Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education: 63rd Yearbook of the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (Contemporary Issues in Technology Education) 9819957036, 9789819957033

Citation preview

Contemporary Issues in Technology Education

Scott R. Bartholomew Marie Hoepfl P. John Williams   Editors

Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education 63rd Yearbook of the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education

Contemporary Issues in Technology Education Series Editors P. John Williams, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia Marc J. de Vries, Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

Technology education is a developing field, new issues keep arising and timely, relevant research is continually being conducted. The aim of this series is to draw on the latest research to focus on contemporary issues, create debate and push the boundaries in order to expand the field of technology education and explore new paradigms. Maybe more than any other subject, technology education has strong links with other learning areas, including the humanities and the sciences, and exploring these boundaries and the gaps between them will be a focus of this series. Much of the literature from other disciplines has applicability to technology education, and harnessing this diversity of research and ideas with a focus on technology will strengthen the field. Occasional volumes on a bi-annual basis will be published under the Council for Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE) inside this series. For more information, or to submit a proposal, please email Grace Ma: grace. [email protected].

Scott R. Bartholomew · Marie Hoepfl · P. John Williams Editors

Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education 63rd Yearbook of the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education

Editors Scott R. Bartholomew School of Technology Brigham Young University Provo, UT, USA

Marie Hoepfl Appalachian State University Boone, NC, USA

P. John Williams STEM Education Research Group School of Education Curtin University Perth, WA, Australia

ISSN 2510-0327 ISSN 2510-0335 (electronic) Contemporary Issues in Technology Education ISBN 978-981-99-5703-3 ISBN 978-981-99-5704-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

This yearbook is dedicated in memory of Dr. Paul DeVore, who passed away in August 2022. DeVore’s contributions to theory and practice in technology education were substantial and lasting. His mark on the Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory document was clearly evident to those familiar with his work. As briefly described in Chap. 1 of this yearbook, Jackson’s Mill attempted to provide a unifying structure for the study of technology and systematically described how that structure could be implemented in practice. In 1980, DeVore published Technology: An Introduction. Described as being “designed as part of a professional bookshelf for the college level” (p. xi), the text was a far-reaching effort that laid out a rationale for the study of technology and, most importantly, highlighted the impacts of what he called our “technical means.” More than perhaps any other writer of his time, DeVore advocated for an intellectual study of technology that examined its social, cultural, ethical, and environmental aspects in addition to the technical. He also devoted

attention to the processes used in creating technical means, including invention and innovation. DeVore was a Navy veteran who served in the South Pacific during World War II, and later began his teaching career as a high school teacher in Grove City, PA. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Maryland, a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution, and served as President of the American Industrial Arts Association (now ITEEA). DeVore held teaching and administrative appointments at Grove City College (PA), the State University of New York (SUNY) in Oswego, and West Virginia University, where he taught for over 25 years. His work as a teacher, mentor, researcher, and writer had a powerful influence on his colleagues and students, many of whom went on to become leaders in the field themselves. DeVore, P.W. (1980). Technology: An introduction. Davis Publications, Inc.

CTETE Yearbook Planning Committee

Steve Shumway (Chairperson), Brigham Young University Marie Hoepfl (Co-managing Editor), Appalachian State University P. John Williams (Co-managing Editor), Curtin University Scott R. Bartholomew, Brigham Young University Vincent Childress, North Carolina A&T State University Cameron Denson, North Carolina State University Jim Flowers, Ball State University Ashley Gess, Augusta University Keun-yi Lin, National Taiwan Normal University Thomas Roberts, Bowling Green State University Scott Warner, Millersville University of Pennsylvania

vii

Officers of the Council (2022–2023)

President Clark Greene, Buffalo State University Past-President Steve Shumway, Brigham Young University Vice-President Scott Kelley, Purdue University Treasurer Josh Brown, Illinois State University Secretary Bradley Bowen, Virginia Tech

ix

Proposing a Yearbook

The CTETE Yearbook series is intended as a vehicle for investigating topics or issues related to technology and engineering teacher education through a structured, formal series that focuses deeply on selected themes. The CTETE Yearbook Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving yearbook topic proposals, conducting peer reviews of contributed chapters, and monitoring progress on approved yearbook proposals. Yearbooks are published through an agreement with Springer Nature Publishing Company, as part of its Contemporary Issues in Technology Education (CITE) book series. Individuals interested in proposing a yearbook theme and serving as the guest editor for the proposed yearbook should follow the guide titled Preparing a CTETE Yearbook, which can be found on the CTETE Web site (https://ctete.org/yearbooks/).

CTETE Yearbook Goals Yearbook topics should be ones that: 1. Make a direct contribution to the understanding and improvement of technology teacher education; 2. Add to the body of knowledge about technology teacher education and to the field of technology and engineering education; 3. Do not duplicate publications from other professional groups; 4. Provide a balanced view of the topic rather than a single individual’s or institution’s philosophy or practices; 5. Seek to improve professional practice in technology teacher education; and 6. Raise questions that will serve to generate international dialogue about the topic.

xi

xii

Proposing a Yearbook

The Yearbook Proposal Yearbook proposals must define and describe the theme of the yearbook, providing adequate detail for the Yearbook Committee to evaluate its merits. The proposal should include a rationale for selection of the theme, the primary audience for the yearbook, and an explanation for how the yearbook will advance the technology teacher education profession in particular and Technology Education in general. The proposer(s) will consult with the managing editors to create a full proposal and timeline. Once accepted, the guest editor(s) will work closely with the managing editors to facilitate writing, peer review, and chapter completion. Each yearbook chapter author will be expected to sign a publishing agreement with Springer Nature and in so doing will acknowledge that (s)he will comply with the agreement.

The Yearbook Development Process Generally speaking, the process for completing a yearbook requires two years from acceptance of the full proposal. A multi-stage development process provides three points at which peer review is completed, culminating in final review and approval by the guest and managing editors. Inquiries about prospective topics and the guest editing process should be directed to the yearbook series’ managing editors.

Previously Published Yearbooks

1. Inventory Analysis of Industrial Arts Teacher Education Facilities, Personnel and Programs, 1952. 2. Who’s Who in Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1953. 3. Some Components of Current Leadership: Techniques of Selection and Guidance of Graduate Students; An Analysis of Textbook Emphases, 1954, three studies. 4. Superior Practices in Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1955. 5. Problems and Issues in Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1956. 6. A Sourcebook of Reading in Education for Use in Industrial Arts and Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1957. 7. The Accreditation of Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1958. 8. Planning Industrial Arts Facilities, 1959. Ralph K. Nair, Ed. 9. Research in Industrial Arts Education, 1960. Raymond Van Tassel, Ed. 10. Graduate Study in Industrial Arts, 1961. R. P. Norman & R. C. Bohn, Eds. 11. Essentials of Preservice Preparation, 1962. Donald G. Lux, Ed. 12. Action and Thought in Industrial Arts Education, 1963. E. Svendsen, Ed. 13. Classroom Research in Industrial Arts, 1964. Charles B. Porter, Ed. 14. Approaches and Procedures in Industrial Arts, 1965. G. S. Wall, Ed. 15. Status of Research in Industrial Arts, 1966. John D. Rowlett, Ed. 16. Evaluation Guidelines for Contemporary Industrial Arts Programs, 1967. Lloyd P. Nelson & William T. Sargent, Eds. 17. A Historical Perspective of Industry, 1968, Joseph F. Luetkemeyer Jr., Ed. 18. Industrial Technology Education, 1969. C. Thomas Dean & N. A. Hauer, Eds.; Who’s Who in Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1969. John M. Pollock & Charles A. Bunten, Eds. 19. Industrial Arts for Disadvantaged Youth, 1970. Ralph O. Gallington, Ed. 20. Components of Teacher Education, 1971. W. E. Ray & J. Streichler, Eds. 21. Industrial Arts for the Early Adolescent, 1972. Daniel J. Householder, Ed. 22. Industrial Arts in Senior High Schools, 1973. Rutherford E. Lockette, Ed. 23. Industrial Arts for the Elementary School, 1974. Robert G. Thrower & Robert D. Weber, Eds. xiii

xiv

Previously Published Yearbooks

24. A Guide to the Planning of Industrial Arts Facilities, 1975. D. E. Moon, Ed. 25. Future Alternatives for Industrial Arts, 1976. Lee H. Smalley, Ed. 26. Competency-Based Industrial Arts Teacher Education, 1977. Jack C. Brueckman & Stanley E. Brooks, Eds. 27. Industrial Arts in the Open Access Curriculum, 1978. L. D. Anderson, Ed. 28. Industrial Arts Education: Retrospect, Prospect, 1979. G. E. Martin, Ed. 29. Technology and Society: Interfaces with Industrial Arts, 1980. Herbert A. Anderson & M. James Benson, Eds. 30. An Interpretive History of Industrial Arts, 1981. Richard Barella & Thomas Wright, Eds. 31. The Contributions of Industrial Arts to Selected Areas of Education, 1982. Donald Maley & Kendall N. Starkweather, Eds. 32. The Dynamics of Creative Leadership for Industrial Arts Education, 1983. Robert E. Wenig & John I. Mathews, Eds. 33. Affective Learning in Industrial Arts, 1984. Gerald L. Jennings, Ed. 34. Perceptual and Psychomotor Learning in Industrial Arts Education, 1985. John M. Shemick, Ed. 35. Implementing Technology Education, 1986. Ronald E. Jones & John R. Wright, Eds. 36. Conducting Technical Research, 1987. Everett N. Israel & R. Thomas Wright, Eds. 37. Instructional Strategies for Technology Education, 1988. William H. Kemp & Anthony E. Schwaller, Eds. 38. Technology Student Organizations, 1989. M. Roger Betts & Arvid W. Van Dyke, Eds. 39. Communication in Technology Education, 1990. Jane A. Liedtke, Ed. 40. Technological Literacy, 1991. M. J. Dyrenfurth & M. R. Kozak, Eds. 41. Transportation in Technology Education, 1992. John R. Wright & Stanley Komacek, Eds. 42. Manufacturing in Technology Education, 1993. Richard D. Seymour & Ray L. Shackelford, Eds. 43. Construction in Technology Education, 1994. Jack W. Wescott & Richard M. Henak, Eds. 44. Foundations of Technology Education, 1995. G. Eugene Martin, Ed. 45. Technology and the Quality of Life, 1996. Rodney L. Custer & A. Emerson Wiens, Eds. 46. Elementary School Technology Education, 1997. James J. Kirkwood & Patrick N. Foster, Eds. 47. Diversity in Technology Education, 1998. Betty L. Rider, Ed. 48. Advancing Professionalism in Technology Education, 1999. Anthony F. Gilberti & David L. Rouch, Eds. 49. Technology Education for the 21st Century: A Collection of Essays, 2000. G. Eugene Martin, Ed. 50. Appropriate Technology for Sustainable Living, 2001. R. C. Wicklein, Ed.

Previously Published Yearbooks

xv

51. Standards for Technological Literacy: The Role of Teacher Education, 2002. John M. Ritz, William E. Dugger, & Everett N. Israel, Eds. 52. Selecting Instructional Strategies for Technology Education, 2003. Kurt R. Helgeson & Anthony E. Schwaller, Eds. 53. Ethics for Citizenship in a Technological World, 2004. Roger B. Hill, Ed. 54. Distance and Distributed Learning Environments: Perspectives and Strategies, 2005. William L. Havice & Pamela A. Havice, Eds. 55. International Technology Teacher Education, 2006. P. John Williams, Ed. 56. Assessment of Technology Education, 2007. Marie C. Hoepfl & Michael R. Lindstrom, Eds. 57. Engineering and Technology Education, 2008. Rodney L. Custer & Thomas L. Erekson, Eds. 58. Essential Topics for Technology Educators, 2009. CTTE Yearbook Planning Committee, Eds. 59. Research in Technology Education, 2010. P.A. Reed & J. LaPorte, Eds. 60. Creativity and Design in Technology and Engineering Education, 2011. Scott Warner & Perry Gemmill, Eds. 61. Exemplary Teaching Practices in Technology & Engineering Education, 2016. Marie Hoepfl, Ed. 62. The Mississippi Valley Conference in the 21st Century: Fifteen Years of Influence on Thought and Practice, 2019. Michael K. Daugherty & Vinson Carter, Eds. All previously published yearbooks are available in digital format via the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education Web site (www.ctete.org). Yearbooks 1 through 61 are also digitally archived at Virginia Tech: https://vtechw orks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/5531.

Preface

This yearbook was first discussed in 2021, at the same time that a new structure for Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE) yearbooks was adopted. Notable changes to the yearbook development process have included creation of a managing editor structure, changes in the way the CTETE Yearbook Committee was set up, and establishment of a publication agreement with Springer Nature Publishing Company. These structural changes have yielded some important benefits. The work of contributing authors is now peer review, providing greater incentives for prospective authors. Some of the burden previously borne by the CTETE executive committee in producing the yearbook series has been lessened, with the naming of co-managing editors. Finally, CTETE yearbooks will enjoy a broader international audience thanks to the alliance with Springer Nature. When this yearbook theme was first proposed, the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) had been in print for less than one year. We recognized the opportunity and challenged their existence presented and believed that a yearbook focused on issues surrounding planning and implementation could provide useful perspectives. We were also committed to the importance of situating the standards within a broader international context. To that end, we have assembled a diverse group of authors who have provided unique perspectives on standards implementation.

Provo, USA Boone, USA Perth, Australia

63rd Yearbook Editors Scott R. Bartholomew Marie Hoepfl P. John Williams

xvii

Contents

Part I 1

Standards Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scott R. Bartholomew, Marie Hoepfl, and P. John Williams

Part II 2

3

4

5

6

Introduction 3

Implementation of Standards-Based Programs

Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics, and Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Barnes, Christine Anne Royce, Philip A. Reed, Kelli List Wells, Elizabeth Allan, Geraldine Gooding, and Scott R. Bartholomew The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy and Children’s Psychological Development: A Content Analysis of Engineering Concepts for PreK-Year6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marilyn Fleer Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary Education: The Impact and Implications of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy . . . . . . Joseph S. Furse and Emily Yoshikawa-Ruesch Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher Preparation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoffrey A. Wright, Steven L. Shumway, and Scott R. Bartholomew Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional Development Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tyler S. Love and Kenneth R. Roy

21

39

65

83

95

xix

xx

Contents

Part III Positioning Standards-Based STEM Instruction Within the Broader Educational Context 7

Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Steven L. Miller

8

Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education (STEL) to External Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Edward M. Reeve and Steven Barbato

9

Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Marc J. de Vries

Part IV International Implementation of Standards-Based Curriculum 10 International Applicability of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 P. John Williams 11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation of Technology and Engineering in Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Michael Terfa Angura 12 The Impact of International Technology Education Standards on the Development of a National Curriculum: A Case Study in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Euisuk Sung, Yuhuyn Choi, Ji Suk Kim, Eunsang Lee, and Yunjin Lim 13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM Education in Taiwan: A Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Chih-Jung Ku and Kuen-Yi Lin 14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish Junior Cycle Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Jeffrey Buckley, Niall Seery, Donal Canty, and Rónán Dunbar 15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative European Collaborative STEM Project: Lessons from Ireland and Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Eva Hartell and Eamon Costello 16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education in Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Mart Soobik

Contents

Part V

xxi

Critical Perspectives on Standards-Based Educational Programs

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic . . . . . . . 269 Michael Hacker 18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity, Access and Equity, and Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Molly S. Miller, Scott A. Warner, Mishack T. Gumbo, Idalis Villanueva Alarcón, and Stephen Petrina

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Scott R. Bartholomew is an assistant professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in problem solving and middle and jr. high tech ed curriculum, educational pedagogy and psychology and is the student teacher university supervisor for technology and engineering. His research areas centre on comparative judgement, teacher technology self-efficacy, and computation. Marie Hoepfl is the interim dean in the School of Graduate Studies and a professor in the Department of Sustainable Technology and the Built Environment at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, where she has worked since 1997. Her professional activities have included editing the Journal of Industrial Teacher Education; co-editing the 2007 CTTE yearbook titled Assessment of Technology Education and editing the 2016 CTETE Yearbook titled Exemplary Teaching Practices in Technology and Engineering Education; and serving on the editorial review board of the International Journal of Design and Technology Education. She was the recipient of the ITEEA Public Understanding of Technology and Engineering Education award (2020) and the Gerald Day Excellence in Authorship award (2021). She was a co-PI on the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy project. P. John Williams is a professor of Education and the director of Graduate Research in the School of Education at Curtin University. His current research interests include STEM, mentoring beginning teachers, PCK, and electronic assessment of performance. He regularly presents at international and national conferences, consults on Technology Education in a number of countries, and is a longstanding member of eight professional associations. He is the series editor of the Springer Contemporary Issues in Technology Education and is on the editorial board of six professional journals. He has authored or contributed to over 250 publications and is elected to

xxiii

xxiv

Editors and Contributors

the International Technology and Engineering Education Association’s Academy of Fellows for prominence in the profession.

Contributors Idalis Villanueva Alarcón University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Elizabeth Allan University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, USA Michael Terfa Angura Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Benue State University, Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria Steven Barbato ITEEA, Reston, USA David Barnes National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, USA Scott R. Bartholomew Technology and Engineering Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA Jeffrey Buckley Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, Westmeath, Ireland Donal Canty School of Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Yuhuyn Choi Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea Eamon Costello DCU Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland Marc J. de Vries Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Rónán Dunbar Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, Westmeath, Ireland Marilyn Fleer Conceptual PlayLab, School of Educational Psychology and Counselling, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Joseph S. Furse Department of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA Geraldine Gooding G3 Innovations, Bowie, USA Mishack T. Gumbo University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Michael Hacker Center for STEM Research, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA Eva Hartell KTH Royal Institute of Technology & Haninge Municipality, Stockholm, Sweden Marie Hoepfl Appalachian State University, Boone, USA Ji Suk Kim Gongju National University of Education, Gongju-Si, South Korea

Editors and Contributors

xxv

Chih-Jung Ku Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Eunsang Lee Kong National University, Gongju-Si, South Korea Yunjin Lim Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Jincheon-gun, South Korea Kuen-Yi Lin Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Tyler S. Love Undergraduate Technology and Engineering Education, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, USA; Graduate Career and Technology Education Studies, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, USA Molly S. Miller Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA Steven L. Miller North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA Stephen Petrina University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Philip A. Reed Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA Edward M. Reeve Utah State University, Logan, USA; Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), Bangkok, Thailand Kenneth R. Roy Environmental Health and Safety, Glastonbury Public Schools, Glastonbury, CT, USA; National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), Arlington, USA; National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), Mabank, TX, USA Christine Anne Royce Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, USA Niall Seery Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, Westmeath, Ireland Steven L. Shumway Technology and Engineering Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA Mart Soobik University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia Euisuk Sung New York City College of Technology, Brooklyn, NY, USA Scott A. Warner Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA Kelli List Wells STEM Leadership Alliance, Orlando, USA P. John Williams Curtin University, Perth, Australia

xxvi

Editors and Contributors

Geoffrey A. Wright Technology and Engineering Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA Emily Yoshikawa-Ruesch Department of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Standards Overview Scott R. Bartholomew, Marie Hoepfl, and P. John Williams

Abstract In this chapter, we provide a brief history of standards in technology and engineering education, along with a description of the development process that led to publication of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: The Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA], 2020). This is followed by a short discussion of the content and structure of the yearbook. Finally, we reflect on the role of teachers and teacher educators in implementing the standards. Keywords Technology education · Engineering education · Standards

1.1 The History of Standards in Technology and Engineering Education The roots of modern-day standards within PreK-12 technology and engineering education can be traced back to more than a century ago, with publication of books such as John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916). In it, Dewey laid out a broad philosophical rationale for what should be taught in public schools and, more importantly, why it should be taught. Dewey’s work highlighted the intrinsic value of certain forms of learning, and as such can be considered a precursor to later standards efforts. Dewey’s work and that of many educators who followed shared a common

S. R. Bartholomew Brigham Young University, Provo, USA M. Hoepfl Appalachian State University, Boone, USA P. John Williams (B) Curtin University, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_1

3

4

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

thread: the need to understand the intellectual, cultural, and societal effects of technology in order to be better prepared for success in a technological society (Snyder, 2018). Yet even with the presence of influential documents to serve as guides for the development of curriculum materials, there has remained a persistent dichotomy in the structure of PreK-12 industrial arts and, later, technology and engineering educational programs. On the one hand, the proposed structure of this subject area has been described as preparing all students to be able to critically evaluate the role and impacts of technology and to be able to function effectively within a technological world. By contrast, the field has long struggled with a distinctly vocational orientation that focuses merely on skills development (Zuga, 1997) rather than on the broader ideals of technological literacy. Zuga identified several factors that have contributed to this vocational focus. These have included the reliance of the field on federal financial support for vocational programs, what she called the “inbreeding” of educators who continue to teach in the way they were taught, and the historical dominance of men who serve as classroom teachers in technology education classrooms (Zuga, 1997). In short, the ideals proposed by leaders within the field often failed to translate into teaching practice in the classroom.

1.1.1 Precursors to STEL the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Although a number of important publications have influenced the trajectory of technology and engineering education over the past 100 years (see, for example, Herschbach, 2009; Sanders, 2008; Snyder, 2018; Warner, 2009; and others), three will be briefly mentioned here. These have been selected because they arguably had the greatest and most lasting effects on curriculum development within industrial arts and technology education, at least in the USA. In addition, each is notable for the extent to which it sought to promote the goal of a broader technological literacy that reflects the sociocultural context of technological development and the importance of informed decision making, not just the development of technical skills. By adopting progressive and humanistic stances toward the study of technology (Warner, 2009), these documents (and others) paved the way for the continuing focus on broad technological literacy that is at the heart of STEL (Hoepfl, 2020). The first of these documents was The Maryland Plan (Maley, 1973). Although the plan for the study of technology and industry at the junior high school level was built around conventional subjects such as tools, machines, power and energy, transportation, and communication, the instructional approaches it espoused were not conventional. Maley contended that most school subjects could be meaningfully integrated within the industrial arts classroom, presaging more recent emphases on STEM/STEAM education. His suggestions for use of group projects, anthropological examinations of technologies, research and experimentation, and incorporation of

1 Standards Overview

5

student reports and presentations were designed to achieve learning far beyond mere acquisition of technical skills. The Maryland Plan was sufficiently detailed to serve as a basis for curriculum development, and Maley’s ideas “continue to influence the profession today” (University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 2022). This was followed in 1981 by the Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory (Snyder & Hales, 1981). The document was named for the conference center in West Virginia at which a team of 21 individuals convened to create a comprehensive position paper. Although it was not a long document, Jackson’s Mill was nevertheless ambitious in scope. The authors first made a strong case for the need for a sociocultural study of technology, citing the global impacts of technological development. They then took on the task of creating a theoretical classification system that could be used to structure curricular content within the industrial arts classroom. The “universal system model” described in the document became a ubiquitous feature guiding instruction within many industrial arts and technology classrooms, as did the content organization around manufacturing, construction, communication, and transportation. The beauty of the systems model was that, if used as proposed, it would allow for a comprehensive study of technological systems. For the Jackson’s Mill authors, such an education was imperative: “The survival of the human race …. requires responsible use of resources and technical means which raises value questions that can only be answered realistically by an educated populace” (Snyder & Hales, 1981, p. 22). Nearly 20 years later, the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) was published (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). The scale and scope of this project was reflective of efforts to develop content standards in other disciplines, particularly mathematics and science. With significant funding from the National Science Foundation and NASA, the project ultimately involved hundreds of individuals over a span of several years. Among the 20 content standards that comprised the STL were four that focused on the social, economic, and environmental impacts of technology. STL also mirrored the earlier curriculum theory documents in defining the specific technical subjects that must be covered, expanding Jackson’s Mill’s four areas to a total of seven “designed world” standards. Newly prominent were standards that focused on engineering design. Importantly, a number of companion documents focusing on assessment and implementation were also published, and the ITEEA became strongly committed to creating curriculum materials to aid implementation. Both factors served to broaden adoption of STL, and its influence is still evident today.

