS 33 Inquiry, and Design. Available online at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/ mststa1_2.pdf. (March 31, 2010) NYSDE. 1996b. Learning Standards for Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Revised Edition, March 1996. Standard 6: Interconnectedness—Common Themes. Available online at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/ciai/mst/pub/mststa6_7.pdf. (March 31, 2010) P21 (Partnership for 21st Century Skills). 2009. P21 Framework Definitions. Available online at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf. (February 12, 2010) Robelen, E.W. 2010. Work begins on “next generation” of science standards. Education Week. February 10, 2010. Sneider, C. 2006. Draft Learning Progressions for Engineering Design. Boston Museum of Science, November 12, 2006. Unpublished. Sneider C., and L.P. Rosen. 2009. Towards a vision for engineering education in science and mathematics standards. Paper presented at the NAE Workshop on Standards for K–12 Engi- neering, Washington, D.C., July 8-9, 2009. Available online at http://www.nae.edu/Pro- grams/TechLit1/K12stds/WorkshoponStandardsforK–12EngineeringEducation/15091.aspx. (February 2, 2010) SFN (Society for Neuroscience). 2008. Neuroscience Core Concepts. The Essential Principles of Neuroscience. Available online at http://downloads.climatescience.gov/Literacy/Climate %20Literacy%20Booklet%20Hi-Res.pdf. (February 10, 2010) State of Vermont DOE (Department of Education). 2000. Vermont’s Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities. Fall 2000. Updated 3/10/10. Available online at http://educa- tion.vermont.gov/new/pdfdoc/pubs/framework.pdf. (March 31, 2010) State of Washington OSPI (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction). 2009. Washing- ton State K–12 Science Learning Standards. June 2009. Available online at http://www.k12. wa.us/Science/pubdocs/WAScienceStandards.pdf. (March 31, 2010) Strang. C. 2008. Education for ocean literacy and sustainability: Learning from elders, listening to youth. The Current: The Journal of Marine Education 24(3). Ocean Springs, MS: National Marine Educators Association. TeachEngineering. 2009. Quality Review Rubric for Engineering Content. Available online at http://www.teachengineering.org/documents/TE_Engr_reviewcriteriarubric_061008toNewR eviewersCoBranded.pdf. (February 14, 2010) TDE (Tennessee Department of Education). 2009. Users Guide to the Tennessee Science Curriculum Framework. Available online at http://www.state.tn.us/education/ci/sci/doc/ Users_guide.pdf. (March 31, 2010) USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Climate Literacy. The Essential Principles of Climate Science. A Guide for Individuals and Citizens. Available online at http://downloads.climatescience.gov/Literacy/Climate%20Literacy%20Booklet%20Hi- Res.pdf. (February 10, 2010) WestEd. 2007. Science Assessment and Item Specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Science NAEP 2009. Available online at http://www.nagb.org /publications/frameworks/naep2009-science-specs07.doc. (February 5, 2010) WestEd. 2010. Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework for the 2014 National Assess- ment of Educational Progress. Pre-publication Edition. Available online at http://www. edgateway.net/cs/naepsci/download/lib/249/prepub_naep_tel_framework.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d. (July 8, 2010)

OCR for page 23
34 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? Wise, S.L., and C.E. DeMars. 2003. Examinee motivation in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Higher Education Assessment Conference, Seattle, Washington, June 2003. Available online at http://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/Examinee_Motivation.pdf. (February 10, 2010)

OCR for page 23
LEVERAGING EXISTING STANDARDS ANNEX Core Engineering Concepts, Skills, and Dispositions for K–12 Education, Various Sources Systems thinking Communication2 Experimentation Eng & Society Collaboration/ specific techs3 Knowledge of Nature of eng Optimization Cxs to STM Prototyping Constraints Source Method Creativity teamwork System(s) Modeling Analysis Design1 Hacker et al. (2009) International Delphi Study Custer et al. (2009) Literature review, focus groups, “reaction panel” NAE and NRC,4 Consensus study 2009 ASEE CMC (2008) Meetings of experts Childress and Literature review Sanders (2007) Childress and Focus groups and Rhodes5 (2008) modified Delphi study Sneider (2006) Literature review, experience with curriculum development Koehler et al. Not specified (2005) 8 6 5 5 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 Total 1 Includes both understanding and doing design. 2 Communication includes use of computer and computer-based tools. 3 Includes one or more of the following categories of technology: information and communication, energy and power, transportation, food and medicine, construction. 4 The core concepts, skills, and dispositions from the study were taken from the three principles outlined in NAE and NRC, 2009, Chapter 6. 5 Participants in the Childress and Rhodes Delphi study achieved consensus on 43 “outcome items” for high school students hoping to purse engineering in college. Only those ranked 3.5 or higher (on a 5-point Likert scale) are included in the table. 35

OCR for page 23
36 Core Engineering Concepts, Skills, and Disposition for K–12 Education, Various Sources Decision making Understands eng as career option contemp. issues Knowledge of Specifications Sustainability Use, manage, Functionality Visualization mngmt skills Planning & Leadership assess tech Innovation Study Method Trade-offs Efficiency Optimism Materials Resource Ethics Hacker et al. (2009) International Delphi Study Custer et al. (2009) Literature review, focus groups, “reaction panel” NAE and NRC, Consensus study 2009 ASEE CMC (2008) Meetings of experts Childress and Literature review Sanders (2007) Childress and Focus groups and Rhodes (2008) modified Delphi study STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION? Sneider (2006) Literature review, experience with curriculum development Koehler et al. Not specified (2005) 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total