1.1.2 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) Development Process In 2018, members of the CTETE executive committee began to discuss in earnest the need for an updated set of educational standards to guide the discipline. The Standards for Technological Literacy were at that time nearly 20 years old, and both

6

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

the scope of technology education curriculum models and educational practices had evolved. This evolution included a more overt focus on integrative STEM and greater attention to delivery of technology and engineering education at the elementary level. That fall, a team of eight educators was assembled to lead the revision effort. (A short video summarizing the STEL development process can be viewed at: https://ctete. org/.) A survey of ITEEA members was launched in November 2018 to gain a better understanding of current usage levels of the original STL and input from members about their vision for revised standards. This survey helped to inform the leadership team. The team created a rationale document to further guide the revision effort (Buelin et al., 2019). This set the stage for the more streamlined version of the standards that eventually resulted, based on the educational literature calling for standards to be fewer in number, more clearly written, and at a higher conceptual level as best practices in standards development. With funding from the National Science Foundation and later from the Technical Foundation of America, a writing team of 39 individuals that included PreK-12 classroom teachers, industry representatives, community college and university educators, and officers from related STEM professional organizations assembled at Chinsegut Hill retreat center in Florida for an intensive four-day writing retreat. The rough draft completed at Chinsegut was compiled by the leadership team and subsequently went through two rounds of intensive review, with additional editing completed after each review stage (Loveland et al., 2020). The fourth and final iteration of the STEL document represents not so much an update of the original STL but rather a complete revision. Notable changes include a decrease in the number of standards (from 20 down to eight) and benchmarks (from 288 down to 142); addition of technology and engineering practices; and use of action verbs to define the benchmarks, rather than conceptual statements that were used in the STL. Perhaps the most important change was the decision to identify comprehensive contexts within which the core standards and practices can be applied, with no expectation that all contexts must be included for an educational program to be complete. This reflected a desire “to move beyond an approach that attempts to cover an overly broad scope of technological and engineering activity to one that more realistically allows for local emphases and variations” (ITEEA, 2020, p. ix).

1.2 Overview of the Yearbook This yearbook is organized into five main sections. Its overarching goal is to provide multiple perspectives on standards implementation and, more specifically, on the current impacts and future potential of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy to influence teaching and learning in technology and engineering education (ITEEA, 2020). The introductory section includes this chapter and the following chapter by David Barnes and colleagues. In Chap. 2, Barnes and his co-authors make the point that

1 Standards Overview

7

despite the long lead time developing and producing standards, their publication marks just the beginning of the process. They note that principles regarding the implementation of STEL can be adopted from the experiences from other content areas. Some of the important considerations taken from standards adoption in other disciplines include the need for curricular materials that are aligned with the new standards, recognizing that alignment with new standards may require more than just tweaking current practices, mapping current curriculum models to determine what needs changing, and creating research-based professional development to prepare teachers. Effective communication with stakeholders is imperative to ensure that both the detail and the spirit of new standards is translated into practice. All levels of education must be involved in a concerted way: national, state, district, school, and classroom. Section Two includes four chapters that focus on implementation of standardsbased programs. Marilyn Fleer focuses on the early childhood and primary years in Chap. 3, analyzing the standards from the perspective of empirical literature on children’s psychological development. The framing concept of cultural-age periods is used to develop an integrated picture of the biological and cultural development of young children. Her content analysis of PreK-2 research suggests that while studies show application of concepts associated with design and materials, there is limited focus on systems, teamwork, and safety. It can therefore be argued that both the research base and the development of standards for teachers at the PreK-2 level are still emerging. The research suggests that introduction of an external client (compared with self as client) for activities at the PreK-4 levels puts a significant cognitive load on children and should be recognized in the standards and resulting curriculum materials. Bringing into the standards terms such as engineering play and playfulness in design thinking (PreK-2) and terms such as imagining designed solutions in imaginary play situations (Yr4-Yr6) could provide a different kind of terminology for locating engineering concepts within an elementary education continuum. In Chap. 4, Joseph Furse and Emily Ruesch examine the standards in the context of secondary school education. The following curricula were identified as aligning with STEL: Engineering by Design, Engineering the Future, and Project Lead the Way. Apart from supporting the standards, what these curricula have in common is a tradition of implementing hands-on, context-rich learning environments in which students are expected to integrate knowledge from many different disciplines, with an emphasis on solving real-world problems using technological tools and processes to develop technological literacy. Key in the development of appropriate pedagogies is the eight practices of systems thinking, creativity, making and doing, critical thinking, optimism, collaboration, communication, and attention to ethics; all of which should also be evident in teacher education programs. This conclusion segues nicely into the focus of Chap. 5, in which Geoffrey Wright and his co-authors focus on alignment between teacher education and the standards. This chapter uses Brigham Young University as an exemplar from which to draw best relevant practices. The practices include (a) a primary focus on the undergraduate program, with sufficient graduate experiences to allow for faculty scholarship; (b) STEL-based courses with an emphasis on content that is conducive to female student

8

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

participation; (c) an active student club or organization and a “family” atmosphere; and (d) integration of both content and pedagogy in all core classes. The final chapter in this section is by Tyler Love and Kenneth Roy and discusses the alignment between the standards and teacher professional development (PD). The importance of PD is well documented in the literature due to the rapid evolution and emergence of technologies and processes that are involved in developing technological and engineering literacy. From a review of current PD programs in technology and engineering and other content areas, as well as from the research literature, Love and Roy developed several guidelines for PD. First, PD models and materials should be based on current research. They should ensure participants have a clear understanding of the philosophical focus and epistemology of the standards. PD models and materials should be developed with direct alignment to emphasis on the STEL core disciplinary standards and should encourage participation and continued collaboration among educators from various disciplines. Participation in PD should help educators develop their curriculum knowledge while avoiding a one size fits all approach, focusing on enhancing educators’ content knowledge related to core technology, engineering, and design concepts, practices, and emerging technological and engineering contexts. Every PD opportunity should incorporate information regarding the design and management of safer teaching/learning environments. It should enhance educators’ pedagogical knowledge, ability to create active-learning experiences, and understanding of formative and summative assessment strategies. The duration and delivery mode of PD should be carefully considered based on the experiences of the audience, location, cost, goals of the PD, and other factors. Finally, Love and Roy recommend that PD efforts should be a collaborative endeavor between pre-service and in-service stakeholders. Section Three of the book positions the standards within the three broader contexts of school administrators, external stakeholders, and researchers. In Chap. 7, Steven Miller discusses the school administrator’s perspective on STEL by providing ways that school-based leaders can support and promote use of standards-based teaching approaches and assessments. In Chap. 8, Edward Reeve and Steven Barbato more generally discuss the need for communicating the standards to external audiences, including all those with an interest in integrative STEM education. These include teacher educators, state supervisors, local school administrators, curriculum developers, practicing teachers, and professional organizations and associations. Methods that can be used to effectively communicate to these groups include website content, webinars and live events, conferences, news releases, social media, and translation of standards materials into other languages to enhance their reach. These efforts are important for developing community relations at the local, regional, state, and federal levels; creating user-friendly documents that highlight research and outcomes directly related to STEL, demonstrating how technology and engineering literacy can improve our society as a whole; optimizing and leveraging business and industry partners to better support the implementation of STEL in PreK-12 settings; and building a new vision with branding through STEL to optimize networking among educational, business, and government groups. The effectiveness of such communication efforts will influence the future viability of technology and engineering education.

1 Standards Overview

9

In Chap. 9, Marc de Vries comments on the importance of evidence-based research to support new innovations, the historical trend from quantitative to qualitative research, and the appropriateness of design-based research because of its direct link with pedagogy. The author shows a range of research types that can be used to support development, implementation, and evaluation of technological literacy standards. “Classical” quantitative research is still done and can be classified into two types: theoretical and empirical studies. Then more contemporary, qualitative, and mixed-method research is discussed: design-based research, action research, and ethnography, all of which have strong ecological validity. Finally, de Vries notes the significant benefits that can be derived from research in which teachers act as researchers. The development, implementation, and evaluation of STEL need a combination of classical and more contemporary studies, and each phase requires different types of methodological approaches. Although research in education is not likely to provide hard evidence for effects, it can most certainly serve a useful purpose for informing policymakers and others involved in educational innovation, to get a research-informed impression of all aspects of standards. Section Four discusses the development and use of standards from a variety of international perspectives from outside the USA. John Williams begins the section in Chap. 10 with an examination of the applicability of STEL in international contexts. There are 19 international ITEEA STEM Centers around the world, and their past use of the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000) and future use of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) have occurred for a range of purposes. Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia have not significantly used the standards, although various groups and individuals within those countries made mention of them. Germany, Finland, Japan, Estonia, and Taiwan have translated the Standards for Technological Literacy (2000) into their national language. STEL has been used in these contexts as a resource for teachers, to inform national curriculum development and as the basis for the development of teacher support materials. The ways in which STEL is promoted and applied should be consistent with a postmodern view of the integrity of local cultures and developments,and the absence of universally applicable approaches. Chapter 11, by Michael Terfa, is the first in a series of country case studies, this one focusing on Nigeria. The Nigerian Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act of 2004 prescribes and enforces the National Minimum Standards specifications for implementation of the curriculum in two segments: six years of Lower Basic Education and three years of Upper Basic Education. Delivery is structured through four primary and junior secondary school individual subjects, namely Basic Science, Basic Technology, Physical and Health Education, and Computer Science/Information Technology. The minimum standards specifications are of three types, including resource standards (classrooms, offices, workshops, PD), process standards (pedagogy, assessment, record keeping, time allocation), and performance standards (examinations). The standards for implementing STEM education in Nigeria are based on the fundamentals of integration and interdisciplinary approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Because STEL is based on a set of eight core disciplinary

10

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

standards, it provides a more focused approach to Technology and Engineering Education compared to the present STEM education in Nigeria. The next country to be discussed is South Korea, by Euisuk Sung and his colleagues, in Chap. 12. South Korea has mandated technology education as a general education subject since 1954. The authors translated and published Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) in Korean to introduce the new standards to Korean educators in response to the challenges presented by developments in computer education; artificial intelligence; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM); and engineering education. The South Korean government funded the distribution of more than 500 copies to public libraries and K-12 schools. The country’s 2022 technology curriculum for the middle school level includes focuses on technology and society, technological problem-solving, invention, materials and manufacturing, structures and construction, biotechnology and medical technology, energy and transportation, robots and automation, artificial intelligence, and information and communication. The influence of STEL on curriculum development has been significant, notably when engineering design as a high school subject was adopted and related content such as automation, robotics, information, and communication was emphasized. Chapter 13 continues the country case study approach in which Chih-Jung Ku and Kuen-Ki Lin discuss standards in Taiwan. Technology education in the USA has played an essential role as a reference for the development of technology education in Taiwan. Curriculum guidelines for Taiwan’s technology education programs, released in 2019, had some similarities with the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy, released by the ITEEA in 2020. The rationale and structure for U.S. technology education consists of the three dimensions: knowledge, processes, and context, while Taiwan’ technology education is based on “doing, using, and thinking”. STEL has served as an important reference for the development of technology curriculum guidelines at the upper secondary level in Taiwan, by highlighting worldwide trends in STEM education and engineering literacy. STEL precipitated a trend toward cultivating students’ engineering design abilities, thinking skills, and integrative knowledge, which has inspired Taiwan’s technology education. Further improvements in STEM and engineering teaching are needed, however. For example, the authors recommend that systematic curriculum documents should be formulated by experts, along with a philosophical structure for technology and STEM education in Taiwan, to support both students and teachers. Ireland is the next country to be analyzed, by Jeff Buckley and his co-authors in Chap. 14. The focus in this chapter is on lower secondary education reforms that have taken place in the areas of formal formative assessment, teacher assessment, common level studies, and increased teacher autonomy, all of which frame complex challenges when it comes to the definition of standards. For example, a key feature of these reforms is increased teacher autonomy. Teachers have the discretion to select their own activities and project work to achieve learning outcomes, which are assessed through three main assessment activities: classroom-based assessments, a project, and an examination. Supporting the identification, implementation, and maintenance of standards is a contextual activity, and the role of teachers in developing a shared

1 Standards Overview

11

construct of capability is critically important. Sustaining creative engagement in technology education is predicated on the valid, reliable, and consistent application of standards. In Chap. 15, Eva Hartell and Eamon Costello describe a European Commission project related to the assessment of transversal STEM skills, with a focus on Ireland and Sweden. Following a literature review, an integrated conceptual framework of standards for the assessment of transversal skills in STEM was developed which became a tool to help educators from different countries reach a common understanding of what integrated STEM education is and how it can be assessed using digital platforms in schools. From this framework, learning outcomes were devised using the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as a basis. The STEL framework contributed to enlarge the T and the E within STEM by providing a rich model of standards that are theoretically derived and can be practically implemented. It was found that by engaging students in real-life problem-solving, the students do not just reproduce facts or existing solutions, and also they extended the solutions to new and novel contexts based on their own transfer and scaffolding of knowledge and problem-solving. The final case study is Estonia, written by Mart Soobik. The Estonian National Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools was adopted in 2011. One of the six fields of the Curriculum is technology education, which has been upgraded many times since 2011. The learning objectives of the most recent iteration are related to terms such as technological literacy, cooperation skills, multicultural world, globalism, and analyzing the influences of technology. The syllabus handles the educational objectives of technology education in a broader and a more global way than in the past. The educational objectives, learning outcomes, and content are similar in their elements to the basic structure of STEL (core, practices, and contexts), and there are other common elements with STEL (e.g., creativity, cooperation, communication, impacts of technology, etc.). STEM education began to be explored in Estonia in the early 2000s, and guidance was sought from the ITEEA Standards for Technological Literacy. For Estonians, this was a novel approach to learning through integrated subjects, and the standards were translated into Estonian. That translation of the 2000 Standards is available through the Estonian Association for Technology Education and is being used by many technology education teachers to support their teaching. Section Five of this yearbook presents a view of the standards through various critical lenses. The first to do this is Michael Hacker in Chap. 17. Hacker is a supporter of the development and use of standards but recognizes their limitations. He suggests there are some questions that should be considered in the adoption and use of standards: Does (and should) the industry standards’ paradigm of conformance apply to people as products of the educational system? Is standardization an antiquated factory system paradigm, and should we not be privileging creativity and uniqueness? How much of the support for Common Core Standards in the USA is coming from moneyed or other vested interests? Can instructional standards be decoupled from high stakes standardized testing? In industry, standards are used to enable interconnectivity and interoperability. They are developed to ensure that products and systems conform. Education standards are designed to set forth the knowledge and skill that students

12

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

should possess after schooling. The author argues that the industrial rationale for standards, that products conform, is not appropriate for products of the educational system—learners who we hope will become divergent thinkers and creative problem solvers. Chapter 18 provides a compilation of critiques from the perspectives of design, indigenous culture, equity and access, and literacy. In the first critique, Molly Miller and Scott Warner conclude that the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy hold up well in a critical review related to designer’s thinking as a focus for educating students. While STEL provides a framework to embrace and foster learning in a variety of contexts and settings, developing awareness and engagement in teachers may be more difficult. Just as the amorphous nature of the standards structure is a strength from the designer’s perspective, it can at the same time be a barrier unless it is communicated effectively. In the second critique, Mishack Gumbo draws on his extensive research experience in indigenous technologies to critique the standards, using Frank Banks’ theory of liberal multicultural education, which has five dimensions: content integration, knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and empowering school culture and social structure. A concerted effort should be made to accommodate indigenous technological knowledge systems in STEM and STEL. This could help relate STEM and STEL well to more subject areas than just science and mathematics and would ensure the growth of students’ literacy in those areas. This could also transform the classroom and school culture by embracing indigenous epistemologies related to STEM. Equity and access become the lens in the third critique, in which Idalis Alarcón presents the (mis)use of the terms of equity, access, and their intersections within the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. One of the central tenets of STEL is literacy, which is defined by ITEEA as a fluid construct, meaning that knowledge, skills, and abilities change over time. Yet the rate of change of these knowledge bases, skills, and abilities can become stagnant if there are no clear considerations of how individuals’ realities are intricately woven into society. From an equity and access perspective (along with their intersections) in STEL, there needs to be further clarification of important terms and practices to help individuals connect their contexts and experiences to the standards. The final critical lens is literacy, which Stephen Petrina discusses in the fourth critique. Petrina argues that we cannot guide or understand literacy without a substantive analysis and discussion of meaning-making, “the complex process by which people glean, understand, interpret, or otherwise make sense of who they are and what is going on in some social context” (Ferrante, 2018, p. 154). Indeed, essential to cognition and culture, literacy is meaning-making. If the standards and benchmarks were established to guide students’ progress toward technological and engineering literacy, then it is no exaggeration that this guidance will be inadequate until meaning-making is included as a core concept or practice. Guidance will be inadequate unless educators acknowledge that making meaning is as important as making things. Literacy or fluency do not lead to meaning-making; rather, meaning-making is central to the development of literacy and fluency.

1 Standards Overview

13

1.3 The Role of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Simply put, for the Standards for Technological and Engineering Education to fulfill its’ stated mission, it must become the vision for our field. Moreover, the field must be broadly defined to include anyone associated with technology and engineering education—teachers, students, administrators, lawmakers, parents, community members, employers, and others. Further, we believe that the success of technology and engineering education is intricately connected to the success of STEL; they will thrive or fade together. After significant effort, STEL—a substantial revision to the 20-year-old Standards for Technological Literacy—was released in 2020. Initial reaction was positive, and a flurry of articles and presentations ensued. However, despite the initial push, STEL has not yet become a unifying vision for our field. Uneven adoption, reluctance to adopt/adapt, and even a simple lack of awareness all contribute to this problem. A recent survey of standards requirements in different states (Bartholomew et al., 2020) and even countries (Bartholomew et al., 2022) reveals that many are not aware of STEL, are still using the original STL, or both. As a unifying vision for our field, STEL must unite and guide the efforts of individuals associated with technology and engineering education. Some recent successes suggest this is possible (e.g., revisions to the Praxis licensure test by Educational Testing Service to align with STEL and the revision of several state standards to align with STEL). This yearbook, which emphasizes standards-based planning and implementation, includes several chapters which offer ideas and potential solutions to this problem of adoption (e.g., Chaps. 2, 8, and 10). Additionally, there are chapters that highlight potential hurdles yet to be overcome (e.g., Chaps. 17 and 18). Regardless of successes or challenges remaining to be tackled, we believe that the necessary level of adoption of the standards has not yet been realized; the vision is not yet in place, and there remains work to be done. Noted author and corporate trainer Joel A. Barker discussed the need for vision and its’ effect on the success of organizations, companies, and groups. A cohesive, guiding, and impactful vision, according to Barker and associates (Vision album, n.d.), must be: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Developed by leaders Shared with the team Comprehensive and detailed Positive and inspiring.

STEL has the potential to satisfy each criterion. Hoepfl begins Chapter 1 with an explanation of the development of STEL by leaders (#1). Reeve and Barbato (Chap. 8) discuss efforts to share STEL with constituents (#2) and offer several suggestions for steps moving forward. Although STEL “is not a curriculum” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 9), it is comprehensive in terms of its breakdown into standards, practices, contexts, and grade-level bands (#3). Lastly, we believe that both the process of creating STEL and

14

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

the current efforts underway are, or can be, positive and inspiring (#4). Within STEL, this vision for our field is clearly stated as preparing students who have developed “the ability to understand, use, create, and assess the human-designed environment that is the product of technology and engineering activity” (ITEEA, 2020, p.8). With each piece of the process in place, and a vision of technology and literacy for students, we posit that STEL has the potential to become the vision for our field. However, potential does not necessarily translate into reality, as aptly stated in this quote that is widely attributed to Joel Barker: Vision without action is merely a dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision with action can change the world.

While the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) “provides an updated vision of what students should know and be able to do in order to be technologically and engineering literate” (ITEEA, 2020, p. ix), STEL alone is “merely a dream” without the accompanying action. The “action” associated with STEL will come in many forms, including academic standards adoption, course and pathway alignment, lesson planning, classroom activity creation, assessment, and more. Further, technological and engineering literacy is a goal focused on using, creating, and assessing. These are all advanced skills (Krathwohl, 2002) that will require students moving beyond basic abilities to remember, understand, and apply academic content knowledge related to technology and engineering. We believe that at least three areas will require renewed emphasis and effort for STEL to truly become the unifying vision it was set out to be. These include: (a) teacher education, (b) professional development, and (c) marketing.

1.3.1 Teacher Education Developing lessons, integrating activities, assessing students, and preparing students with the noted skills (i.e., understanding, using, creating, and assessing) will require more than slideshows, worksheets, and textbooks. Perhaps the most effective place to start making such a change in teacher capabilities is in teacher preparation programs. History shows that this starting point has been effective (e.g., curricular and standardsreform projects of the past such as The Maryland Plan, Jackson’s Mill, and The Standards for Technological Literacy were all adapted by teacher preparation programs). However, old habits, existing projects, and currently utilized laboratories, classrooms, and supplies will need to be rethought, retooled, and realigned. Additionally, it is quite possible that technology and engineering teacher education programs will need to move in reciprocal directions, with students assisting their teachers in revamping and retooling. To align with STEL, the emphasis of teacher education programs in technology and engineering education will need to address both content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (de Miranda, 2018). Educators in teacher

1 Standards Overview

15

education programs will need to first add to their own CK to ensure they are teaching current and future topics. One example is the need to supplement existing knowledge of communication technologies with new and current knowledge related to artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics. Additionally, teacher educators will need to research, practice, and model effective PCK for their students related to the practices outlined in STEL. For example, STEL emphasizes skills such as creativity, making and doing, critical thinking, and collaboration as essential components of technological literacy. Teachers who can effectively model and promote these practices must understand both how they can be demonstrated as well as how they are acquired through exposure and practice.

1.3.2 Professional Development Professional development (PD) for practicing teachers for both CK and PCK will be needed. The content of these PD opportunities will need to clearly and purposefully align to the core disciplinary standards and practices as they are embodied in the context areas outlined in STEL. Moving beyond projects and activities to truly standards-based instructional planning and implementation will require an emphasis on STEL. It is also possible that existing schools, classrooms, laboratories, shops, and facilities will need to be reconsidered and revamped; the context areas of the twenty-first century do not always fit cleanly into twentieth-century educational spaces. Additionally, practicing teachers will need professional development specifically focused on the practices outlined in STEL. Many of these skills will come naturally for students enrolled in technology and engineering classrooms—and many of these skills are already integral to existing projects and activities. However, it is also likely that professional development specifically tailored toward fostering these skills in technology and engineering classrooms will be helpful. Finally, although traditional lesson planning approaches often revolve around activities, many researchers have pointed out more effective ways to plan a lesson. (The curse of activity-focused lessons that are not rooted in deeper conceptual knowledge and skills has long been a concern within technology and engineering education.) Perhaps the most common (and effective) approach to lesson planning is referred to as backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). This is an approach that has withstood the test of time. In it, Wiggins and McTighe propose that lesson planning include first defining the lesson objective, then deciding how they will assess students on the defined objective, and finally engaging in planning the learning experience and instructional approach. Any PD efforts should focus on an effective lesson planning approach (e.g., backward design) that uses all three areas of STEL: standards, practices, and selected contexts. Teachers can use STEL to first define the lesson objectives (in one or more standards, contexts, and/or practices) and then subsequently use STEL to create

16

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

meaningful assessments of those objectives. Finally, the ITEEA created a repository on its website with many examples of learning experiences and instructional techniques that can be used by teachers (https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx).

1.3.3 Marketing A comprehensive strategy for marketing STEL is beyond the scope of this chapter. Reeve and Barbato devote Chap. 8 of this volume to lay out several efforts related to marketing of STEL, some of which have been completed and some that remain to be done. Furthermore, both the ITEEA and the CTETE have established marketing committees focused on this task. Interested readers are encouraged to review these efforts and assist as they are able. However, we feel it important to point out that the most effective marketing of STEL will likely be a grassroots effort with the adoption, use, and advocacy of STEL happening one classroom at a time. As additional classrooms move toward adoption, districts, states, regions, countries, and organizations will follow. This process can and should take time, but too much time prior to a critical mass of adoption may lead to STEL becoming outmoded or irrelevant. The field of technology and engineering education is rapidly and continually changing, and there is always the potential that other standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards) may be substituted. The future impacts of STEL are thus dependent on the efforts of teacher educators, students enrolled in teacher preparation programs, and seasoned classroom teachers. For STEL to truly become the vision for our field, action is required. Changes to teacher preparation programs and existing technology and engineering classrooms will be required. We will need to step up and move forward in our lesson planning, classroom activities, and assessments. We will need to be willing to both adapt and adopt new strategies and ways of doing things. “Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy presents, in a systematic manner, what students should know and be able to do in order to achieve a high level of technological and engineering literacy” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 7). It is up to us to turn this dream into a vision for the future.

References Bartholomew, S. R., Mahoney, M., Warner, S. A., Lecorchick, D., & Shumway, S. (2020). Our curriculum: What exactly do we teach in TEE? Technology and Engineering Teacher, 79(5), 1–8. Bartholomew, S. R., Mahoney, M., Papadopoulos, J., Oliver, S., Sung, E., Lecorchick, D., Wright, G., & Kelley, T. (2022). Technology & engineering education around the world. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 82(1), 8–17.

1 Standards Overview

17

Buelin, J., Daugherty, M. K., Hoepfl, M., Holter, C., Kelley, T., Loveland, T., Moye, J., & Sumner, A. (2019). ITEEA standards for technological literacy revision project: Background, rationale, and structure. ITEEA. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=151454&v=e868d0d8 de Miranda, M. A. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge for technology education. In de Vries, M. (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 685–698). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_47 Ferrante, J. (2018). Places that matter: Knowing your neighborhood through data. University of California Press. Herschbach, D. (2009). Technology education: Foundations and perspectives. American Technical Publishers. Hoepfl, M. (2020, November). Defining technological and engineering literacy. The Technology and Engineering Teacher (electronic version). https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10210625 International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. ITEA. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. ITEEA. https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. Loveland, T., Love, T. S., Wilkerson, T., & Simmons, P. (2020). Jackson’s Mill to Chinsegut: The journey to STEL. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, 79(5), 8–13. Maley, D. (1973). The Maryland plan: The study of industry and technology in the junior high school. Bruce. Sanders, M. (2008, June), The nature of technology education in the U.S. Paper presented at 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://doi.org/10.18260/12-4450 Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Snyder, M. (2018). A century of perspectives that influenced the consideration of technology as a critical component of STEM education in the United States. The Journal of Technology Studies, 44(2), 42–57. University of Maryland Eastern Shore. (2022). The history of T&E education at UMES. https:// wwwcp.umes.edu/tech/history-of-technology-and-engineering-education/ Vision album preview. (n.d.). https://www.vision-album.com/wp-content/uploads/Articulate/story. html Warner, S. A. (2009). The soul of technology education: Being human in an overly rational world. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 72–86. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zuga, K. (1997). An analysis of technology education in the United States based upon an historical overview and review of contemporary curriculum research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 203–217.

Scott R. Bartholomew is an assistant professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in problem-solving and middle and Jr. high tech ed. curriculum, educational pedagogy and psychology, and is the student–teacher university supervisor for technology and engineering. His research areas center on comparative judgement, teacher technology self-efficacy, and computation. Marie Hoepfl is an interim dean in the School of Graduate Studies and a professor in the Department of Sustainable Technology and the Built Environment at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, where she has worked since 1997. Her professional activities have included editing the Journal of Industrial Teacher Education; co-editing the 2007 CTTE yearbook

18

S. R. Bartholomew et al.

titled Assessment of Technology Education, editing the 2016 CTETE yearbook titled Exemplary Teaching Practices in Technology and Engineering Education, and serving on the editorial review board of the International Journal of Design and Technology Education. Hoepfl was recipient of the ITEEA Public Understanding of Technology and Engineering Education award (2020) and the Gerald Day Excellence in Authorship award (2021). She was a co-PI on the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. P. John Williams is a professor of Education and the director of Graduate Research in the School of Education at Curtin University. His current research interests include STEM, mentoring beginning teachers, PCK, and electronic assessment of performance. He regularly presents at international and national conferences, consults on Technology Education in a number of countries, and is a longstanding member of eight professional associations. He is the series editor of the Springer Contemporary Issues in Technology Education and is on the editorial board of six professional journals. He has authored or contributed to over 250 publications and is elected to the International Technology and Engineering Education Association’s Academy of Fellows for prominence in the profession.

Part II

Implementation of Standards-Based Programs

Chapter 2

Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics, and Information Technology David Barnes, Christine Anne Royce, Philip A. Reed, Kelli List Wells, Elizabeth Allan, Geraldine Gooding, and Scott R. Bartholomew

Abstract Disciplinary standards can take years to develop, and their publication is certainly a milestone but not an end unto itself. Implementing standards takes planning, and adoption by various stakeholders can be complex. Over the past three decades, the proliferation of standards in the USA provides implementation strategies that may be relevant to standards developers and implementers and those doing this work in other countries. This chapter presents lessons learned from science, mathematics, and information technology standards in the USA in the areas of development, adoption, and iteration followed by standards implementation with respect to influence on content and curriculum. Lastly, standards implementation is synthesized at the national, state, district, and classroom levels in relation to key activities and supporting recommendations. D. Barnes (B) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. A. Royce Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. A. Reed Old Dominion University, Norfolk, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. L. Wells STEM Leadership Alliance, Orlando, USA E. Allan University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, USA e-mail: [email protected] G. Gooding G3 Innovations, Bowie, USA S. R. Bartholomew Brigham Young University, Provo, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_2

21

22

D. Barnes et al.

Keywords Standards · Implementation · STEM education · STEM

Historically, the technology and engineering education (TEE) profession in the USA has utilized various approaches for implementing standards. The Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) created A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA], 1996) to establish a framework ahead of Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEEA, 2000). A similar document was produced prior to the release of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2019). Additional implementation strategies included reviews of relevant standards in other disciplines (Foster, 2005; Newberry & Hallenbeck, 2002), the development of curriculum and standards specialists for professional development (ITEEA, 2017), and the development of crosswalks, translations, presentations, lessons, and other resources (ITEEA, 2020). The standards implementation strategies used by technology and engineering educators have been diverse with regard to intent and audience. This chapter will outline what TEE professionals may learn from other fields regarding the implementation of standards. The focus will be on information technology, science, and mathematics standards in the USA, although the principles discussed will apply to many countries. We will look primarily at the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013; National Research Council [NRC], 2012, 2015), National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), as well as standards in mathematics from National Council for Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM] Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000) to the Common Core Standards (National Governors Association [NGA], 2010a, 2010b), and those in instructional technology (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2022a).

2.1 Examining the Standards Development, Adoption, and Iteration Process The development of national education standards, and subsequently state standards, is a relatively recent development based on the focus of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). This report boldly characterized the state of education by saying, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (p. 5). Additionally, the report noted the lack of standards in states and disparity between existing standards; the prevalence of targeting minimum competencies; and inconsistencies in graduation requirements by observing that “thirty-five states require only one year of mathematics, and 36 require only one year of science for a diploma” (p. 20).

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

23

This report was a catalyst for education associations to propose content-specific national standards starting with the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics from the NCTM (1989) through to the ISTE Standards in 2022. Although national standards have been created, it is the purview of each state’s leadership, guidelines, and processes to make decisions to adopt, adapt, or disregard the national standard recommendations (McREL, 2014; NRC, 1996; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990; Spillane & Callahan, 2000).

2.1.1 Development The development of standards in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education by professional organizations, including ITEEA, NCTM, NSTA, and ISTE, attempts to present a “vision” of what PreK-12 education should look like for their respective disciplines (ISTE, 2022a; ITEEA, 2020; NCTM, 1989, 2000; National Science Teaching Association [NSTA], 2020) based on an assessment of the current state of the field, prevalent challenges, existing opportunities, and anticipated future changes. While specifics of the development processes have varied, the development has typically entailed a multi-year process involving broad representation in the writing and development, coupled with feedback and review. Key components that emerge from standards development projects that serve as drivers for change are guidance on concepts/content, processes/practices, and crosscutting themes to frame learning within a specific subject area. For example, the Next Generation Science Standards call for science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts in instruction and classroom assessment (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In mathematics, the NCTM standards documents (2000, 2006) have reflected content standards, which focus on students developing conceptual understanding, process standards such as problem-solving and communications, and the mathematical principles to “describe crucial issues that, although not unique to school mathematics, are deeply intertwined with school mathematics programs” (NCTM, 2000, p. 10) and serve as guides and tools for decision-makers. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) contain eight standards, eight practices, and eight contexts (ITEEA, 2020). Across all disciplines, the creation of standards is used to identify areas of needed attention, including the curriculum, the learning environment, the impact on students, including special populations and under-represented groups, and potential structures, policies, and practices that guide access, opportunity, learning, and impact in their respective domains.

2.1.2 Adoption State standards for education are fluid and unique to each state. In addition, each state has its process for developing and/or adopting standards. Furthermore, each

24

D. Barnes et al.

state determines the applicability and weighting by which the standards translate to required decisions by local school boards. The development of national standards by professional associations is a means to interject the thinking of the broader disciplinary community into these local processes. Standards serve to initiate conversations, encourage reflection on the status quo, and stimulate change but are not the ending point for states and local school boards (Huinker et al., 2020; NSTA, 2016). Looking beyond content standards and in an effort to facilitate their adoption, organizations have created supporting publications that aid learning, assessment, and professional development, among other topics (ITEEA, 2003, 2007; ISTE, 2022a; NCTM, 1991, 1995, 2014; NRC, 2015; Penuel et al., 2015; Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020). In an analysis of state mathematics standards, Reys et al. (2003) found huge disparities across states even though national mathematics standards were introduced in 1989 and revised in 2000 by NCTM. When state standards were analyzed to assess the culminating grade for fluency with basic computation for addition and subtraction, the researchers found that this benchmark was anticipated in first grade in one state. In contrast, other states listed it from second grade up to sixth grade. Similarly, multiplication proficiency expectations spanned grades three to six and division grades four to six. This variation of up to four grades was not uncommon between state math standards. The efforts by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO] to establish Common Core Standards (2010a, 2010b) did bring state standards closer in alignment. Although this was the case for mathematics, the Common Core effort did not impact science, technology, or engineering. With the connection between standards and assessments as mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and continued in the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015), state-level decisions on standards now quickly spawn the development of supporting materials and activities and may include considerations of what and how the standards will be assessed. Subject area leaders within a state, building on their knowledge of national standards documents, often use the national standards to support the development of state standards and the companion documents created by professional organizations to support their adoption.

2.1.3 Iteration Education, by its nature, is always evolving. Efforts to form a critical mass needed to develop a subsequent iteration of standards, and other materials often include narrowing or expanding content or adjusting grade-level placement, among other strategies. Revisions may evolve structurally to include the development of narrower grade bands or grade-specific guidelines, increased focus on progressions and coherence, and increased specificity with respect to the learning process (ITEEA, 2016; NCTM, 2000, 2006). New standards are coupled with new support materials, communications, training, advocacy, and collaboration to position these recommendations in consideration for state standard revision cycles.

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

25

When new standards are developed, a new cycle begins regardless of state or district. This cycle includes adopting new materials, professional learning, and other previously mentioned areas. There is also considerable variation on a state-to-state level outlining the process by which the use of standards influences or drives the adoption cycle (Watt, 2019). This variation includes procedures for textbook selection and adoption and the process for determining the alignment of resources to standards (Watt, 2019). Furthermore, the level that this process occurs can vary from a state-level committee to individual district committees (Watt, 2019). Although the adoption process for instructional materials and standards may vary, WestEd (2023) provides a detailed framework that makes recommendations at the state, district, school/administrator, and teacher levels for transitioning from old standards to new standards. This framework projects that a successful transition requires nearly seven years to fully implement new standards in curriculum and professional development (WestEd, 2023). Therefore, before standards can be implemented, multiple barriers need to be overcome, ranging from the adoption and availability of instructional materials that align with the new standards to the professional development of faculty.

2.2 Implementing Standards: Content and Curriculum After standards are developed, one of the foremost tasks is to determine how to support their implementation in a manner that maintains the intent and vision of the standards—ensuring they are implemented with fidelity. Determining what needs to be attended to and what can be ignored and still achieve “fidelity” with standards is often the turning point between their successful or unsuccessful implementation (Achieve, 2010; Huntley, 2009; NRC, 2012). As with any new initiative, opportunities and cautions emerge early. For example, when considering how to implement the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), Penuel et al. (2015) identified challenges that were already emerging, such as teachers’ access (or lack thereof) to curricular materials that aligned with the new standards and a shift in the manner in which instruction needed to be delivered. Reys et al. (2003) observed and noted similar challenges when implementing standardsbased mathematics and identified the need for differing roles for students and teachers and higher cognitive demands for learners. One of the common misconceptions that emerges around standards implementation is that standards equal curriculum and that they direct teachers on how to teach (CCSSO, 2010). Within any field, it is crucial to recognize that standards are not curriculum but rather targeted outcomes or performance expectations (McTigue & Wiggins, 2012; NGA, 2010a, 2010b). Furthermore, in order to implement standards, there is an underlying need to have a clear and coherent understanding of the structure and intent of the standards, as well as a firm understanding of both content and pedagogy (Hamilton et al., 2012; ITEEA, 2019; NSTA, 2016; Reys et al., 2003).

26

D. Barnes et al.

When beginning the implementation process, McTighe and Wiggins (2012) noted that standards need to be “unpacked” to determine how best to develop and design instruction. This unpacking and subsequent alignment between the standards and the curriculum can be problematic and may lead to unintended variations because there is no single agreed-upon process. Thus, unpacking and aligning can often incorporate subjective procedures and points of view that impact standards implementation (Hamilton et al., 2012). Therefore, a second point to remember is that skilled curriculum development requires expertise to move from standards to curriculum. It requires much more than a superficial mapping and slight modification of existing materials to “meet the standards” (i.e., standards-based vs. standards-reflective materials) (ISTE, 2022b; NRC, 2015). Hiebert (2003) noted the role of research in aiding with content and curriculum. First, research used in developing mathematics standards offers predictable teaching methods and outcomes to be addressed. Secondly, research definitively guides changes to goals, curriculum, pedagogy, and the educational change process with teachers and schools. Hamilton et al. (2012) further pointed out that alignment is often attempted where elements of standards, curriculum, and assessments are matched at what can be considered a superficial level. Thus materials are reflective of the standards but cannot truly be said to be standards-based. The speed at which alignment happens and the use of a cursory overview is a highlighted caution by the National Research Council related to standards implementation. The NRC (2015) recommended a remedy to what can be a problematic approach by suggesting that the “[materials] selection process can be facilitated through the use of tools that support a systematic evaluation that goes beyond judging superficial alignment” (p. 57). As new standards have been developed, so have different evaluation tools. Various associations and education consortiums have taken it upon themselves to try and systematize the alignment process. For example, ISTE (2022b) developed a process by which products are evaluated for standards alignment and received a Seal of Alignment. As part of the Next Generation Science Standards process, Achieve developed the EQuIP Rubric to evaluate science materials (NextGen Science, n.d.). While NCTM maintained a consistent policy to not endorse mathematics materials, the council, in collaboration with affiliates the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators [AMTE] and the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics [NCSM], developed the Common Core State Standards Mathematics (CCSSM) Curriculum Materials Analysis Project (NCSM, 2011) to gage the potential of mathematics curriculum for student learning of content and process standards. Once the standards are unpacked and their intent understood, materials are aligned with the standards, and the next component to focus on is the development of learning experiences for both the educators as part of their professional development and for students as part of the instructional process. As noted above, one of the most challenging hurdles to overcome when new standards are introduced is the desire to “map” prior curricula to the new standards (Hamilton et al., 2012; McTighe & Wiggins, 2012). This is not to say that existing instructional experiences and materials should not be considered; however, there should be a deliberate evaluative process to ensure that the instructional materials

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

27

assist in developing learning experiences that meet the intent of the standards (ISTE, 2022b; Kulm, 1999; NSTA, 2016; Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020) and that the implementation process includes the development of learning experiences which include purposefully interwoven dimensions/practices, as opposed to a checkbox approach to aligning the curriculum (ISTE, 2022c; NCTM, 1991, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; NSTA, 2006, 2016; Penuel et al., 2015; Reys, et al., 2003). There has always been a desire to evaluate instructional materials. However, within the last decade, there has been a series of efforts made by different groups to provide a framework for the alignment of standards, as well as the development of evaluation tools for instructional materials (NRC, 2012). These efforts include programs such as the ISTE Seal of Alignment (ISTE, 2022b), EdReports (2022), EQuIP rubric (NextGen Science, n.d.), and those from WestEd (Stiles et al., 2017), to name a few. Although existing materials may align with standards and represent high-quality materials for science, Sarna and Wolbrink (2020) noted that “the most effective materials that reflect the innovations of the Framework are built from the ground up” (p. 3). As educators focus on the context and design of learning experiences, they must assist students in making sense of concepts in a given subject area and interweave opportunities for inherent connections to be made across and between subject areas. In STEM4: The Power of Collaboration (2018), three key principles are presented, with the second one relating to the connections that can be made: “STEM education should provide logical and authentic connections between and across the individual STEM disciplines” (p. 3). Although each set of standards focuses on a single content area, meaningful connections between and within STEM subjects can occur. NCTM notes in a position statement that while integrative experiences are desirable, there is still a need for “a strong mathematics foundation” for students to be successful in STEM-related fields (NCSM & NCTM, 2018). The NSTA (2016) similarly notes in a position statement related to the NGSS that teachers need to “demonstrate the ability to master the science and engineering content…at the grade level/ band they teach”, which also implies a need to understand the scope and sequence of the content. The need for teachers to provide these authentic connections while simultaneously delivering meaningful and aligned instruction is of the utmost importance when maintaining fidelity to the standards (STEM4, 2018). Beyond understanding the content, this fidelity also incorporates shifts in instructional approaches, such as new practices or research-based instructional processes. Therefore, teachers need support structures for implementing standards and opportunities for learning and professional development (Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020). Success has been demonstrated by using a train-the-trainers model for implementation as part of a common and concerted rollout (ISTE, 2022c; ITEEA, 2017; NCTM, 1991, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; NSTA, 2006, 2016; Penuel et al., 2015; Reys et al., 2003; Stiles et al., 2017). When considering how to assist teachers through professional development, NSTA (2016) identified the need for considerable preparation time to allow educators an opportunity to understand the paradigm shifts, engage in professional preparation, and fully understand all components for full implementation. Furthermore,

28

D. Barnes et al.

NCTM noted that teachers of both science and mathematics might find themselves in the role of teaching integrative STEM, but they may lack relevant experiences and coursework themselves, thus needing professional learning opportunities (NCSM & NCTM, 2018). Part of this professional development involves understanding the pedagogical needs integral to successfully implementing a new set of standards, which may differ from previous approaches. When working with teachers, professional development providers or coaches need to ensure that the core components of standards are explained and modeled and help teachers understand what paradigm shifts are present. Making these shifts can be more challenging than understanding the content domains because educators may need to replace their usual way of thinking about instruction with a new and different approach (Koutsopoulos, 2019). Within science, this new way of thinking involves the need for science education to represent and reflect real science that students can connect to their own experiences (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Furthermore, teachers need to focus on a deeper understanding of content within the context of the three dimensions (science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts). Students need to engage with the science and engineering practices around disciplinary core ideas and also be able to make connections across science fields (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Additionally, teachers of all subjects need to acquire and develop effective strategies so that science is inclusive of all students (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Within mathematics and NCTM’s Catalyzing Change series (2018, 2020a, 2020b), guidelines are offered to shift how leaders, teachers, and students consider the content and teaching and the structures, policies, and associated processes with K-12 mathematics education. The first is to expand opportunities. What and how we teach mathematics should not restrict students’ opportunities to learn more about mathematics or their opportunities to engage with mathematics beyond K-12 education. Secondly, mathematics should be seen as a tool to understand and critique the world. This centers the learning of mathematics with an immediate purpose and relevance for students to use for their purpose. Lastly, educators must look for ways to help their students experience the joy, wonder, and beauty of mathematics. At the core, this is about students seeing themselves as capable doers and users of mathematics and helping them cultivate a positive identity.

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

29

2.3 Exploring Lessons Learned Through Implementation of the Standards As multiple levels of education influence and impact the successful implementation of standards and integration of STEM subjects, there is much to be learned from examining these efforts. Implementing the standards may often be seen as a classroomspecific, teacher-centric challenge. However, we can draw lessons from our collective experiences across national, state, district, and classroom-level initiatives within the USA.

2.3.1 National Level—Policy, Curriculum, and Assessment At the national level, the focus is on generating understanding, support, and momentum for the standards and working to build fidelity in the guidance and use of the standards. Professional organizations should keep the following recommendations in mind as they develop support materials for educators and students: • Create messages and messaging tools to support the fidelity of the standards. They can range from outreach kits to executive summaries to infographics tools developed to highlight key components of standards, the rationale for the needed change, and specific messaging for target audiences, including school and district leaders, teachers, parents, and community members. • Target outreach efforts, conversations, and relationship-building with key constituent groups in the education process. New standards are often introduced at the largest gathering, conference, or convening of a professional association, and the program is used to highlight key components, changes, and innovations and to provide initial training to early advocates and adopters. • Communicate with curriculum developers to guide the development of materials (McTigue & Wiggins, 2012) and provide tools for evaluating the products of this work. In some cases, it may be possible to locate funders to invest in large-scale curriculum development projects to create completely new curricula to reflect the standards. • Cultivate other voices that may become important in the launch and implementation of new standards at the national level. The unpacking of standards with diverse sets of business and industry leaders provides “transfer goals”, which creates a longer vision of the impact of the standards beyond high school (McTigue & Wiggins, 2012). • Hold conversations on changes to what content is taught, how it is taught, and what is learned and developed in students. These discussions should ultimately lead to decisions about assessment and how to measure the acquisition of skills, conceptual knowledge, and processes (McTigue & Wiggins, 2012).

30

D. Barnes et al.

2.3.2 State Level—Standards Adoption, Professional Development, and Assessment As noted above in the section on implementing the standards, there is a need for professional learning, an understanding of the paradigm shifts, and the use of tools to evaluate instructional materials when rolling out standards. This remains true at the state level when considering the adoption or adaptation of national standards (ITEEA, 2007, 2017; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; NRC, 2015; Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020; Spillane & Callahan, 2000; Stiles et al., 2017). Because each state is responsible for the design, development, or adoption of standards, it is likely that with new sets of national standards, the attention of stakeholders within a state will be piqued. State-level stakeholders should implement varied strategies to help move standards adoption or adaptation forward. These include: • Building relationships with professional organizations that provide support for states as departments of education consider adopting/adapting national standards or integrating parts into their state standards structure. Developing relationships will also assist in building coalitions of groups, conveying a clear and consistent message, and increasing advocacy for the goals embedded within the standards (Peltzman & Rodriguez, 2013). • Developing a repository of resources for use by teachers and providing professional development opportunities for teachers and leaders that will assist them in understanding the standards’ goals, foundational content, concepts, and practices, as well as how the teaching/learning associated with the new standards is different from existing practices (Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020; Stiles et al., 2017). • Creating pathways to help develop and support work by state assessment professionals and policymakers to define metrics and consider how best to assess the standards (Sarna & Wolbrink, 2020). • Creating a plan for and disseminating information about the standards. This plan should include outreach to a broad base of stakeholders that includes parents, community leaders, business and industry leaders, two- and four-year colleges, and university faculty. Each of these groups can serve either as a conduit for or as an obstacle hindering the successful implementation of standards (Stiles et al., 2017) • Identifying transition issues that different populations might face when adopting the new standards and determining the necessary onboarding that will need to occur, including within post-secondary institutions (Best & Dunlap, 2014; Fitzpatrick & Sovde, 2017; Peltzman & Rodriquez, 2013). For successful implementation, it is imperative that changes to the standards are reflected in teacher preparation programs and state certification pathways so that future teachers, who are likely to teach in the same way that they were taught, are prepared to deliver pedagogical strategies that are consonant with the new standards (Stiles et al., 2017; Wasserman & Walkington, 2014).

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

31

2.3.3 District and School Levels—Translating Standards into Curriculum Models The unpacking of standards occurs at the district and school levels since that is where they are translated into teaching and learning. A central task at this level is to build support with parents and community leaders, including school boards, business and industry leaders, and critical advocacy groups (Best & Dunlap, 2014). The National Research Council (2015) articulated a plan of collaboration, networks, and partnerships for implementing NGSS at the local level that is applicable to other STEM subject areas. In mathematics, NCTM (2014) created six guiding principles to help with teaching and learning, access and equity, curriculum, tools and technology, assessment, and professionalism. Some of these aspects have been addressed in technology and engineering education (ITEEA, 2003), but these have not been updated since the publication of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020). The International Society for Technology in Education has recently provided a Seal of Alignment (ISTE, 2022b) and Essential Conditions (ISTE, 2022d) to help districts and schools define local metrics to assess progress toward key goals. Some key lessons for district and school-level leaders can be drawn from these efforts, including the need to: • Create parallel connections between external groups and internal structures to support standards-based curriculum development or adoption and teacher professional development (NCTM, 2013; Spillane & Callahan, 2000). • Engage cross-school groups to discuss the focus of new standards at each grade and implications for instruction (WestEd, 2023) • Develop a crosswalk to determine alignment between existing curricula and new standards, which will assist in identifying gaps (WestEd, 2023). • Conduct a needs analysis to gather baseline data familiarity with standards and practices and will inform the development of a multi-year PD plan (NSTA, 2006, 2016; WestEd, 2023).

2.3.4 Classroom Level—Adopting Standards-Based Teaching Strategies The sharing of research and practices across disciplines is essential to help teachers remain current with regard to standards implementation. ITEEA (2017) implemented a model to create curriculum and standards specialists to help teachers understand the goals of the 2000 Standards for Technological Literacy, the foundational practices associated with those standards, and the shifts from previous instructional models. Similarly, ISTE created a certification program for those that have demonstrated mastery of their educator standards (ISTE, 2022c). A variety of approaches have been used to ensure teachers have the needed support to guide their students through the significant challenges and changes needed

32

D. Barnes et al.

to achieve the goals of standards. Implementation materials for NGSS have been produced by the National Research Council (2015) and Stiles et al. (2017). Mathematics professionals have designed materials that aid teachers with clear goals, access and equity, questioning strategies, and the use of productive struggle, among other topics (NCTM, 2014). Adoption and implementation of standards-based teaching strategies provide a critical step in moving from the vision of the standard to a different learning experience for students. Key insights include: • Applying research on implementing standards in information technology, mathematics, and science education can benefit classroom teachers (NRC, 2002). Kilpatrick et al. (2003) outlined a research companion that accompanied mathematics standards and technology teacher educators can look directly to mathematics and science for research. • Considering research (Kolodner, 2002) on how science education practices follow the work of scientists may aid technology educators in teaching about design. • Additionally, Sarna and Wolbrink (2020) provided reflections on science education practices that may be useful to technology education teachers.

2.4 Moving Forward: Overarching Recommendations for STEL Alongside the desire for authentic contexts to drive STEM integration, there is still a need for subject area fidelity (STEM4, 2018). Each discipline must define itself through its content, its epistemological basis, and its history of the practice, inclusive of curriculum, teaching, and research (Reed, 2018). Standards help define content, epistemology, and aspects of practice, but disciplines must continually shape practice. Position statements are a common tool to help clarify interdisciplinary opportunities and disciplinary uniqueness. ITEEA and NSTA have both drafted statements outlining their respective roles within STEM education (ITEEA, 2022a; NSTA, 2020). Many organizations are creating position statements covering a range of sociocultural issues that clarify disciplinary teaching and learning (ITEEA, 2022b; NCTM, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; NSTA, 2022). A unique change in technology and engineering education standards occurred in the transition from STL to STEL (ITEEA, 2007, 2020), during which the former “Designed World” standards were changed to contexts that serve to organize the content areas within which eight standards and eight practices are advocated. The intent is for “curriculum developers (including ITEEA’s STEM Center for Teaching and Learning™ ) and teachers to translate STEL into curriculum models and instructional materials for different educational settings” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 15). The STEL developers realized this was important for the varying national, provincial, state, and local education systems and followed similar science education practices. In science, the NRC (2012) advocated for teachers and curriculum developers to consider larger

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

33

curriculum units or storylines as their “unit of study” and to not fixate on every component needing to be in every lesson. The overarching goal of such an approach is for educators to build multiple lenses for students to approach problems/situations. Building coalitions and collaborations early in the process, within STEL, STEM, and across other groups, such as administrators, principals, curriculum developers, and universities, is very important (NCTM, 2014; NSTA, 2020). There are similarities in the content standards of many disciplines (McREL International, 2014). For example, Love and Roy (2017) detail safety considerations in various STEM learning environments. Reed and Barbato (2020) show how STEL can be used by educators involved in cybersecurity education. These two examples illustrate the opportunities of moving from standards development and implementation to the utilization of the content within the standards. Each example requires an understanding of more than a single subject area and also provides real-world application to the recommendation that “STEM education should provide logical and authentic connections between and across the individual STEM disciplines”, which has been championed by multiple STEM organizations (STEM4, 2018, p. 3). When implementing STEM initiatives, educators should lead with the “why” (ISTE, 2022d; NCTM, 2018, 2020a, 2020b; NSTA, 2020). Why is this important for students, families, communities, and businesses? The literature referenced in this chapter provides a solid foundation for the need to implement each individual subject’s set of standards with fidelity. A strong foundation then allows stakeholders to address the broader question related to the benefits of not only implementing the standards in a way that provides opportunities for all students but how those individual subjects can be leveraged in a way that helps students to benefit from an interaction effect in STEM (e.g., problem-solving, interdisciplinary thinking). This leveraging allows educators to also focus on STEM education as a bridge to STEM careers (STEM4, 2018). If students, families, communities, businesses, and others understand and advocate for the importance of individual subject content as well as the benefits of integrative STEM education, they are more likely to find their “why” along their educational journey. Standards do not exist in isolation. While the basis for standards change is motivated by a variety of aspects of teaching and learning—rigor, equity, assessment, practices, and content, the outcomes are dependent on the individuals involved, decisions made, and structures established. All of these variables are influenced and confounded by competing policies and practices of the larger educational systems.

References Achieve. (2010). On the road to implementation: Achieving the promise of the Common Core State Standards. https://www.achieve.org/files/FINAL-CCSSImplementationGuide.pdf Best, J., & Dunlap, A. (2014). Next generation science standards: Considerations for curricula, assessments, preparation, and implementation. McCrel International. https://eric.ed.gov/?id= ED557608

34

D. Barnes et al.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Messaging toolkit: Common core state standards initiative. https://www.fullertonsd.org/cms/lib/CA50010905/Centricity/Domain/931/ CCSSI_Toolkit_2010.pdf EdReports. (2022). Review tools. https://www.edreports.org/process/review-tools Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con gress/senate-bill/1177 Fitzpatrick, L. P., & Sovde, D. (2017). The case for mathematics pathways from the launch years in high school through postsecondary education. University of Texas at Austin, Charles A. Dana Center. Foster, P. N. (2005). Technology in the standards of other school subjects. The Technology Teacher, 65(3), 17–21. https://www.iteea.org/Publications/Journals/TET.aspx Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2012). Standards-based accountability in the United States. Education Inquiry, 3(2), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i2.22025 Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Huinker, D., Bush, S. B., & Graham, K. J. (2020). Catalyzing change in school mathematics: Creating the opportunities our students deserve. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK-12, 113(10), 780–790. Huntley, M. A. (2009). Measuring curriculum implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(4), 355–362. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539343 International Society for Technology in Education. (2022a). ISTE standards. https://www.iste.org/ iste-standards International Society for Technology in Education. (2022b). Seal of alignment—The mark of an ISTE standards-aligned resource. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-seal-of-alignment International Society for Technology in Education. (2022c). ISTE certification. https://www.iste. org/professional-development/iste-certification International Society for Technology in Education. (2022d). Essential conditions. https://www.iste. org/standards/iste-essential-conditions International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. www.iteea.org/Technological_Literacy_S tandards.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=42525 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). https://assets-002.noviams.com/ novi-file-uploads/iteea/standards/xstnd.pdf International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2016). Integrative STEM focal points. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2017). Technological literacy standards: Curriculum and standards specialists. https://www.iteea.org/Activities/2142/Techno logical_Literacy_Standards/45979/51792.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2019). ITEEA standards for technological literacy revision project: Background, rationale, and structure. https://www.iteea. org/File.aspx?id=151454&v=e868d0d8 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

35

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2022a). Technological and engineering literacy: An educational imperative. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=179872&v= 75d4f89d International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2022b). Principles and positions. https://www.iteea.org/About/sp.aspx Kilpatrick, J., Martin, W. G., & Schifter, D. (Eds). (2003). A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40. https://eric.ed. gov/?id=EJ782298 Koutsopoulos, K. C. (2019). STEM revisited: A paradigm shift in teaching and learning sciencerelated disciplines. Journal of Education, Society, and Behavioural Sciences, pp. 1–10. Kulm, G. (1999). Making sure that your mathematics curriculum meets standards. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(8), 536–541. Love, T. S., & Roy, K. R. (2017). Safer makerspaces, fab labs, and STEM labs: A collaborative guide! International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. McREL International. (2014). Compendium of academic standards: History of the standards. http:// www2.mcrel.org/compendium/docs/history.asp McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). From common core standards to curriculum: Five big ideas. The New Hampshire Journal of Education, 16, 25–31. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. (2011). Common core state standards mathematics (CCSSM) curriculum materials analysis project. https://www.mathedleadership.org/materialsanalysis-tools/ National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018). Building STEM education on a sound mathematical foundation. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Building-STEM-Edu cation-on-a-Sound-Mathematical-Foundation/ National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for teaching mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2013). Supporting the common core state standards for mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/Suppor ting-the-Common-Core-State-Standards-for-Mathematics/ National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2018). Catalyzing change in high school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020a). Catalyzing change in early childhood and elementary mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020b). Catalyzing change in middle school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations.

36

D. Barnes et al.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010a). Common core state standards English language arts standards. http://www.corestand ards.org/ELA-Literacy/ National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010b). Common core state standards mathematics standards. http://www.corestandards.org/ Math/ National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962 National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10023 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165 National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18802 National Science Teaching Association. (2006). Position statement: Professional development in science education. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/professional-development-sci ence-education National Science Teaching Association. (2016). Position statement: The next generation science standards. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/next-generation-science-standards National Science Teaching Association. (2020). Position statement: STEM education teaching and learning for all. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/stem-education-teaching-and-lea rning National Science Teaching Association. (2022). NSTA position statements. https://www.nsta.org/ nstas-official-positions Newberry, P., & Hallenbeck, L. S. (2002). Role of standards in different subjects. In J. M. Ritz, W. E. Dugger, & E. N. Israel (Eds.), Standards for technological literacy: The role of teacher education (pp.11–46). Council on Technology Teacher Education, 51st Yearbook. Glencoe McGraw-Hill. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/19151 NextGen Science. (n.d.). EQuIP rubric for science. https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/ equip-rubric-science NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://www.nextgenscience.org/ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 101, Stat. 1425 (2002). Peltzman, A., & Rodriguez, N. (2013). Next generation science standards: Adoption and implementation workbook. Achieve, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED547273.pdf Penuel, W. R., Harris, C. J., & DeBarger, A. H. (2015). Implementing the next generation science standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(6), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715575299 Reed, P. A. (2018). Reflections on STEM, standards, and disciplinary focus. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(7), 16–20. http://www.iteea.org Reed, P. A., & Barbato, S. (2020). Cybersecurity education through technological and engineering literacy standards. National Institute for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Newsletter. https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nice/nice-enewsletter-winter-202021-academic-spotlight Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holiday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standardsbased middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034700 Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press. Sarna, J., & Wolbrink, V. (2020). Key takeaways from the early years of transforming science education for the next generation. WestEd. https://ngs.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/ 02/NGS_KeyTakeaways_Final_Summary.pdf Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,

2 Implementing Standards: Lessons Learned from Science, Mathematics …

37

37(5), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200005)37:5%3c401::AID-TEA2% 3e3.0.CO;2-D STEM4: The power of collaboration for change. (2018). https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=137271 Stiles, K., Mundry, S., & DiRanna, K. (2017). Framework for leading Next Generation Science Standards implementation. WestEd. https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Fra mework-for-Leading-NGSS-Implementation.pdf Wasserman, N. H., & Walkington, C. (2014). Exploring links between beginning UTeachers’ beliefs and observed classroom practices. Teacher Education and Practice, 27(2/3). Watt, M. (2019). EdReports.org: Its pivotal role in standards-based education reform. (ED592537). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED592537.pdf WestEd. (2023). Standards implementation framework. Center for Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. https://csaa.wested.org/spotlight/standards-implementation-framework/# framework

David Barnes, Ph.D., CAE is Associate Executive Director of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and Senior Mathematics Educator on staff. Dr. Barnes has been involved in NCTM’s development of mathematics standards, leadership, and policy publications since 2000. His research background focused on technology in teaching, problem-solving, and the implementation of reform curriculum. Christine Anne Royce, MSIT, Ed.D. is Professor at Shippensburg University (PA). She served as 2018-2019 National Science Teaching Association President. She taught K-12 before moving to higher education, where she works with future teachers. She has been fortunate to work internationally with educators and students and sees similar global needs for STEM education. With over 125 publications, her background blends STEM, business, instructional design technology, as well as education. Royce was named Presidential Awardee for Excellence in Science Teaching and is the recipient of the Pennsylvania Association of Colleges and Teacher Educators’ Teacher Educator of the Year Award. Philip A. Reed, Ph.D., DTE is Professor in the Darden College of Education and Professional Studies at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. In 2014, Dr. Reed was named Technology and Engineering Teacher Educator of the Year by the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE), an affiliate council of the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). In 2019, he was elected to a three-year term as ITEEA’s President-Elect, President, and Immediate Past-President. His research focuses on curriculum development and implementation in workforce education, career and technical education, and technology education. Kelli List Wells is Founder and CEO of the STEM Leadership Alliance. A collaboration that includes STEM organizations, schools, districts, state department of educations, businesses, colleges and universities, and non-profits. Individually, these leading STEM organizations advance the work of educators and students across the country and are changing STEM from an acronym to connecting the classroom to the real world. She was Executive Director for Global Education and Skills at the GE Foundation. Kelli’s portfolio focused on building education, skills, and training initiatives to prepare the students for the demands of the workforce and the changing labor economy. Elizabeth Allan, Ph.D. is Past-President of the National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). Allan is currently Professor of Biology and Coordinator of the Secondary Science Education program at the University of Central Oklahoma (UCO) in Edmond, Oklahoma. Allan brings more than 35 years of leadership and teaching experience to NSTA. She began her professional career

38

D. Barnes et al.

as Classroom Teacher, and after 16 years of teaching science in Oklahoma, California, and North Carolina, Allan accepted a position as Educational Consultant at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI). Geraldine Gooding is Engineer, Educator, Entrepreneur, and Change Agent whose career spans over 15 years in various fields. Starting her professional career as Quality Engineer at General Electric (GE) and after years of working in engineering and planning environments, Dr. Gooding made a transition where she sought to broaden her impact on engineering education on the PreK12 and post-secondary levels. Because of her passion for promoting innovative and effective STEM education methods, she started G3 Innovations, LLC, where she develops engaging and culturally relevant curriculum and engages in engineering related research. She also teaches elementary after-school enrichment classes in engineering bringing in real-world examples from her prior work. Currently, Dr. Gooding serves as Director of Engineering Education & Outreach at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Scott R. Bartholomew is Assistant Professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in problem-solving and middle and Jr. high tech ed. curriculum, educational pedagogy and psychology, and is Student–Teacher University Supervisor for technology and engineering. His research areas center on comparative judgment, teacher technology self-efficacy, and computation.

Chapter 3

The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy and Children’s Psychological Development: A Content Analysis of Engineering Concepts for PreK-Year6 Marilyn Fleer

Abstract Understanding the evidence that is foundational for PreK-6 Technology and Engineering Literacy Standards can give new insights to both researchers and teachers. This chapter presents a content analysis of concepts and practices in the Standards and the related empirical literature for the PreK-6 cultural age period in order to understand discipline expectations in relation to children’s psychological development. The research base underpinning the standards appears to be supported by research, but less so for the PreK-2 Standards for systems, teamwork, and safety. Additionally, it was identified that understanding how to use a design was missing in the Standards. Self as client or other as client also featured in the research, with the latter adding to children’s cognitive load. Both matter in the psychological development of the young learner, and consideration should be given to this research in the Standards. Keywords Engineering literacy · Early childhood · Elementary · Primary · Standards · Concepts

M. Fleer (B) Conceptual PlayLab, School of Educational Psychology and Counselling, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_3

39

40

M. Fleer

3.1 Introduction PreK-6 is inclusive of children and teachers in preschool settings (birth to five or six years) and primary or elementary school settings (six to 12 years). In the USA, standards and practices in the PreK-6 classrooms are actively resourced through associations dedicated to supporting engineering curricula, such as the Advancing Excellence in P12 Engineering Education (AEEE) group, or the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA), who have developed the Standards for Technology and Engineering Literacy (STEL). But in other countries, such as Australia, policies and programmes for the engineering field are almost absent (Xu et al., 2020). Therefore, knowing more about this component of knowledge construction and curriculum development in an international context is still needed when planning for children who attend early learning centres, preschools, and primary school settings. Additionally, values, attitudes, and competencies are developed in these early periods of a child’s life—both in the home and as they participate in the learning of engineering concepts in educational settings. Knowing more about the beginnings and continuum of engineering conceptual learning underpinning the curricula and standards has become increasingly important. What we do know is that there is a small research base in engineering in the PreK-6 period, mostly undertaken in the USA, and this research has shown the possibilities and benefits of engineering education programmes (Gold, 2017). Understandings about what concepts could be taught, and in what contexts, might help with knowing how best to engage young children at the beginning of their engineering education. This is an area that is still developing (English & Moore, 2018; Fleer, 2021a) and understandings about what might be the conceptual challenges across the early years of education are still emerging (Crismond & Adams, 2012). Research into engineering programmes for young children has primarily been undertaken by engineers with a keen interest in children’s learning in early childhood and primary school settings (see Fleer, 2021b). Despite their expansive engineering competence, researchers do not always have a background in child development for this early period of children’s lives (CITE), and further work is needed to determine the psychological dimensions of the PreK-6 period for engineering education. In this chapter, the concept of cultural-age periods (Vygotsky, 1998) is drawn upon to capture the dynamics of the intertwined biological and cultural development of young children rather than the passport age of the child (biology) and associated milestones. This means that the dialectical relations between the social situation of engineering education in primary school and early childhood settings and the child’s social situation of development will be emphasised to better understand the psychological dimensions of the PreK-6 period for engineering education. In the light of this theoretical reading and the problem area of engineering concepts and contexts for young children, this chapter aims to answer the following question by examining the literature in relation to the Technology and Engineering Literacy Standards and distilling:

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

41

• What are the relations between the expected engineering concepts and principles and the unique psychological characteristics of children in the PreK-6 cultural-age period? A limitation of this chapter is that the literature reviewed has focused primarily on studies of engineering education in preschool and primary or elementary school contexts, and other contextually relevant studies of technology education may well have been missed. Further, the studies that are reviewed and discussed in this chapter were not designed with the problem of this chapter in mind. Consequently, this chapter represents a beginning only, in an important and under-considered area in engineering education in early childhood and primary education. To achieve the aim of this chapter, a theoretical overview on the relations between everyday and abstract concept formation is given as a framework for discussing knowledge forms to guide the content analysis of the technology and engineering literacy standards. This is followed by a brief presentation of a cultural-historical view of child development that is foundational for considering the psychological dimensions of concept formation by children in early childhood and primary settings. The chapter then discusses how engineering education studies were undertaken and how conceptual knowledge about engineering was constructed or considered by the researchers. What is learned is then used to analyse the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy for the two curriculum contexts of early childhood and primary education.

3.2 Theoretical Framework In order to undertake a content analysis of concepts in engineering education in the context of standards for technology and engineering literacy, we must begin by theorising what is meant by conceptual knowledge generally. There are three key points to define: (1) concepts, (2) knowledge forms, and (3) development.

3.3 Concepts To capture the dynamics of conceptual development across different institutions and cultural-age periods, Vygotsky (1997) introduced the idea that children experience in everyday social situations the possibilities for acting and thinking with everyday concepts, such as when pushing over a block tower, and knowing that the blocks will fall to the floor. Children develop working theories using everyday concepts to navigate in their immediate context with everyday personal motives. Vygotsky distinguished this way of thinking from abstract concepts by introducing the idea of scientific concepts. For example, knowing about the abstract concept of force in the context of gravity makes conscious another interpretation of the falling block tower.

42

M. Fleer

Concepts explain why the blocks always fall to the floor. It is this latter symbolic system that children are introduced to in schools. Engineering contexts introduced in schools give the possibility for children’s appropriation of concepts within a system of engineering knowledge.

3.4 Knowledge Forms Davydov (2008) introduced the idea of theoretical knowledge and thinking to capture a dynamic relationship between the building blocks of empirical knowledge. In theoretical thinking, children draw on the core concepts in engineering, not as individual empirically developed concepts, such as design, but rather the concepts are held in relation to each other as engineering processes. For example, defining the problem, designing a solution, prototyping, testing, and refining. Children think theoretically when they employ these engineering processes in meaningful contexts or as part of different engineering knowledge traditions (e.g. manufacturing, chemical engineering). The different forms of knowledge generation (empirical, narrative, and theoretical) support different modes of expression and learning of children at different time points from PreK to Year 6. Making sense of engineering concepts is more likely to be formulated through narrative knowledge in children’s play, while later in the primary school years, children’s explorations are more theoretically informed, due to the accumulation of engineering knowledge, such as how different materials behave under different conditions. Through imagining new forms of the designed solution, children bring new conceptual relations together to enable effective engineering when seeking to solve problems in teams.

3.5 A Cultural-Historical View of Development Foundational to a cultural-historical view of development, children come into social relations with material and human contexts (social situations) which they interpret through their social situation of development. Vygotsky (1994) argued that children with different social situations of development will interpret the same social situation differently. For instance, a child whose social situation of development or leading motive is to play will interpret an engineering situation of bridge building with blocks differently to a child whose leading motive is to learn. The former is likely to explore the materials/social relations through wanting to engage in imaginative play—that is, to build a bridge to support the play narrative emerging between play partners. In the latter, the child is more likely to enter into the engineering activity in order to learn how things work, and what this means for them in their world, such as noticing different bridge designs found and beginning to focus on the principles underpinning their respective structures. Knowing that children with different social situations of

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

43

development will enter an engineering activity differently matters when considering the contexts for engineering (civil, chemical, structural, mechanical, and so on) and the available learning contexts of children (play environments in preschools, more formal structures in school). The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (hereafter referred to as STEL), in which the PreK-6 curriculum and school band is represented, cover a broad psychological period of development. From a cultural-historical conception of child development, it can be theorised as cultural-age periods of development in relation to what is the central motive for the child. In the PreK-3 period, children enter into social relations with each other through play (Vygotsky, 1966), where everyday concepts dominate their practices (Vygotsky, 1987) and narrative knowledge forms develop (Davydov, 2008). As children increasingly become oriented to the goals of school discipline content, where more attention is given to abstract concepts in Yr4– Yr6, learning and theoretical thinking begin to be the dominant motive and practices of the child (see Hedegaard, 2007). Because the psychological development that occurs across the PreK-6 cultural-age period is vast when considering technology and engineering literacy standards, the analysis that follows in the next section considers engineering concepts for the PreK-2 separately from Yr3–Yr6. As will be shown later in the chapter, there are pivotal psychological points revealed in the research into engineering education, where motive development of the children changes as part of the new cultural practices of engineering education. These positively impact the overall cultural development of the child, and this perspective sits in contrast to seeing engineering education as a set of predetermined expectations in relation to the passport age of the child.

3.6 How is Engineering Knowledge Constructed for the PreK-6 Student? This section analyses how engineering education studies were undertaken and discusses how conceptual knowledge about engineering was constructed and described in the studies reported. Taking inspiration from Xu et al. (2020), the content analysis brings forward the engineering concepts and contexts introduced to young children from PreK-6. A summary in the form of two tables of concepts drawn from this literature illustrates what has been learned from research about the unique cultural-age period of birth to 12 years. Due to word count constraints, only illustrative examples taken from the full suite of studies reviewed are shown.

44

M. Fleer

3.7 Engineering Concepts for PreK-2 Table 3.1 is a matrix which shows a summary of studies of engineering education for the PreK-2 educational setting (Rows 2 onwards) in relation to the content of STEL, published by the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (Row 1). For the reasons discussed in the theoretical section above, Table 3.1 focuses on PreK-2 (see Table 3.2 for Yr3–Yr6). In examining the studies summarised in Table 3.1, four conclusions can be drawn. First, the studies of engineering concepts appear on a continuum of naturalistic research beginning with free play settings for identifying possible engineering concepts (Gold et al., 2020, 2021), habits of mind processes to be introduced by teachers (Lippard et al., 2019), general intervention studies of engineering concepts and processes (Tank et al., 2018) where dramatic inquiry (Moore et al., 2018) or social issues (Thorshag & Holmqvist, 2019; Malone et al., 2018) are introduced to engage children, through to loosely (Aguirre-Munoz & Pantoya, 2016; Eckhoff, 2021; Riley Miller & Saenz, 2021) and tightly framed design briefs introduced to children/teachers by the researchers (Bagiati, 2011). This continuum is shown in Fig. 3.1, as engineering in practice (left side—children’s play) through to engineering as practice (right side—tightly framed design briefs). The engineering education research sits within this broad range of pedagogical models, and the findings should always be considered in relation to this spectrum because engineering in practice will always give different results to engineering as practice. Second, those researchers interested in studying engineering concepts in preschools tended to examine how children used construction materials, such as blocks and plastic construction kits, in order to determine conceptual learning possibilities for structural and civil engineering in contexts such as building houses (Gold et al., 2021) and mechanical engineering when designing and constructing cars (Thorshag & Holmqvist, 2019). More diverse engineering fields were also studied in the PreK-2 classrooms, such as chemical engineering when using playdough, mechanical engineering when designing sails for windmills, and agricultural engineering when improving pollinating equipment (Malone et al., 2018). However, these studies were rare when compared with studies that looked at block building and construction kits. In the rarer studies, resources were introduced into those educational settings to support diverse engineering fields, presumably because preschools and classrooms traditionally do not have the necessary engineering equipment and materials. Third, there were studies that did not focus on specific engineering fields, but rather researchers were interested to know how free play could be linked with engineering concepts (Bagiati & Evangelou, 2016; Gold, 2020; Riley, 2021). The researchers who undertook those studies focused on the developmental engineering contexts in which concepts could naturally arise. However, some of these researchers also suggested that opportunities for conceptual learning in engineering education were being missed by teachers, and that teachers needed support through professional development with engineering language and conceptual competence.

Two puppets introduce Children use a range of problems that need to be everyday craft materials to solved. Children create make models. and later model, improve solutions, and thus experience design, modelling, evaluating, and communicating engineering processes (creative curriculum and project approach).

Bagiati and Aikaterini (2011). Case study of developmental appropriateness of the early engineering curriculum for three months (11 children, 10 boys and one girl). 24 scripted lesson plans prepared by the researcher.

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C) Develop a simple model based on evidence to represent a proposed object or tool. This includes physical models, 2D drawings or representations, and embodied models when children “pretend to be” something.

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Riley Miller and Saenz (2021). 120 h of video data across four preschools. Analysis of exemplary, proficient, and emergent opportunities for engineering and science learning in nature play.

Study design

Table 3.1 Examples of the research base in relation to the content of STEL for grades PreK-2

Evaluate or revise the model (as when children add new components—branches, bark, roots—to their “castle” or “house” or indicate revisions—e.g. “This gate needs a lock” as they modify it).

(continued)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 45

Results show that adequate classroom materials are necessary, but not sufficient for promoting engineering habits of mind.

Engineering habits of mind were initiated and solved by students.

Lippard et al., (2019). What does pre-engineering thinking look like in preschool? Nine preschool classrooms were observed, and mixed-methods, multiple case study analyses were conducted with classroom observation data as well as teacher-reported data.

Having more block types was not associated with more occurrences of engineering habits of mind. Rather, materials placement and freedom to combine different types of materials was more important.

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C)

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Study design

Table 3.1 (continued)

Engineering habits of mind were mostly observed in the block areas but also in the dramatic play, art, manipulatives, and sensory materials. System thinking was illustrated by the example of the playdough table. (continued)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

46 M. Fleer

Representing ideas verbally or in structural models. Verbally identifying problems or suggesting solutions. Following patterns and prototypes.

Gold et al., (2021). Focus on executive functions and planning related to engineering play. In pairs, 110 preschoolers were video recorded during 15-min block play.

Using specialised STEM words to explain how things are work/built.

How to make the building solid and water resistant inspired children to learn about materials for different purposes.

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C) Develop or use a model to predict or explain something about the natural or designed world. Imagination of how materials can be combined to construct “houses” and “vehicles” from everyday objects.

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Thorshag and Holmqvist (2019). Eleven preschool teachers and 49 children, aged 4–5 years, from three preschools. Construction activity. Video recordings from four activities. A: Teachers read a fairy tale about rainbow land where soft toy mouse wanted to go, but did not have a vehicle. B: Teachers developed an existing theme “homes and housing” to focus on house construction.

Study design

Table 3.1 (continued)

(continued)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 47

Engineering design process of ask, imagine, plan, create, and improve (Engineering is Elementary [EiE] programme).

Children positioned as scientists/engineers to help solve a problem. Problem is introduced through a true story of The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind; or through YouTube video of the tragedy of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Children worked with Engineers without Borders. Kindergarten group were chemical engineers—to formulate best playdough possible.

Malone et al. (2018). Evaluate effect of dramatic inquiry, dance, visual arts, and physical education for PreK-3 conceptual understandings of technology and engineering. Dramatic inquiry is presented. Pre-post surveys of 200 4–8 year olds and focus groups of 14 teachers across five schools. Increased conceptual understandings and increase in students who identified engineers as those who also work in non-electronics and the environment. However, students still believed engineers repair phones, build roofs, and drive trucks.

Book provides engineering vocabulary. EiE with kits of materials provided to study effect of the materials in the context of the dramatic inquiry.

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C)

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Study design

Table 3.1 (continued)

(continued)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

48 M. Fleer

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Aguirre-Munoz and Working with a Pantoya (2016). partner. Six preschool aged children from two different preschools. 15-day study with 5-day baseline, 5-day engineering intervention, and second 5-day baseline. The intervention used engineering-centred literacy (picture books—Engineering Elephants). Agricultural engineering, role-playing, think-pair-share strategies. Observations of levels of engagement were made as daily probes.

Study design

Table 3.1 (continued)

Design process to improve hand pollinator for a specified flower. Increased use of engineering design vocabulary.

Material properties—model for pollen using baking soda; exploring materials for adhering and releasing power properties. Compare efficacy of different materials (cotton balls, ping-pong balls, tape). Make decisions about which materials work best in pollination.

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C) Real-world context—the role insects play in the natural systems.

(continued)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 49

Collaborate effectively as a member of a team (STEL-2E)

Teamwork using engineering design process: define the problem, learn about the problem, plan a solution, try your plan, test your solution, and decide if your solution is good enough. Identifying as engineers and scientists.

Study design

Tank et al. (2018). To design a paper basket to transport wet and dry rocks for other children interested to start a rock collection. Followed three kindergarten classrooms of 32 students. Video observations and field notes, data analysed using design processes.

Table 3.1 (continued)

Children kept with the focus of the engineering and design task over days. Does the basket meet the client’s need? Engineering process is an iterative process and not linear for PreK students. Teachers need to support children in the initial problem and background information of the engineering and design model. Explicit engineering language emerged.

Materials to weave the basket dominated (strength and how materials interact with water).

Develop a plan in order to Explain that materials are complete a task selected for use because (STEL-2D) they possess desirable properties and characteristics (STEL-2C)

Illustrate how systems Safely use tools have parts or to complete tasks components that work (STEL-2B) together to accomplish a goal (STEL-2A)

50 M. Fleer

Describe requirements of designing or making a product or system (STEL-2K)

Children struggled to know how to use their designs to develop tool prototypes and mining on an alien planet.

Create a new product that improves someone’s life (STEL-2L)

Being little engineers. Joint language, hypothetical mining for resources on an alien planet.

Study design

McFadden and Roehrig (2019). Studied engineering design discourses in a Grade 5 elementary science classroom. 10-day unit of engineering was video recorded.

Different forms of materials to mine—sand, gravel, and large pebbles.

Describe the properties of different materials (STEL-2I)

Table 3.2 Examples of the research base in relation to STEL for Yr3–Yr6 Identify the resources needed to get a technical job done, such as people, materials, capital, tools, machines, knowledge, energy, and time (STEL-2H)

Focusing on practices, Develop resource not just the extraction plan. materials—examining tool prototypes in relation to the materials.

Illustrate how, when parts of a system are missing, it may not work as planned (STEL-2G).

Describe how a subsystem is a system that operates as a part of another larger system (STEL-2F)

(continued)

Extraction tool use: mining for natural resources.

Demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing (STEL-2J)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 51

Describe requirements of designing or making a product or system (STEL-2K)

When young students were given an open-ended design problem, they tended to journey within the solution-space, iteratively designing and predicting.

Create a new product that improves someone’s life (STEL-2L)

Design a circuit to support and monitor doggie door, so she knows when Rex the dog goes outside.

Study design

Sung and Kelley (2019). Nine concurrent think-aloud protocols from fourth-grade elementary students. Nine design sessions from nine classrooms. 27 students participated.

Table 3.2 (continued) Describe the properties of different materials (STEL-2I)

Describe how a subsystem is a system that operates as a part of another larger system (STEL-2F)

Identify the resources needed to get a technical job done, such as people, materials, capital, tools, machines, knowledge, energy, and time (STEL-2H)

(continued)

Demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing (STEL-2J)

52 M. Fleer

Describe requirements of designing or making a product or system (STEL-2K)

Students were asked to consider constraints such as planting season time and cost requirements of genetic testing methods.

Create a new product that improves someone’s life (STEL-2L)

Client was an agricultural office. Asked to solve problem to test for and prevent cross-pollination of non-GMO fields from GMO fields.

Study design

Aranda et al., (2020). What modes of thinking do grade 6 students employ (cognitive memory, convergent, divergent, evaluative, and thinking). 16-day design challenge programme that integrated genetics with engineering. Student discussions (2 groups of 4 students).

Table 3.2 (continued) Describe the properties of different materials (STEL-2I)

Describe how a subsystem is a system that operates as a part of another larger system (STEL-2F)

Higher modes of thinking were employed when communicating results to client. Students evaluated and justified design decisions.

Identify the resources needed to get a technical job done, such as people, materials, capital, tools, machines, knowledge, energy, and time (STEL-2H)

(continued)

Demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing (STEL-2J)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 53

Describe requirements of designing or making a product or system (STEL-2K)

Client provided design brief and feedback to children. Found students had a fixation problem: not able to critically evaluate their own designs and engage in concept development despite the iterative design process.

Create a new product that improves someone’s life (STEL-2L)

Design a game, lesson, or sports equipment for the gym of the future, to enable children with different participation motives to be physically active together.

Study design

Schut et al. (2020). 24 children (9–11 years) co-design projects over seven weeks as they responded to clients’ questions.

Table 3.2 (continued) Describe the properties of different materials (STEL-2I)

Describe how a subsystem is a system that operates as a part of another larger system (STEL-2F)

Identify the resources needed to get a technical job done, such as people, materials, capital, tools, machines, knowledge, energy, and time (STEL-2H)

(continued)

Demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing (STEL-2J)

54 M. Fleer

Describe requirements of designing or making a product or system (STEL-2K)

Students expressed a desired shoe, rather than a shoe design. Children were clients.

Create a new product that improves someone’s life (STEL-2L)

Open-ended design task: designed their own shoes—fancy feet.

Study design

English (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem, IJTD, 29, 1011–1032. Longitudinal study of 34 nine-year-olds. Two classes explored the roles of designers and engineers in shoe manufacturing.

Table 3.2 (continued) Describe how a subsystem is a system that operates as a part of another larger system (STEL-2F)

Tested materials: Role of manufacturing water repellent, and designer in shoe durable, designs. insulated.

Describe the properties of different materials (STEL-2I)

Class discussion, such as “how did the aims of the shoe design influence your choice of materials?”.

Identify the resources needed to get a technical job done, such as people, materials, capital, tools, machines, knowledge, energy, and time (STEL-2H)

Initial designs and final products—shoe fastenings.

Demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing (STEL-2J)

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy … 55

56

M. Fleer Engineering in practice Engineering affordances in nature play (Miller and Saenz, 2021)

Engineering as practice Engineering affordances in block play (Bagiati and Evangelou , 2016)

Developmental

engineering (Adams et all, 2011)

Reading a book and setting up an engineering problem (Thorshag and Holmqvist 2019)

Children are positioned as engineers, solving a problem presented through YouTube, book, or social issue (Malone et al., (2018).

Design-based learning & Habits of the mind (AguirreMunoz and Pantoya, 2016)

Engineering processes (Bagiati 2011))

Fig. 3.1 Continuum of engineering in practice (PreK play-based settings) to engineering as practice (fixed design briefs)

Fourth, the motivating conditions to stimulate the engineering activity of the children ranged from loosely framed design brief, such as being shown figurines from the TV programme “Bob the Builder”, and then being asked to discuss and plan something they wanted to build for their figurines (Gold et al., 2021), to design tasks where children were asked to design a paper basket to transport wet and dry rocks for other children interested to start a rock collection (Tank et al., 2018). A few researchers used a children’s book with a problem, such as to design a windmill to aerate fishponds (mechanical engineer), or formulate the best playdough possible (chemical engineers) (Malone et al., 2018). Further, some researchers positioned children as agricultural engineers and asked them to improve a hand pollinator for a specified flower (Aguirre-Munoz & Pantoya, 2016). Additionally, a few researchers introduced children to models and asked them to make a building solid and water resistant (structural engineer) (Thorshag & Holmqvist, 2019). These intervention studies contrast with those naturalistic studies discussed previously which were designed to investigate conceptual engineering affordances in play (Fig. 3.1). The intervention studies explicitly organised programmes to support the learning of engineering concepts (engineering as practice), while the developmental engineering studies examined what arose naturally in play (engineering in practice) and which could be conceptually aligned with engineering competence. When this content analysis of the studies in Table 3.1 is considered in relation to concepts underpinning the standards, both engineering interventions and engineering affordances of play were found to be explicitly oriented to developing a plan or design. Further, most of the studies focused on learning about materials and their properties, with some inviting children to give explanations of material selection in relation to use (properties and characteristics). This is consistent with STEL-2C. Only one study mentioned the concept of teamwork in engineering (STEL-2E), although some studies organised children in pairs when working on engineering activities. Teamwork could have been assumed, rather than explicitly studied. An alternative explanation could be that children in free play settings and early years’ classrooms are traditionally expected to work together, but working as a team on an engineering project requires a higher level of social skills than working in pairs. Children in this cultural-age period are still developing self-regulation and social and emotional competencies. Perhaps more conceptual nuancing of what is meant by teamwork in the standards would help teachers.

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

57

What was also missing from the research into the PreK-2 period was concepts associated with systems (STEL-2A), and the safe use of tools to complete tasks (STEL-2B). Although Eckhoff (2021) mentions a system perspective, this was not the focus of her research. Similarly, Bagiati (2011) also brings forward in the lesson sequence in the appendix of his thesis parts of a system to make a whole. But like Echoff (2021), he does not orient his findings on the engineering concept of systems. Systems thinking has been explicitly discussed by Lippard et al. (2018) but only in relation to general papers that were presented at a conference rather than published in the literature. Lippard et al. (2018) define system thinking in PreK as “identifying and labeling characteristics and properties of materials, identifying limits and possibilities of materials, transferring and applying knowledge, materials management” (p. 23). They give a practice example to illustrate this in an assessment protocol for identifying engineering habits of the mind: “A child made an envelope with a sheet of paper and a stapler. Inserted small paper pieces, shook envelope (tested), then added more staples, and shook (tested) again” (p. 23). While identification of parts could be conceptualised as a system, this is different to thinking theoretically through a system of concepts as was conceptualised by Davydov (2008). Overall, the content analysis of PreK-2 suggests that while studies show concepts associated with design and materials, there is a limited focus on systems, teamwork, and safety. It could be argued that these concepts within the standards do not yet have the research base for PreK-2. Even though these concepts logically are in keeping with the conceptual continuum of the standards (see further below for primary school), there is limited foundational research at this stage. It can be argued that, both the research base and the development of standards for teachers in the PreK-2 area are still emerging.

3.8 Engineering Concepts for Yr3–Yr6 Three key ideas emerge from the content analysis of the research context and the Yr3–Yr6 standards. First, a difference was found in how the design challenges were framed. When the challenge was personally related to children, such as designing one’s own shoes, students were able to iteratively evaluate materials and design processes flexibly and make sophisticated judgements about their initial designs and final products (English, 2019). However, when the clients were not the children, but rather someone in the community with an engineering need, the children were unable to adjust their designs and products in relation to client feedback (Schut et al., 2020). This suggests that responding to a client is much more challenging for children in middle primary, and therefore the standards should be oriented to personally meaningful problems where the client is the child rather than someone external. The latter is more in tune with the psychological development of children and their personal motives for the learning engineering principles. This is further confounded by the inclusion of clients in the middle years of primary school

58

M. Fleer

(Schut et al., 2020). The decentering from self to other in the context of design could explain why fixation emerges. Decentering from self to other is an important dimension in children’s development. This psychological dimension is important for considering the nuancing of the engineering process where learning about design and design evaluation in engineering needs further consideration. Second, although the standards for Yr3–Yr6 (Table 3.2) show a progression from the PreK-Yr2 period (Table 3.1), there appear to be some areas of research that are missing across both bands. The studies collectively show the importance of design for all stages of the engineering process. But the concept of how to use a design has been shown to be challenging across both the PreK-2 and in the middle years of primary school (Yr3–Yr4). The finding of McFadden and Roehrig (2019) that the children in their study did not know how to use their design for developing and refining their prototypes, could give rise to an important explanation about why children in the early years and middle years begin with a designed solution, but do not always go back to their original designs. If children do not know how to use their designs, and do not consciously revisit their designs during the testing or communicating or evaluating of their final prototype, as is expected in an engineering process, then it is not surprising that children’s designs are discarded. These conclusions appear to be different for older students in Yr6 and beyond, where, for instance, Aranda et al. (2020) found that children engaged in higher modes of design thinking when engaging with clients as they presented, evaluated, and justified their design solutions to them. It seems there is a conceptual continuum from not using designs drawn/planned to a conscious use of designs in support of engineering thinking and acting. Third, differences across cultural-age periods in learning about engineering processes also appeared. McFadden and Roehrig (2019) reported that Yr5 children could engage with the development of prototypes, but did so only in the context of materials evaluation. For instance, when examining their prototype in relation to the different forms of materials to be mined, such as sand, gravel, and large pebbles, they considered how their prototype behaved in relation to sorting the materials and made adjustments directly to their prototype. The iterative nature of the engineering processes is a finding that has emerged more generally in the literature for all year levels. Considering this research in the context of STEL-2K that children should describe requirements of designing or making a product or system, perhaps it would be more in tune with the psychological development of children to be able to describe why designs help with making and revising prototypes or designed solutions. Similarly, instead of STEL-2J stating that children should demonstrate how tools and machines extend human capabilities, such as holding, lifting, carrying, fastening, separating, and computing, perhaps it would be more in keeping with children’s development if they show evidence of being able to conceptualise the designed solution in relation to self and others, with the former being for Yr3–4 children and the latter for Yr5–6. Overall, when Table 3.1 is compared with Table 3.2, a cognitive change for children is immediately apparent from PreK-Yr2 to Yr3–Yr6 of the Standards. The

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

59

content shift is thought to be in relation to the complexity of the designed solutions, where the engineering problems being introduced demand higher levels of conceptual thinking.

3.9 Conclusion In drawing on cultural-historical theory (Vygotsky, 1994, 1997, 1998), this chapter reported on the results of a content analysis of concepts and practices found in engineering studies within the PreK-6 cultural-age period to better understand the evidence that potentially sits under the Standards for Technology and Engineering Literacy. Specifically this paper asked: What are the relations between the expected engineering concepts and principles and the unique psychological characteristics of children in the PreK-Yr6 cultural-age period? First, and encouragingly, the content analysis found that a growing body of research supports the concepts underpinning the development of engineering literacy as well as aligning with the concepts in the Standards for PreK-6. A significant body of research was found that supports the engineering processes, particularly design cognition (Crismond & Adams, 2012), and the exploration of materials and their properties (English, 2019) for the PreK-6 standards. However, there were also some gaps between what is in the standards and the available studies to support the concepts. The content analysis identified that little research had been explicitly undertaken in support of the standards that focus on safety, teamwork, and systems thinking. But this could be due to the scope of the review only focusing on engineering studies. A broader review of studies from related fields such as technologies could give more empirical work for these particular engineering principles and concepts. Second, the content analysis also revealed that engineering education as an area of learning appears to be well established in the USA, but it has not yet received as much international attention, despite an abundance of engineering curriculum activity emerging for primary and early childhood settings. However, as suggested above for research into specific engineering concepts and principles such as safety and teamwork, a broader review using different terms as is appropriate for different countries; such an effort could bring forward more and relevant research. This chapter tentatively contributes to understanding the scope and reach of the evidence on engineering standards and engineering literacy for the USA but invites further reviewing of engineering research using a broader set of terms from other countries. Third, the results of the content analysis of concepts and content of engineering education were also considered in relation to the cultural-age periods of the children in the studies. In considering what is known about children’s psychological development and their engineering thinking during the PreK-6 cultural-age period, Lippard et al. (2017) found in their systematic review that there is only a “small body of research regarding engineering thinking in prekindergarten children” and “measures are underdeveloped and their psychometric properties are often unestablished” (p. 454). Additionally, Bonsall et al. (2020) found in their review of international

60

M. Fleer

studies that there is no commonly defined conceptual progression of engineering learning for primary and secondary students. This is expected in a new disciplinary field that is making its way into educational systems, as infrastructure and research curiosities catch up to what is advocated for the expected standards for the development of engineering literacy on a global scale. The content analysis of both the PreK-2 (Table 3.1) and Yr3–Yr6 (Table 3.2) is consistent with these claims. Fourth, the content analysis also highlighted some content for PreK-2 and Yr3– Yr6 in the standards that need more research and consideration. For instance, an analysis of how engineering problems was introduced and framed for children in the context of engineering processes brought forward the idea of who was the client. It seemed that having self as client versus designing and prototyping a solution for an external client mattered. The latter placed a psychological demand on the children, and this has not generally been recognised in the literature. Closest was Aranda et al. (2020), who reasoned that K-12 “students need to recall scientific facts and hypothesize as they begin to justify design decisions. As students finalized design decisions and communicated this design to the client, they employed more higher order modes of thinking, since they evaluated and justified their design decisions” (p. 67). Cognitive load was also identified in a meta-synthesis of the design literature by Strimel et al. (2020), where they suggested “problem-scoping, ideation and brainstorming techniques, sketching, decision making authentic prototyping, optimization, computational thinking, and mathematical prediction” (p. 271) within a broader secondary framework and a better conceptualisation of a design continuum (Grubbs et al., 2018). We suggest that the introduction of an external client in the PreK-4 levels puts a significant cognitive load on children, and this should be recognised in the standards. The engineering continuum division PreK-2 and Yr3–Yr6 may need further research, as self as client versus other as client is an important psychological shift that would sit in the standards for older children. Perhaps this psychological shift could be written into the standards as a key conceptual outcome to support engineering thinking of children. Broadening the scope of the review may reveal other psychological demands inherent in engineering education not noticed in the standards, which may need further consideration. Finally, the standards bring forward progression in engineering processes, particularly in relation to the link between initial designs and evaluations against the design and engineering requirements. Two key points matter. First, much of the longstanding literature has argued that children do not go back to their designs (McFadden & Roehrig, 2019), or they argue for an iterative process in recognition that engineering processes are not linear (Sung & Kelley, 2019). However, based on the research reviewed in this area, the study by English (2019) offers an alternative explanation: that children do not know how to use their designs once prepared. This suggests that more attention needs to be paid to the reasons and ways of using design in the progression of standards. Second, while most of the studies reviewed were from the USA and these researchers had expertise in different fields of engineering, fewer studies were guided by teams that included researchers with knowledge of children’s development and educational pedagogy. In line with the interest of the researchers, many of the studies focused on the engineering fields of the researchers who looked at the

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

61

existing learning environments for engineering affordances in the PreK-2 (construction kits and blocks) and later years (Yr3–Yr6 and beyond) through the introduction of engineering briefs and resources not usually found in schools. In line with this, the content analysis identified that there was a shift in the focus of the studies from researching children’s behaviours as natural engineers in play (Moore, 2018) to consciously drawing on engineering processes to generate engineered solutions to introduced problems by teachers for studies of older children (Sung & Kelley, 2019). This supports the psychological development of children across the PreK-6 culturalage period. But this dimension is yet to be considered explicitly within the place of engineering literacy and the continuum of standards. Figure 3.1 offers another way of theorising concepts within an engineering continuum by framing the continuum as engineering in practice to engineering as practice. Perhaps bringing into the standards terms such as engineering play and playfulness in design thinking (PreK-2) and terms such as imagining designed solutions in imaginary play situations (Yr4–Yr6) could give a different kind of terminology for locating engineering concepts within an education continuum. Regardless of these speculations, the content analysis shows that there is much scope for further and more complex research in supporting the standards for PreK-6 engineering literacy. Acknowledgements Funding from the Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship Scheme [FL180100161] supported the writing of this chapter.

References Aguirre-Munoz, Z., & Pantoya, M. (2016). Engineering literacy and engagement in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 630–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee. 20151 Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., & Selcen Guzey, S. (2020). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5 Bagiati, A. (2011). Early engineering: A developmentally appropriate curriculum for young children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2016). Practicing engineering while building with blocks: Identifying engineering thinking. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24, 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2015.1120521 Bonsall, A., Bianchi, L., & Hanso, J. (2020). A scoping literature review of learning progressions of engineering education at primary and secondary school level. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1799780 Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. Nova Science Publishers. Eckhoff, A. (2021). Engineering to understand: Reflections on a learning and teaching partnership for preservice early grades teachers and preschoolers. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.2015492

62

M. Fleer

English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 1011–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10798-018-9482-z English, L., & Moore, T. (2018). Early engineering learning. Springer. Fleer, M. (2021a). The genesis of design: Learning about design, learning through design to learning design in play. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1441–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09670-w Fleer, M. (2021b). A cultural-historical critique of how engineering knowledge is constructed through research in play-based settings: What counts as evidence and what is invisible? Research in Science Education, 52, 1355–1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-021-10012-y Gold, Z. S. (2017). Engineering play: Exploring associations with executive function, mathematical ability, and spatial ability in preschool. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, U.S.A. Gold, Z. S., Elicker, J., & Beaulieu, B. A. (2020). Learning engineering through block play: STEM in preschool. Young Children, 75(2), 24–29. Gold, Z. S., Elicker, J., Evich, C. D., Mishra, A. A., Howe, N., & Weil, A. E. (2021). Engineering play with blocks as an informal learning context for executive function and planning. Journal of Engineering Education, 1–16.https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20421 Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y Hedegaard, M. (2007). The development of children’s conceptual relation to the world, with focus on concept formation in preschool children’s activity. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 246–275). Cambridge University Press. Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., & Riley, K. L. (2017). Engineering thinking in prekindergarten children: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20174 Lippard, C. N., Lamm, M. H., Tank, K. M., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). Pre-engineering thinking and engineering habits of mind in preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-018-0898-6 Lippard, C. N., Riley, K. L., & Lamm, M. H. (2018). Encouraging the development of engineering habits of mind in prekindergarten learners. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 19–36). Springer. Malone, K. L., Tiarani, V., Irving, K. E., Kajfez, R., Lin, H., Giasi, T., & Edmiston, B. W. (2018). Engineering design challenges in early childhood education: Effects on student cognition and interest. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/ 3871 McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: Supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 231–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5 Moore, L., Tank, T., & English, L. (2018). Engineering in the early grades: Harnessing children’s natural ways of thinking. In L. English & T. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning (pp. 9–18). Springer. Riley Miller, A., & Saenz, L. P. (2021). Exploring relationships between play spaces, pedagogy, and preschoolers’ play-based science and engineering practices. Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 2(3), 314–337. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202123121 Schut, A., Klapwijk, R., Gielen, M., van Doorn, F., & de Vries, M. (2020). Uncovering early indicators of fixation during the concept development stage of children’s design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(5), 951–972. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10798-019-09528-2 Strimel, G. J., Kim, E., Grubbs, M. E., & Huffman, T. J. (2020). A meta-synthesis of primary and secondary student design cognition research. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 243–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09505-9

3 The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

63

Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1 Tank, K. M., Rynearson, A. M., & Moore, T. J. (2018). Examining student and teacher talk within engineering design in kindergarten. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 10. https://doi. org/10.20897/ejsteme/3870 Thorshag, K., & Holmqvist, M. (2019). Pre-school children’s expressed technological volition during construction play. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 987–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9481-0 Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy Psikhologii, 12(6), 62–76. Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment (T. Prout, Trans.). In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Blackwell. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: The history of the development of higher mental functions (M. J. Hall, Trans.; R. W. Rieber, Ed. Vol. 4). Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Child Psychology (M. J. Hall, Trans.; R. W. Rieber, Ed. Vol. 5). Plenum Press. Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2020). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the international journal of technology and design education: 2000–2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(2), 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-095 08-6

Marilyn Fleer is an Australian Research Council Laureate Professor and holds the dual position of a Sir John Monash Distinguished Professor and Foundation Chair of Early Childhood Education and Development at Monash University, Australia. She was awarded the 2018 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Laureate Fellowship by the Australian Research Council and was Former President of the International Society of Cultural-historical Activity Research (ISCAR). She was presented with the 2019 Ashley Goldsworthy Award for Outstanding leadership in university–business collaboration, was recently elected as Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, and inducted into the Honour Roll of Women in Victoria as Change Agent.

Chapter 4

Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary Education: The Impact and Implications of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy Joseph S. Furse and Emily Yoshikawa-Ruesch

Abstract Since the 1990s, standards and standards-based curricula have become commonplace throughout the USA. In 2020, the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) published the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL), which built upon the earlier Standards for Technological Literacy (STL; published in 2000 and last revised in 2007). The purpose of this chapter was to explore the impact of the STEL on technology and engineering curricula in secondary education and to assess the literature surrounding the impact of these curricula. Several curriculum resources were identified which advertised alignment with STEL, and literature surrounding these resources and their impact on student outcomes were examined. In addition, potential impacts of the STEL on secondary education pedagogy and secondary teacher preparation were discussed. Keywords STEM · Standards · Curriculum · Pedagogy

4.1 Introduction Since the 1990s, a trend toward the implementation of standards and standardsbased curricula has swept across the USA. Although not all educational curricula are standardized across all states, the proliferation of educational standards, standardized assessments, and standards-based curricula at local, state, and national levels is J. S. Furse (B) · E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch Department of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_4

65

66

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

widespread. Many sets of standards and associated curricula have been developed, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013), Common Core State Standards (CCSS; NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010), and others. A number of states and myriad local education agencies (LEAs) have adopted national standards in various content areas, along with curricula that claim to be aligned with these standards. This trend has not been limited to so-called academic content areas such as mathematics, science, and language arts, but has also impacted curriculum and instruction in technology and engineering education as well as other areas. In 2020, the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) released the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL), which superseded its predecessor, Standards for Technological Literacy (STL; ITEEA, 2007), originally developed in 2000 and subsequently revised in 2002 and 2007. The new Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy include traditional benchmarks against which to measure student learning and also incorporate eight contexts through which these benchmarks can be applied, as well as eight practices for facilitating student learning within the eight contexts. ITEEA (2022a) has developed crosswalks between STEL benchmarks and those of other major standards, including NGSS, CCSS, and the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards (ISTE, 2016), as well as the National Assessment of Educational Progress—Technology and Engineering Literacy assessment benchmarks (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). The newly developed Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy allow teachers and students to more fully adapt to the changing technological world “through inquiry, critical thinking, hands-on making and doing, and a focus on learning skills that students can apply throughout their lives, regardless of context” (ITEEA, 2020, p. viii). Given the recent release of STEL, and in light of the existence of potentially competing or complementary sets of standards such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013), it seems appropriate to examine the impact, both realized and potential, of STEL on technology and engineering curricula, and to assess through further research the extent to which STEL-aligned curricula improve important outcomes, such as increasing students’ technological and engineering literacy or increasing students’ interest in STEM careers. In this chapter, we will address these questions in the context of secondary education (middle schools and high schools) within the USA. We hope that this chapter may serve as a suitable starting point for scholarly conversations concerning the impact of STEL on technology and engineering curricula, instructional practices, and student outcomes at the secondary level, as well as future directions for research and practice.

4.2 Current Standards-Based Resources A major purpose of this chapter is to identify curricula that have been developed and that potentially align with STEL and to discuss the impact of these curricula on technology and engineering education. A plethora of curricula have been developed

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

67

to help equip teachers to prepare students for future careers in technology and engineering disciplines. Standards-based curricula specifically addressing technology and engineering education were identified for discussion in this chapter through an internet search, using search terms such as “secondary engineering education program” and “technology and engineering secondary curriculum.” For the purposes of this chapter on standards-based curricula in secondary education, only curricula designed for grades 6–12 that are being used in or made available to multiple states within the USA were identified for discussion. Each of the identified curricula were developed from different perspectives and claim alignment to different sets of standards. Table 4.1 identifies standards alignment for identified technology- and engineering-related curricula, including Standards for Technology and Engineering Literacy (STEL; ITEEA 2020), Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States, 2013), and Common Core State Standards (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010). Additionally, if the curriculum resource identified the use of industry members to help develop and identify important standards, the term “Industry” is marked to show industry alignment with the resource. Many of the programs did not have clearly identified standards to which they were aligned—these were marked as “none.” This does not necessarily mean that the curriculum or resource would not align with any standards, but rather that none are clearly identified by the curriculum developers. It should also be noted that these categorizations were made primarily on the basis of self-reported standards alignment by the curriculum developers. In addition, we observed that different sets of standards often have overlapping benchmarks relevant to technology and engineering education. As a result, there is considerable ambiguity as to which standards should be followed, which could lead to curriculum developers taking what might be termed a “buffet approach” wherein alignment to multiple sets of standards is claimed, while in many cases a given curriculum may or may not be fully integrated with any one set of standards. Content analysis determining the true extent to which each of these curricula is integrated with relevant standards, including STEL, could be an area for future scholarship. We recognize that many other curricula exist that may align with state or national standards that are unpublished, or otherwise not widely available, whether developed by individual teachers or by other groups. These curricula are outside the scope of this chapter but may be valuable to those who have access to them. The discussion of standards-based curricula in technology and engineering education in this chapter will primarily center around those curricula that have aligned with the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020). Resources that identified links to the original STL were also included in this list as aligned to the STEL, although it is recognized that STL and STEL are not equivalent in many ways. ITEEA has created an additional crosswalk between STEL and STL in order to “clearly articulate the interconnectedness between the former benchmarks and the current” benchmarks (ITEEA, 2021, p. 1). Due to the relatively recent release of STEL, as well as the two years of global pandemic in the interim, the authors anticipate that appropriate updates will be made by the respective curriculum developers. Thus, the authors regard curriculum resources identifying alignment with STL as

68

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

Table 4.1 Program and standards alignment Program

Standard alignment STEL/STL

NGSS

Common core

Advancing excellence in P-12 engineering education Engineering byDesign

Industry x

x x

Engineering everywhere Engineering the future

x

x x

Engineer your world Teach engineering

x

Engineering 4 us all

x

Project lead the way

None

x

Siemens

x

x x

worth discussing in greater depth along with those explicitly aligned with the new standards. Three curricula were identified that reported alignment with STEL and/ or STL, and each will be discussed as to their purpose, standards alignment, and documented impact on student outcomes including technological and engineering literacy, interest in STEM careers, and other educational outcomes identified in research publications. In addition, the search for standards-based technology and engineering curricula also turned up the Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (AEEE) group (AEEE, 2021). While AEEE does not provide a standalone curriculum per se, the resources they provide for educators and curriculum developers for supporting industry-based engineering instruction were relevant to this chapter and will be discussed accordingly.

4.2.1 Engineering byDesign Engineering byDesign (EbD; ITEEA, 2022b) was developed by the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). Although originally created to align with STL (2007), EbD has been revised to reflect the changes inherent in STEL. Its goals are to help teachers educate and prepare students for the future and to increase students’ excitement about STEM fields while equipping them with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will help them to become “the next generation of technologists, innovators, designers, and engineers” (ITEEA, 2022b, para. 1). The resources provided within EbD acknowledge that technology and engineering education is an ever-changing field. Although students cannot be prepared with the knowledge to address all the fields within technology and engineering, students can learn transferable skills that can be applied to all STEM fields.

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

69

Engineering byDesign has been shown to help increase student interest in engineering as well as to improve the relevance of science and mathematics to the real world (Strimel, 2012). A 2009 study by Moye found that teaching the EbD curriculum improved teacher perceptions of engineering. Jackson et al. (2016) found that students participating in EbD courses in grades 7–9 developed increased self-efficacy in design thinking and creative thinking. Other projects have been undertaken within Engineering byDesign, such as Engineering for All (EfA) and Soft Robotics to Broaden the STEM Pipeline (Soft Robotics). Engineering for All is a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded project wherein two six-week extension modules were developed for the EbD curriculum to engage students in solving real-world problems associated with the scarcity of adequate water and food resources in developing countries (ITEEA, 2018a). In these EbD units, engineering is emphasized as a social good that can be utilized to solve problems that have a direct impact on people and their quality of life, as opposed to merely a profit-driving enterprise (ITEEA, 2018a). The EfA project generated multiple journal publications; however, the publications were primarily centered on describing the development and implementation of the curriculum rather than directly investigating student outcomes. An evaluation of the project included feasibility studies which generally found that teachers were able to implement the units in their classrooms, especially when given adequate training and resources to purchase and store materials (Hacker et al., 2017, 2018). One article also addressed teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and implementation of the EfA units and found that teachers’ PCK varied across multiple dimensions (Crismond et al., 2018). For example, teachers were adept at providing procedural content knowledge such as how to use various tools but were lacking in other areas such as providing meaningful feedback on students’ work, and abilities varied from teacher to teacher in areas such as understanding the key STEM concepts involved with the design challenges (Crismond et al., 2018). Soft Robotics was a second NSF-funded project created to enhance the curriculum for two EbD courses: Foundations of Technology (9th grade) and Advanced Technological Design (Grades 11–12), with the intent of increasing female participation in STEM through the replacement of units on rigid robotics with units on soft robotics (ITEEA, 2018b). Several publications and presentations were generated through this project. Although many of these are listed as being in various stages of development (under review, in preparation, etc.) on ITEEA’s website, some findings have nevertheless been identified relating to student outcomes. The largest and most recent study on the use of the soft robotics unit found that female students’ tinkering self-efficacy benefited more from participation in soft robotics than in the rigid robotics unit (Jackson et al., 2021). The same study also found that students performed equally well on other metrics (self-efficacy, self-determination, and interest) in both rigid and soft robotics units. The results of current research related to EbD are promising; however, much of the existing research is preliminary in nature or is more focused on curriculum development and implementation rather than on student outcomes. The reputation of EbD

70

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

as a standards-based, integrated-STEM curriculum would be considerably strengthened by more outcome-focused research that shows the impacts of the curriculum on students, particularly if this research is published in widely available, peer-reviewed journals with a diverse readership.

4.2.2 Engineering the Future Engineering the Future (EtF; Activate Learning, 2022a) was produced by the National Center for Technological Literacy, Museum of Science, Boston, in connection with Activate Learning. This group has developed engineering curricula for elementary through secondary education. The EtF curriculum was designed to fully support both the NGSS and the original STL standards in grades 9–12, while providing students with basic knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to succeed in STEM fields such as design and innovation; understanding the relationship between technology, society, and the environment; and discovering relationships between science, technology, engineering, and math (Activate Learning, 2022a). The goal was to use project-based learning to teach various STEM concepts. Modules in the EtF curriculum include an introduction to engineering, building design, vehicle design, and electrical design (Activate Learning, 2022b). The curriculum developers specifically note that EtF provides flexibility in allowing implementation at any grade level within secondary education or as an additional resource in other STEM classes (Activate Learning, 2022a). No research was identified as to outcomes resulting from the implementation of this curriculum after an extensive internet and database search.

4.2.3 Project Lead the Way Project Lead the Way (PLTW; Project Lead the Way, Inc., 2022a) is a widely used curriculum currently available in the USA. PLTW started as a high school curriculum for engineering but has since expanded to include all grade levels (PreK-12) and other content areas such as computer science and biomedical science (Project Lead the Way, Inc., 2022b). Project Lead the Way also provides training and support for educators seeking to implement the PLTW curriculum in the classroom. According to Volk (2019), this has had a major impact on technology and engineering teacher education programs, given that this training enables any teacher from any content area to become a PLTW teacher. These resources have also been linked to all available national engineering and technology standards, including the STEL. Additionally, individual state standards can be downloaded from their website. There has been a large amount of research behind the student outcomes provided by PLTW. The resources provided through PLTW encourage student interest in STEM/STEAM careers (Bellinger, 2019; Hess et al., 2016; Porter, 2011; Sorge, 2014), help students develop pre-engineering competencies (Rogers, 2006), and

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

71

increase retention in engineering degree programs (Utley et al., 2019). Participation in PLTW has also been shown to increase math and science achievement scores (Bellinger, 2019; Hess et al., 2016; Rethwisch, et al., 2012; Van Overschelde, 2013).

4.2.4 Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (AE3) is an organization dedicated to supporting engineering education at all grade levels. Researchers, curriculum developers, and industry representatives from AE3 and the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) collaborated to develop the Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning in 2020 (AE3 & AEEE, 2020). While this framework is not explicitly linked to any set of educational standards, its relevance to standards-based curriculum development and implementation in technology and engineering education is important and merits discussion. The goal of the Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning is to better provide teachers at all grade levels with a framework and resources to prepare engineering students for industry and support the inclusion of engineering as a distinct element of education at all grade levels (AE3, 2021a). According to the framework, engineering learning consists of three main elements: Habits of Mind, Practices, and Knowledge (AE3 & ASEE, 2020). Additionally, the AE3 organization provides lesson plans that can be linked to the three elements of engineering learning, as well as a template for developing new lesson plans and curricula for engineering education. The framework does not provide standards per se, but it does suggest specific principles and core concepts that fit within the three elements, along with lesson plans that can be used to support engineering learning (AE3, 2021b). AE3 points to research and studies to support the frameworks established, but there are limited resources available which measure student outcomes from implementing the framework or specific lesson plans in the classroom (Strimel et al., 2020). Due to its recent development, official reports of student and/or teacher outcomes have yet to be published.

4.3 Pedagogical Implications of STEL for Secondary Education Technology and engineering education has long emphasized a tradition of implementing hands-on, context-rich learning environments in which students are expected to integrate knowledge from many different disciplines, with an emphasis on solving real-world problems using technological tools and processes to develop technological literacy. The Technology for All Americans Project (Satchwell & Dugger, 1996) laid the foundation for the careful research and development of companions to the original Standards for Technological Literacy. The progress made by the TfAAP

72

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

led to the creation of four addenda to assist with the implementation and revision of the standards created (ITEEA, 2022c). Engineering design also became a focus that received strong emphasis in the discipline. Curricular and other instructional resources, such as Project Lead the Way, Engineering byDesign, and others mentioned that are aligned with STEL (or its predecessor, STL), have incorporated this approach over the years. Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy builds upon this tradition with the inclusion of eight practices for technological and engineering literacy, which represent the “knowledge, skills, and dispositions students need in order to successfully apply the core disciplinary standards in the different context areas” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 14). These practices create certain pedagogical implications for teaching technological and engineering literacy in the secondary classroom. By extension, these practices also result in implications for teacher preparation, particularly within pre-service technology and engineering education teacher education programs. The following paragraphs will discuss these eight practices, as well as their implications for curriculum and instruction within secondary classrooms, including considerations that may be specific to different age groups (i.e., middle grades versus high school). While Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy are not prescriptive in how these practices are to be applied, some general guidelines are given for different grade bands from Pre-K through grade 12. Implications of these practices for preparing educators to teach technology and engineering literacy at the secondary level will also be discussed.

4.3.1 Systems Thinking Systems thinking in the context of technological literacy could be defined as the adoption of a mindset which recognizes that “all technologies contain interconnected components and…interact with the social and natural environments in which they operate” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 73). Within STEL, suggestions are made as to general expectations for systems thinking at the middle school and high school levels. At the middle school level, it is suggested that students should be able to “[use] the systems model to show how parts of technological systems work together” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 72). For example, students participating in a unit on manufacturing technology might be asked to utilize the Universal Systems Model as a framework to identify inputs, outputs, processes, and feedback in a manufacturing system which they use to create a product of value. Middle school students might then be asked to describe how this system interacts with other systems such as the economy and the environment by using resources, creating jobs, producing waste, and so on. According to STEL, high school students may be expected to take systems thinking a step further by “design[ing] and troubleshoot[ing] technological systems in ways that consider the multiple components of the system” (p. 72). Thus, high school students engaging in a similar unit focused on manufacturing could be asked to design and optimize a manufacturing system to not only produce a product of value but also to minimize the resources used and/or waste generated while maximizing economic profitability.

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

73

4.3.2 Creativity Creativity is often promoted in a variety of different disciplines as a desirable trait or practice. In STEL, creativity is defined, essentially, as the ability to identify “new ways of doing things” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 74). This practice is critical to innovation and design within technology and engineering, as the generation of new and original ideas is the key ingredient for any design which improves upon existing technological solutions. At the middle school level, STEL suggests that students “exhibit innovative and original ideas in the context of design-based activities” (p. 72), while high school students should be expected to “elaborate and articulate novel ideas and aesthetics” (p. 72). For example, middle school students asked to use a CAD program to design a holder for wireless earphones might be asked to use their own original ideas to improve upon existing solutions and then test those ideas using rapid prototyping technology. High school students, on the other hand, could be asked to produce a working version of their product that not only uses original ideas to improve the design but meets requirements for ergonomics and aesthetics. In either case, the use of ill-defined/wicked problems (Dam & Siang, 2022) in design challenges to facilitate the generation of original solutions may be a key to fostering creative practice among students developing technological and engineering literacy within the STEL framework.

4.3.3 Making and Doing If technology and engineering education has a defining characteristic that distinguishes it from most other educational content areas, the practice of making and doing may well be considered such a feature. The importance of making and doing therefore receives strong emphasis within STEL, which defines it as “using hands-on processes associated with designing, building, operating, and evaluating technological products or systems” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 76). At the middle school level, the STEL framework suggests that students be able to “[exhibit] safe, effective ways of producing technological products, systems, and processes” (p. 72), while at the high school level, students may be expected to “regulate and improve making and doing skills” (p. 72). Learning activities at the secondary level should emphasize the safe and proper use of tools to create technological products, systems, and processes. Care should be taken to evaluate the abilities of students in different grade bands to safely use various types of tools and equipment, following the guidelines of applicable state and local education agency policies, as well as current research on lab safety in secondary education. For example, according to a recent report published by ITEEA on STEM and Career and Technical Education lab safety, factors such as student maturity, cognitive ability, psychomotor ability, behavioral record, etc., must be considered when deciding whether students should be allowed to use a table saw, with or without direct supervision from the instructor (Love & Roy, 2022). Such

74

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

considerations may necessitate different policies regarding tool and equipment use at the middle school level versus at the high school level due to differences in maturity, cognitive ability, and psychomotor capability. However, notwithstanding the need to emphasize safe practices within a laboratory setting and to account for differences between middle and high school students, the use of tools to create technological products, systems, and processes should not be regarded as an optional add-on for technology and engineering curricula, but an essential component—regardless of grade band.

4.3.4 Critical Thinking Critical thinking has become a prominent buzzword among educators and the public as an outcome of various educational programs and curricula. According to STEL, critical thinking can be defined as the ability to “compare and evaluate evidence and claims in order to make informed decisions” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 79). The technological nature of modern civilization dictates that successful individuals must be able to evaluate technological solutions to problems based on available evidence as to their effectiveness, costs, and social/environmental/economic/political impacts, as well as to be able to use technology itself (e.g., the internet, scholarly databases, and social media) to access, sort, and engage in dialogue regarding competing claims and evidence. STEL recommends that middle school students should demonstrate the ability to “[defend] technological decisions based on evidence” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 72). For example, students might be asked to use the design process to solve an open-ended design problem and use data from testing to show how their solution to a problem is effective, including linking the data to specific decisions made. At the high school level, students may be expected to “[use] evidence to better understand and solve problems in technology and engineering, including applying computational thinking” (p. 72). An example of this might be to implement a classroom (or interscholastic) robotics competition in which students must use the design process to not only create a physical robot but also use computational thinking and computer programming skills to program the robot to accomplish the required tasks in the competition.

4.3.5 Optimism In today’s world, there are many reasons which might seem to justify a pessimistic outlook toward the future. Challenges such as poverty, climate change, various manifestations of discrimination and prejudice, war, economic instability, civil unrest, environmental pollution, crime, and more seem to threaten on a near-daily basis. Now, more than ever, reasons for optimism may seem to be in short supply. Nevertheless, STEL promotes the importance of a “worldview in which possibilities and

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

75

opportunities can be found in every challenge and an understanding that every technology can be improved” (National Academy of Engineering, 2010, p. 45). Many challenges cannot be solved exclusively through technological innovation; however, technology can be improved and used in helpful ways to solve or mitigate the effects of many challenges faced by our civilization. Students who develop an optimistic worldview will be equipped to see opportunities in challenges and to improve life within their spheres of influence, including through technological means. Within the STEL framework, students in the middle grades may be expected to demonstrate optimism by “[critiquing] technological products and systems to identify areas for improvement” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 72). For example, one of the authors of this chapter used a middle school lesson plan in which students were asked to utilize the “Five Why’s” approach to identify the root cause of major engineering disasters (e.g., the Hyatt Regency bridge collapse, Challenger explosion), and to explain what decisions or technological solutions could have prevented or mitigated the disaster. At the high school level, STEL suggests that students should be able to “[show] persistence in addressing technological problems and finding solutions to those problems” (p. 72). Perhaps an overall approach to assist students in developing optimism is to model learning activities after vexing, real-world problems where possible and to draw direct lines between the process of solving problems in class and the process of solving problems in the real world.

4.3.6 Collaboration Another essential practice of technologically literate people, according to STEL, is collaboration. Technological innovation required to develop technological solutions to problems is rarely accomplished in isolation. Accordingly, STEL posits that “collaboration is about working with one or more people to accomplish a goal” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 82). Middle school students should be able to “[demonstrate] productive teamwork in design-based projects” (p. 72), while high school students should be able to “consider and accommodate teammate skills and abilities when working to achieve design and problem-solving goals” (p. 72). At both the high school and middle school levels, teamwork should be emphasized through collaborative group projects that require students to develop solutions with others rather than in isolation.

4.3.7 Communication Many of these eight practices for technological and engineering literacy are facilitated and enhanced by effective communication. According to STEL, students should be expected to effectively communicate ideas and solutions to technological problems (ITEEA, 2020); however, effective communication, like other skills, must be learned because it does not simply occur by accident. Recent surveys have shown

76

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

that communication skills are increasingly sought after by employers (Shafer et al., 2022). Thus, educators must explicitly incorporate learning activities that emphasize effective communication practices. Curricula for technological and engineering literacy at both the middle and high school level should emphasize communication skills, including technical writing and oral communication as well as graphical methods. For example, students should be able to document the design process using an effective design notebook, prepare technical reports and/or visual presentations about their designs, and present ideas orally in front of a group as well as within design teams. Some teachers have instituted “Shark Tank” style competitions in which students present innovative ideas to a panel of judges from industry for prizes. In addition, STEL practices for high school students suggest that students should be able to communicate using mathematical modeling, for example, by communicating how software was used to conduct simulated testing of a design prior to building a physical prototype; communicating the results of kinematic equations to predict design performance, or using statistical techniques to model and predict future performance based on data from testing a prototype, and communicate this information to an audience.

4.3.8 Attention to Ethics “Any technology or system…should be evaluated for its potential impact on people, society, and the environment” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 86). All technological innovations have impacts that are positive or negative, anticipated or unanticipated, intended or unintended. As current and future decision-makers, students should be able to demonstrate attention to ethics in order to evaluate these impacts and weigh positive outcomes against negative ones. According to STEL, middle school students should demonstrate an “understanding of ways to regulate technologies and the reasons for doing so” (p. 72). For example, middle school students might be asked to explain why some technologies such as nuclear technology are tightly regulated. At the high school level, students should be able to “assess technological products, systems, and processes through critical analysis of their impacts and outcomes” (p. 72). For example, students may be asked to discuss issues surrounding the regulation of electronic communication technology as it relates to privacy, freedom of speech, and public safety, as well as relate these issues to their own use of electronic communication technology.

4.4 Implications for Teacher Preparation These eight practices for technological and engineering literacy embody a long tradition within technology and engineering education of learning by doing—allowing students to use real tools to solve real problems in ways that connect deeply to the

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

77

broader world. It is therefore imperative that teachers should be prepared to teach students to use these eight practices within the framework of STEL in order for students to develop technological and engineering literacy. To effectively prepare teachers to teach and model these eight practices, the following considerations are suggested for pre-service and/or in-service teacher preparation: 1. Model STEL practices for technological and engineering literacy in teacher education and in-service training programs (Lammi & Denson, 2017). 2. Emphasize collaboration and communication skills in teacher education programs (Dean, et al., 2005). 3. Prepare teachers to use real tools to promote making and doing (Wieman, et al., 2010). 4. Teach techniques for developing and/or using design-based curricula that promote creativity, critical thinking, and systems thinking (Doppelt & Barak, 2021). During teacher preparation, as well as for in-service training opportunities, these eight practices should be modeled in the curriculum. It is a common refrain that teachers tend to teach the way they were taught; thus, teacher preparation programs should model hands-on design-based learning activities that emphasize these eight practices when providing the content-area knowledge for pre-service teachers in technology and engineering education as well as other STEM content areas. During in-service training workshops, state and national professional conferences, within professional learning communities, and similar forums, emphasis should be placed on modeling these practices and providing resources for teachers to implement these practices in their own instruction. Effective communication and collaboration skills should also be emphasized within teacher education programs and in-service training. In teacher education programs, heavy emphasis is often placed on content knowledge, sometimes at the expense of essential communication skills. It is the experience of the authors of this chapter that teachers often enter the field with minimal communication skills, especially in writing and speaking. University faculty in teacher training programs should seriously consider ways they can incorporate rigorous written, oral, and graphical communication into all facets of teacher preparation. Some research has been provided looking into the current graduation requirements for technology and engineering education teacher preparation programs (Litowitz, 2014). However, further research in teacher preparation program content could investigate curriculum alignment with STEL. At the in-service level, strong emphasis should be placed on collaborative professional learning. Many states and local education authorities have adopted professional learning communities in which teachers are grouped together, typically by content area, and asked to meet regularly to develop common lesson plans, assessments, and other materials. Efforts should be made to further support and enhance these programs for teachers in content areas that support technological and engineering literacy, for example, by ensuring that these teachers (many of whom may be the only teacher at their school in their content area) have an opportunity to have meaningful collaboration with other teachers in their same content area.

78

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

Educators who teach technological and engineering literacy should also be prepared to incorporate making and doing within their disciplines. Teacher education programs and in-service training should regard the use of tools and equipment not as an optional add-on, but as an essential component of effective teaching in technology and engineering education and related STEM disciplines. Teacher education programs should make every effort to ensure that appropriate lab space and equipment are provided so that, at a minimum, pre-service teachers receive training in the type of equipment and tools they may be asked to use in the typical classroom in their discipline (Love & Roy, 2022). This may vary from state to state and across different STEM content areas. In-service training should include emphasis on refreshing tool and equipment skills, as well as training in-service teachers how to use new tools or equipment. Finally, teacher education programs and in-service training should teach techniques for developing and using curricula which emphasize open-ended design problems that promote systems thinking, critical thinking, and creativity. This chapter has identified several national curriculum resources that have been developed in alignment with STEL or its predecessor, STL. These can and should be incorporated into both pre-service and in-service training where possible. However, it is also beneficial to provide teachers with the skills to develop their own curricula that emphasize these practices, because many local education agencies do not provide access to pre-made curricula. All teacher education programs in disciplines associated with technological and engineering literacy should include coursework in curriculum development and should emphasize this in clinical and practicum experiences. These skills can also be emphasized for in-service trainings as well. Many teachers transition between content areas at some point in their career; thus, it may be necessary to include training on developing design-based curricula particularly for teachers who may be coming from different content areas with different pedagogical traditions (Reed & Ferguson, 2021; Session et al., 2019).

4.5 Recommendations for Further Action With a wide variety of curricula, one possibility for national standardization would be to reach out to curriculum development groups (e.g., Engineering for All) to assist in identifying how their curricula align with STEL. Because teachers are already using EfA, it could be helpful to identify how the EfA resources align with the STELs. It could also improve existing curricula to identify areas where STEL components could be included. There are also resources available that have identified alignment to the original STLs. Reaching out to the developers of these currently available resources may help to provide updated guidance for further curriculum and resource development (ITEEA, 2022c). Research assessing whether state standards and exams align with the STELs would also be useful moving forward with secondary education. This could inform state education boards as well as ITEEA about whether or how student learning objectives

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

79

are aligned. Further alignment could assist with teacher training across the country. The results of this assessment could also inform the possible implementation of both pre-service and in-service teacher trainings to help inform and broaden teacher understandings and application of the new STELs. With a plethora of curricula that address technological and engineering literacy, additional research on student outcomes by program or resource would be helpful in informing teachers and administrators about which curriculum models are most appropriate for their schools. For most of the curriculum resources addressed in this chapter, very little research has been conducted into any student outcomes, particularly in relation to the development of technological literacy or interest in STEM careers among students. With the goal of implementing effective curricula in the classroom, information on student outcomes could help guide many decisions toward implementation. However, because some of the curriculum resources are still new or in the pilot stages, only short-term outcomes will be available from any studies. Continued research with student outcomes that specifically relate to the STEL would also be informative for many decision-makers. A final recommendation is to emphasize the standards, contexts, and practices of STEL within teacher preparation programs, including pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development. In particular, teachers should be prepared with pedagogical tools to promote the eight practices of technological and engineering literacy within the contexts identified within STEL (ITEEA, 2020). Additional emphasis should be placed on communication and collaboration skills, as well as curriculum design that incorporates open-ended problems to promote systems thinking, critical thinking, and creativity. The importance of making and doing, and associated skills in tool and equipment use should continue to be prioritized and enhanced in teacher education programs and in-service training for secondary teachers.

4.6 Conclusion Finally, teacher education programs and in-service training should emphasize the new standards, particularly by incorporating pedagogical strategies and training that reflect the STEL practices for technological and engineering literacy. These new standards could have important impacts on curriculum development, teacher education, and ultimately on students. However, at this early stage it is imperative that additional research and development be conducted to maximize these impacts in ways that benefit students.

80

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

References Activate Learning. (2022a). What makes engineering the future unique? https://activatelearning. com/engineering-the-future/ Activate Learning. (2022b). Engineering the future modules. https://activatelearning.com/engine ering-the-future-modules/ Advancing Excellence in P12 Engineering Education (AE3). (2021a). Advancing excellence in P12 engineering education. https://www.p12engineering.org Advancing Excellence in P12 Engineering Education (AE3). (2021b). Engineering for everyone: Engineering in action lessons. https://www.p12engineering.org/engineering-resources Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (AE3) & American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). (2020). Framework for P-12 engineering learning. American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-100-1153-1 Bellinger, P. J. (2019). A quantitative study examining Project Lead the Way gateway program outcomes in a suburban school district [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.lindenwood.edu/dissertations/83/ Crismond, D., Lomask, M., & Hacker, M. (2018). Using teaching portfolios to revise curriculum and explore instructional practices of technology and engineering education teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 53–72. Dam, R. F., & Siang, T. Y. (2022). The history of design thinking. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinking-get-a-quickoverview-of-the-history Dean, C., Lauer, P., & Urquhart, V. (2005). Outstanding teacher education programs: What do they have that the others don’t? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 284–289. Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2021). Design-based learning in electronics and mechatronics: Exploring the application in schools. In Design-based concept learning in science and technology education (pp. 101–134). Brill. Hacker, M., Cavanaugh, S., DeHaan, C., Longware, A. J., McGuire, M., & Plummer, M. (2018). Engineering for all: Classroom implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(8), 22, 27. Hacker, M., Crismond, D., Hecht, D., & Lomask, M. (2017). Engineering for all: A middle school program to introduce students to engineering as a social good. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(3), 8–14. Hess, J.L., Sorge, B., & Feldhaus, C. (2016, June 26-29). The efficacy of Project Lead the Way: A systematic literature review [Paper presentation]. American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/p. 26151 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). https://www.iteea.org/Act ivities/2142/Technological_Literacy_Standards.aspx International Society for Technology in Education. (2016, June 26). The 2016 ISTE standards for students are here! ISTE. https://www.iste.org/explore/ISTE-blog/The-2016-ISTE-Standa rds-for-Students-are-here%21 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2018a). Engineering for all. https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/Research/136896/EfA136957.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2018b). Soft robotics to broaden the STEM pipeline. https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/Research/136896/SoftRo botics.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx

4 Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Curricula in Secondary …

81

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2021). STL to STEL benchmark crosswalks: Valid matches. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=190069&v= c6b23e91 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2022a). Crosswalks to other standards. https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/STEL/189203/189477.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2022b). Engineering byDesign. Retrieved December 15, 2022b from https://www.iteea.org/EbD.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2022c). Phase III of TfAAP. ITEEA. https://www.iteea.org/Activities/2142/Technological_Literacy_Standards/126 180/45862.aspx Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., Laux, D., Sears, D., & Asunda, P. (2016, June 26). Student self-perceptions of design and creative thinking (Fundamental) [Paper presentation]. 2016 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25927 Jackson, A., Mentzer, N., & Kramer-Bottiglio, R. (2021). Increasing gender diversity in engineering using soft robotics. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 143–160. Lammi, M. D., & Denson, C. D. (2017). Modeling as an engineering habit of mind and practice. Advances in Engineering Education, 6(1), n1. Litowitz, L. S. (2014). A curricular analysis of undergraduate technology & engineering teacher preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 73–84. Love, T. S., & Roy, K. R. (2022). Safer engineering and CTE instruction: A national STEM education imperative. What the research tells us. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. Moye, J. (2009). The foundations of technology course: Teachers like it! The Technology Teacher, 68(6), 30–34. National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Technology and engineering literacy. National Assessment of Educational Progress. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel/ National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGACBP & CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards. Authors. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Porter, C. H. (2011). An examination of variables which influence high school students to enroll in an undergraduate engineering or physical science major [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Clemson University. Project Lead the Way, Inc. (2022a). Bringing real-world learning to PreK-12 classrooms. https:// www.pltw.org Project Lead the Way, Inc. (2022b). Our programs. https://www.pltw.org/our-programs Reed, P. A., & Ferguson, M. K. (2021). Safety training for career and content switchers. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(7), 16–19. Rethwisch, D. G., Haynes, M. C., Starobin, S. S., Laanan, F. S., & Schenk, T. (2012, June). A study of the impact of project lead the way on achievement outcomes in Iowa. In 2012 ASEE annual conference & exposition (pp. 25–107). Rogers, G. E. (2006). The effectiveness of project lead the way curricula in developing preengineering competencies as perceived by Indiana teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 18(1), 66–78. Satchwell, R. E., & Dugger, W. E. (1996). A united vision: Technology for all Americans. Journal of Technology Education, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v7i2.a.1 Session, I. V., Ferguson, M. K., & Reed, P. A. (2019). How can career switchers and teachers without formal training be quickly prepared to teach engineering and technology education? Mississippi Valley technology teacher education conference, Nashville, Tennessee, United States. https:// digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_fac_pubs/169/

82

J. S. Furse and E. Yoshikawa-Ruesch

Shafer, G., Viskuptic, K., & Egger, A. E. (2022). Analysis of skills sought by employers of bachelorslevel geoscientists. GSA Today, 32(2), 34–35. Strimel, G. (2012, June). Engineering by Design™ : Preparing students for the 21st century. In PATT 26 conference; technology education in the 21st century; Stockholm, Sweden (No. 073, pp. 434–443). Linköping University Electronic Press. Strimel, G., Huffman, T., Grubbs, M., Kim, E., & Gurganus, J. (2020). Establishing a content taxonomy for the coherent study of engineering in P-12 schools. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 10(1), 23–59. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1232 Sorge, B. H. (2014). A multilevel analysis of project lead the way implementation in Indiana [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University. Utley, J., Ivey, T., Weaver, J., & Self, M. J. (2019). Effect of project lead the way participation on retention in engineering degree programs. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 3. Van Overschelde, J. P. (2013). Project lead the way students more prepared for higher education. American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), 4(1), 1–12. Volk, K. (2019). The demise of traditional technology and engineering education teacher preparation programs and a new direction for the orofession. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v31i1.a.1 Wieman, C. E., Adams, W. K., Loeblein, P., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). Teaching physics using PhET simulations. The Physics Teacher, 48(4), 225–227.

Joseph S. Furse is an assistant professor of Technology and Engineering Education (TEE) in the Department of Applied Sciences, Technology, and Education at Utah State University. His role includes leading the undergraduate TEE teacher education program, and his current research interests revolve around CTE/STEM teacher education and workforce development. Prior to his current position at Utah State, Dr. Furse was a middle school technology education teacher where he taught engineering, manufacturing, construction, transportation, and robotics. He has earned a BS in Technology and Engineering Education as well as a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Utah State University. Emily Yoshikawa-Ruesch is a doctoral candidate in Career and Technical Education (CTE) at Utah State University where she also teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Technology and Engineering Education (TEE), CTE, and STEM education. Her current research interests relate to TEE teacher recruitment and preparation as well as early elementary design education. Prior to enrolling at Utah State University, Emily was a Project Lead the Way-certified engineering, robotics, and digital electronics teacher. Emily holds a BS in Technology and Engineering Education from Brigham Young University as well as an MS in Technology Leadership and Innovation from Purdue University.

Chapter 5

Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher Preparation Programs Geoffrey A. Wright, Steven L. Shumway, and Scott R. Bartholomew

Abstract Technology and Engineering Education (TEE) has been an integral content discipline for many years in the USA—dating back to the manual labor and the industrial arts movements of the eighteenth century (Grayson in IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst AES-16:373–392, 1980; Bagherzadeh et al. in EURASIA J Math Sci Technol Educ 13(10):674906760, 2017). Although the name of the discipline has evolved over the years, its primary mission at the university level to prepare teachers in both technical and pedagogical content knowledges for public school settings has been consistent. With the vast demand for engineers and technologists in society, there remains a need to prepare teachers with specialized content and pedagogical knowledge to excite and teach students the fundamentals of associated careers. Sadly, many of the pre-service technology education programs in the USA have been closed or are struggling to be valued at their institutions (Wright in Paper presented at the 106th annual Mississippi valley technology teacher education conference, Nashville, TN, 2019), whereas others have shifted their focus to try to attract more students and avoid being dissolved. The purpose of this paper is to highlight best practices for TEE pre-service teacher programs which are sustainable and lend toward their mission of preparing excellent secondary technology and engineering teachers. Specifically, practices are highlighted which align with internationally accepted standards (Standards for Technological & Engineering Literacy) for this field. While many of the practices shared herein have been collected from a university in the western USA that has had a TEE program since 1876, the applicability and relevance to a wider audience lend credence to their inclusion and dissemination. Keywords Technology and engineering studies · Pedagogy · CTE · Teched G. A. Wright (B) · S. L. Shumway · S. R. Bartholomew Technology and Engineering Studies, Brigham Young University, Provo, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. L. Shumway e-mail: [email protected] S. R. Bartholomew e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_5

83

84

G. A. Wright et al.

5.1 Introduction This chapter will outline a structure and format for a successful Technology and Engineering Education (TEE) program by providing a description of the critical program attributes and courses that students should experience in their technical and pedagogical classes that comprise a B.S. in TEE, and how they align with the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy [(STEL) ITEEA, 2020]. At the start of this chapter, we acknowledge that although this chapter will highlight best practices at one institution, the point is not to champion a specific university or its TEE program. Additionally, the measures of a successful program from our perspective include: (a) longevity (this particular TEE program has existed for over 100 years, withstanding the changes that programs face at large institutions because they were able to always maintain a strong enrollment numbers, had a strong working relationship with the state office of education, and evolved their content as society and technology and engineering changed, while maintaining their focus on pre-service teacher education.), (b) program excellence (as recognized by national organizations, such as ACTE, ITEEA, and ASEE, and by their state’s office of education), and (c) achievement (based on meeting their mission statement, where they prepare preservice teachers, and those pre-service teachers enter the profession across the USA. The historic data of this program show that over half of their majors enter the teaching profession). Further, while the nomenclature in the USA refers typically to “TEE” programs, similar programs in other areas of the world [e.g., Design & Technology (D&T)] with different naming conventions can still find value in the overarching and generalizable principles here. Specifically, we intend to share several standardsbased approaches that have helped keep our TEE program sustainable and valued at its home institution (Brigham Young University, BYU) and on a state and national levels. Readers are encouraged to evaluate the information shared here in light of their own circumstance, situation, and location as overarching concepts and directions that may provide direction and assistance to their own TEE or D&T programs.

5.2 Best Practices The “best practices” shared here have evolved over the life of our program’s 150-year history, and each practice will be shared with accompanying vignettes illustrating our experience and “lessons learned.” These best practices, which will be discussed in turn, include: 1. A primary focus on the undergraduate program with sufficient graduate experiences to allow for faculty scholarship. 2. Standards-based courses (STEL) with an emphasis on content that is conducive to female student participation. 3. An active student club and a “family” atmosphere. 4. Integration of both content and pedagogy in all core classes.

5 Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher …

85

5.3 An Undergraduate Focus The Technology and Engineering Studies (TES) program (formerly Technology and Engineering Education) at BYU is focused on undergraduate education. Although the TES program at BYU does have a graduate student component, and although the university highly values academic research and writing, the TES faculty has made it clear in their vision and mission documents that their focus is undergraduate education. In an academic world where publications seem to be currency, the TES faculty has decided to put their focus on their undergraduate students. This is based on their belief that if they put their focus elsewhere (e.g., on building a graduate program, seeking external funding, etc.), they will risk losing their identity and will not have a pipeline to fuel their graduate program. It is important to note that while the faculty members’ focus is on undergraduate education, these faculty still live in an academic world where publishing scholarly articles is required. Therefore, TES faculty has developed one approach to meet the demands of both mission and currency: the TES faculty routinely invites and encourages undergraduate students to be involved in academic research, writing, and publishing. The TES program currently has three faculties (one of whom holds what is called a “professional” slot, allowing him to focus on teaching while maintaining a minor research role, whereas the other two faculty slots are traditional professorial slots), and just over 100 students (as of February 2023), and employs over ten undergraduate students as research assistants to help work on projects that lead to publications. There are two reasons why the TES program can focus on undergraduate students. First, the TES mission is clear: pre-service teacher education. Second, because of the program’s clear focus (and because of the state and national demands for TES in schools and industry), the university has enabled the TES program to primarily focus on its stated mission of advancing undergraduate teaching and scholarship by providing appropriate funding and favorable professor-to-student ratios (approximately 30:1) and by approving promotion and tenure documents that support the TES mission. Key to the university support is ensuring that the university understands the value and need for TES teachers nationally and within the state. Utah (a western state in the USA) highly values TES teachers because of the demand for skilled workers in industry, particularly those with strong STEM backgrounds. For example, according to the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, the top industries in Utah as of 2022 were manufacturing, aerospace, finance, life sciences and health care, and software and IT (Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, n.d.). The TEE program at BYU graduates an average of 20 students per academic year. Of those 20, over half becomes licensed teachers, who typically stay in state because the demand for TES teachers is high. Often graduates receive multiple job offers, and some of these positions go unfilled for lack of qualified teachers. Considering the demand for TES teachers, program faculty work closely with the state to align courses, content, and demand with state and national standards (STEL). The program is advised by an active advisory board that includes state board of education representatives, district

86

G. A. Wright et al.

administrators, school administrators, and TES in-service teachers. Because of these and other factors, the College of Engineering—within which the TES program is housed—at BYU respects and values the TES program, despite its being the smallest program within the college (TES averages ~ 100 enrolled students, whereas the other disciplines such as Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Electrical Engineering each average over 600 students). The data surrounding student population are helpful because it provides an important lens through which to consider TES at BYU: while other engineering programs have closed their doors to TEE programs, the college of engineering at BYU has consistently demonstrated support for the educational component of TES and sees its impact having a long-term beneficial influence because TES prepares teachers who go out and teach the next generation of technologists and engineers. Additionally, the college values TES because TES collaborates on research projects with professors from the various engineering departments and because of the intentional alignment between program goals and national standards (a key component in the accreditation process for the program and college).

5.4 Standards-Based Courses Despite the clear mission of the TES program, to prepare high-quality technology and engineering teachers, not all of the students within the TES program become TES teachers. Within the program, we offer two tracks of study. The primary track is teacher preparation, and the secondary track is preparation for work in industry. The industry track provides an academic track for those students who do not have the interest or skills to become a technology and engineering teacher. The industry track includes students who are not able to meet state-level teacher preparation requirements, who are not a good fit for work in K-12 educational settings, or who lack interest in teaching. Regardless of which track a student pursues, the TES program requires all admitted students to take a baseline of classes that are steeped in pedagogy and aligned with STEL. For example, every student must take a set of ten core courses designed to help them decide which track they should pursue; each of these is discussed briefly below. We do not propose that these courses must be taught to have a successful program, but their description here provides a context through which to consider what is currently valued and in demand by schools and industry within the state of Utah. If students decide to pursue the teaching track, they will take additional classes that cover pedagogy in greater depth, in addition to the culminating student teaching experience. For students who select the industry track, those pedagogy-specific classes—and the associated credits—are replaced with elective courses that match the student’s career interests. Further, industry track students replace the student teaching capstone experience with an industry internship during their last semester. The courses listed below include the ten core required courses (identified with “bold” text) and seven elective courses taught by the TEE professors.

5 Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher …

87

Although courses may change with time, this list provides a general sense of what is expected and taught. (a) TES 125: Digital Communications (3-credit course, taken first year in program). In this course, students are exposed to a wide array of digital communication technologies and learn about the historical influence and current economic impact of each technology. The students learn the technologies by using them to create products, systems, or services. The pedagogy is inquiry based and uses various STEL standards, practices, and contexts to guide the curriculum, such as Standards 1–8; Practices: Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking; and Contexts: Computer, Automation, AI, and Robotics; and Information and Communication. (b) TES 200: Wood Prototyping (3-credit course, taken first year in program). This is a wood manufacturing and design class where students learn fundamental wood manufacturing processes, tools, and procedures, all while making various small projects, leading up to a capstone furniture design project. The pedagogy in this class is steeped in hands-on lab-based learning and is guided by STEL Standards 1–8; the STEL Practices of Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking; and the STEL Contexts of Material Conversion and Processing and The Built Environment. (c) TES 210: Coding (3-credit course, taken first year in program). This is a coding class where students learn the fundamentals of various coding languages by developing a spectrum of web and mobile applications. The class uses a mixedmethod instructional approach of both lecture and lab, where students receive a demonstration and then apply the information in a lab-based setting. The class adheres to the STEL Standards 1–8; the STEL Practices of Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking; and the STEL Contexts of Computation, Automation, AI, and Robotics, as well as Information and Communication. (d) TES 225: Electronics for Technology and Engineering Teachers (3-credit course, taken first year in program). The purpose of this class is to provide future technology and engineering teachers with an understanding of electronics that will allow them to successfully teach the various contexts identified in STEL (e.g., Computation, Automation, AI, and Robotics; Power and Energy; Information and Communication; etc.) (e) TES 229: Plastics and Metals Manufacturing (3-credit course, taken first or second year in program). TES 229 is a hands-on exploratory learning experience where students learn about the materials and processes associated with plastics’ and metals’ manufacturing. This is primarily a lab-based class where students receive demonstrations of the materials and processes and then use what they learned to create their own projects using the materials. For example, the instructor will demonstrate and talk about the properties of fiberglass and the differences between various weaves, and the difference between polyester and

88

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

G. A. Wright et al.

epoxy resins, but then the students will use the information to design and create skis, surfboards, or other products that use fiberglass and resin. The class is guided by STEL Standards 1–8; the STEL Practices of Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking; and the STEL Contexts of Material Conversion and Processing and The Built Environment. TES 251: Photo and Video (3-credit course, taken second or third year in program). The purpose of this class is to teach the knowledge and skills that students need to be successful teachers of photography, videography, and related fields, such as TV broadcasting, and other media production. Students learn and practice fundamental photography and videography pre-production, production, and post-production techniques. The pedagogy is inquiry based and uses various STEL standards, practices, and contexts to guide the curriculum, such as Standards 1–8; the Practices of Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking; and the STEL Context Information and Communication. TES 255: Visual Design (3-credit course, taken first or second year in program). Within the TES program, this class is known as the graphic and UX design class, where students learn how to do the work of graphic and UX designers. The class uses a real-world application pedagogy in which students are taught the principles and elements of design, all in the context of working for actual clients–that is, they will learn the skills of UX design while designing and building web and mobile apps for a real-world client. The STEL Standards 1–8 inform the key characteristics practiced in class; the STEL Practices of Creativity, Making and Doing, Critical Thinking, Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Systems Thinking are often discussed; and the primary STEL Contexts guiding the class are Computation, Automation, AI, and Robotics and Information and Communication. TES 276: Exploration of Teaching (3-credit course, taken first semester of first year in program). In this course, students experience many different options to teach. In addition to class instruction—which focuses on pedagogy—students have multiple opportunities to teach their classmates as well as to visit, observe, and teach in local K-12 classrooms. The STEL Standards 1–8 are the content for students’ lessons and are included in each lesson plan (both in class and in local K-12 classrooms). STEL Practices embedded in the course include: Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, and Making and Doing; and the various Contexts provide the context for all student lessons (both in class and in local K-12 classrooms). TES 291R: TEE Seminar (5-credit course, taken each semester the student is in the major). In this course, students are exposed to the careers associated with TEE, where state education leaders such as district administrators, principals, and teachers come and talk about the business of education, what teaching is like in the field, the process for preparing and receiving employment in teaching, the benefits and salaries associated with careers in education, and other pertinent information. This class primarily uses a lecture model. It is

5 Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher …

(j)

(k)

(l)

(m)

(n)

89

informed by STEL Standards 1–8 and the STEL Practices of Critical Thinking and Communication. No specific STEL contexts are discussed as a singular context; however, many of the presenters will highlight various contexts based on their teaching content area. The majority of the presenters for the seminar are alumni from the BYU TES program. They enjoy coming by and staying connected to the major, especially by serving as mentors for students in both the teaching and technical tracks. TES 320: Creativity, Engineering, and Problem Solving I (3-credit course, taken second year in program). The purpose of this class is to introduce students to the practical application of STEL practices (e.g., creativity, systems thinking, making and doing, critical thinking) through creative problem solving and use of the engineering design process. Specifically, students enrolled in this course are introduced to, and engaged in, a series of design challenges relevant to the middle school/junior high school level that they might use when they become classroom teachers. Challenges introduce students to a variety of tools (e.g., 3D printers, laser cutters, etc.), processes (e.g., computational thinking and systems thinking), and applications (e.g., robotics and microcontrollers). This class aligns with STEL practices TEP1, TEP2, TEP3, and TEP6 as well as contexts TEC1, TEC3, TEC4, TEC5, and TEC 8. TES 330: Creativity, Engineering, and Problem Solving II (3-credit course, taken second year in program). The purpose of this class is to provide students with knowledge of and application of STEL practices such as creativity, systems thinking, making and doing, and critical thinking. Engaging in the engineering design process is a central theme in this class as students apply knowledge of computational thinking, robotics, and microcontroller technologies to create solutions to technological problems. TES 340: Principles of Technology and Engineering (3-credit course, taken second year in program). The purpose of this course is to provide students with a knowledge of the engineering design process and its application in order to enable future teachers to successfully teach STEL standards, including the nature and characteristics and core concepts of technology and engineering. The history and impacts of technology are strongly emphasized. TES 377/378 (two, 2-credit courses, taken the semester before student teaching). TES 377 is a first-block course in which students are introduced to curriculum design and methods of instruction for middle and high school technology and engineering classrooms. This course is followed by TES 378, which is a half-semester practicum experience in a middle or high school technology and engineering classroom. TES 476: Student Teaching (12-credit capstone experience). This course is centered on a 12–14 week capstone experience of teaching in a local middle school (6–7 weeks) and high school (6–7 weeks) classroom. Students progress through a continuum of observing, then observing and teaching, and finally preparing and running all aspects of each class. Student teachers are expected to “become the teacher” in every way by attending meetings, grading assignments, meeting with parents, preparing lessons, and instructing all classes.

90

G. A. Wright et al.

In addition to their teaching experience, all student teachers attend bi-weekly training sessions on campus and complete the Praxis Performance Assessment for Teachers (through ETS) for licensure. STEL Standards 1–8 are the content for students’ lessons and are included in each lesson plan (both in class and in local K-12 classrooms). STEL Practices are embedded in both the courses they teach as well as their own experience; these include: Collaboration, Communication, Attention to Ethics, Systems Thinking, Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Making and Doing. The STEL Contexts provide the context for all lessons taught by the student teachers, because all state courses are aligned with STEL. Further, during the student teaching experience, all students take the licensing test which tests their STEL context, practice, and standards knowledge.

5.5 An Active Student Club Another key tenet and practice that have encouraged program stability are having an active Technology and Engineering Education Collegiate Association (TEECA) chapter. When students join the TES major, they are automatically added to the TEECA club roster. The club meets bi-weekly, where students socialize, work on service and outreach projects, and attend seminars where local school districts and state board of education administrators and teachers present relevant information and share professional development training. By meeting at least bi-weekly and by engaging the students in service and social activities, the club becomes a “safe-place” like a family, where students feel part of something and receive mentoring from peers. This is an important piece of the TES culture, because when a new student joins the major, they feel they have the support and direction they need to be successful. This engenders a sense of connection to the program and helps students develop a routine of being involved in the profession. Guiding the TEECA club is a student TEECA president and officer group. They are active leaders in the major, reaching out regularly to their peers and sharing announcements, job postings, and calendar events. For example, the club holds a bi-monthly game night, hosts opening and closing socials at the start and end of each semester, and organizes a semester service project in the community that all club members help with. In addition, members help mentor new students in the major and run a booth at an “Open Major Fair” where students from across campus go to explore new majors. By having an active TEECA club, a culture of family evolves, and students become attached to the program because they feel connected to their peers as well as to the faculty, who are also active in the TEECA activities. Finally, by having an active TEECA club, with its focus on outreach and service, TEECA students feel they are making a difference in various communities, which enhances the feeling of connection to the program and the profession.

5 Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher …

91

5.6 Integration of Both Content and Pedagogy into All Classes Two distinguishing pedagogical elements of the BYU TES program are that students take all core major classes “in-house” (within the program), and the content covered in these classes’ centers on a breadth of STEL contexts. Both are discussed below. Different from other education majors on campus, TES students take all their core classes from TES professors. Many other teacher education programs have their students take classes from other departments. For example, physics education majors take all physics content courses from the physics department and then have separate pedagogy classes from a physics education professor. The reason for including pedagogy as a major component of all TES core classes is that the TES professors all have expertise in both content and pedagogy, each having formerly worked as middle or high school TEE teachers. Many universities often have professors who have either an expertise in technical content or in teaching pedagogy. We believe that having significant background in both domains is essential. Although this may not seem unique, it is important to the TES mission: to prepare TES teachers. Ensuring that TES professors have practical experience in the teaching field provides credibility and practical and informed teaching. Additionally, each of the TES professors has experience in industry as well as in the classroom in the content areas they teach, thus qualifying them to teach both pedagogy and content. Consequently, the focus in each of the classes is not just on the content, but also on how to teach the content (e.g., electronics principles and how to effectively teach electronics principles). This approach has proven to be successful for teacher education (see Borman et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2012; Jenset et al., 2018; Peterson-Ahmad et al., 2018). This hybrid model ensures students receive examples of how to apply content in a real-world teaching environment. We recognize this approach which may be limited for institutions with less funding. In these cases, TEE students can perhaps take content engineering and technology classes within the respective engineering and technology departments, which would then allow the TEE professor to focus on pedagogical issues. Such an approach may prove to be more economical while still meeting the demands of teacher accreditation. Second, content covered in TES classes centers on a breadth of STEL contexts. Although historically TES had a focus on industrial arts, TES has always tried to remain current, matching the demands of contemporary technology and engineering interests. Based on feedback from the TES advisory board, STEL contexts, and state and local directives, TES faculty teach a wide array of contexts, ranging from electronics, robotics, automation, plastics, metals and wood manufacturing, programing, UX and graphic design, and video and photography. By having a wide array of contexts, TES attracts a broad spectrum of students, both male and female. Many of the BYU TES students switch to the TES major after trying out other majors, but rarely do TES students leave the TES once they find it. Based on their exit interviews at the point of graduation, a common theme regarding why they stay in the major is because they love the humanistic and design-focused pedagogy that focuses on

92

G. A. Wright et al.

solving real-world problems in a hands-on, inquiry-based environment in which they get to learn and practice a wide spectrum of content. Outside of the Open-Major Fair on campus, little recruiting is done to attract new majors; rather, we rely on word of mouth and a very high retention rate to secure our program’s place at the university.

5.7 Conclusion As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this chapter was to outline the structure and format of one successful Technology and Engineering Education program by providing a description of critical program attributes and courses students experience, as well as how these align with the Standards of Technology and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020). Although the anecdotes used in this chapter focus on the BYU TES program, the point was not to champion a specific program but rather to highlight how having a focus on undergraduate education, using standards such as STEL to guide the curriculum, ensuring a “family” environment through an active TEECA club, integrating content and pedagogy in all classes, and teaching as many TEE classes “in-house” as possible will help ensure a successful and enduring TEE program.

References Bagherzadeh, Z., Keshtiaray, N., & Assareh, A. (2017). A brief view of the evolution of technology and engineering education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 674906760. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/61857 Borman, K. M., Mueninghoff, E., Cotner, B. A., & Frederick, P. B. (2009). Teacher preparation programs. In International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 123–140). Springer. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Wiley. Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, State of Utah. (n.d.). Targeted industries. https://bus iness.utah.gov/targeted-industries/ Grayson, L. P. (1980). A brief history of engineering education in the United States. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, AES-16, 373–392. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding teacher education in practice around the world: An examination of teacher education coursework in teacher education programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 184–197. Peterson-Ahmad, M. B., Hovey, K. A., & Peak, P. K. (2018). Pre-service teacher perceptions and knowledge regarding professional development: Implications for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(2), Article 3. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb. edu/josea/vol7/iss2/3/ Wright, G. A. (2019). Current and historical trends in technology and engineering education. Paper presented at the 106th Annual Mississippi Valley Technology Teacher Education Conference, Nashville, TN.

5 Best Practices for Technology and Engineering Education Teacher …

93

Geoffrey A. Wright is an associate professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in mixed media, UX design, composites, and innovation. His areas of research include computational thinking, underwater robotics, and innovation engineering. Steven L. Shumway is a professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in problem solving, electronics, robotics, and tech ed pedagogy. His areas of research include STEM curriculum development, training, and evaluation. Scott R. Bartholomew is an assistant professor of Technology and Engineering Studies at Brigham Young University. He teaches classes in problem solving and middle and jr. high tech ed curriculum, educational pedagogy and psychology, and is the student teacher university supervisor for technology and engineering. His research areas center on comparative judgement, teacher technology self-efficacy, and computation.

Chapter 6

Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional Development Guidelines Tyler S. Love

and Kenneth R. Roy

Abstract The release of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) in 2020 provided an updated perspective for the organization and teaching of technology, engineering, and design (TED) education content and practices. While STEL is designed to help guide TED curriculum, assessments, teaching practices, and teacher preparation efforts, concurrently there have been calls for high-quality professional development (PD) to assist school systems and educators in providing authentic TED learning experiences. This coupled with the growing number of outof-content area and alternatively licensed educators being tasked with teaching TED courses suggests that there is a need for PD efforts to adequately prepare educators and school systems for providing rigorous and relevant, design-based STELaligned instruction. This chapter provides a synthesis of TED education PD studies from the literature and focuses on characteristics of effective PD, alignment of PD with TED and cross-cutting academic standards, PD standards for TED education, format and delivery considerations for effective PD, examples of previous TED education PD experiences that addressed various categories of educators’ knowledge (Shulman in Harvard Educ Rev 57:1–22, 1987), and addressing important TED specific issues through PD (i.e., specialized safety training required to oversee design-based TED laboratory experiences that provide unique learning opportunities). From this synthesis of the literature, recommendations for further research and future STEL-aligned PD efforts are provided. T. S. Love (B) Undergraduate Technology and Engineering Education, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, USA e-mail: [email protected] Graduate Career and Technology Education Studies, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, USA K. R. Roy Environmental Health and Safety, Glastonbury Public Schools, Glastonbury, CT, USA National Science Teaching Association (NSTA), Arlington, USA National Science Education Leadership Association (NSELA), Mabank, TX, USA © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_6

95

96

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

Keywords Teacher preparation · Design and technology and engineering education · Integrated STEM education · Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) · Classroom management and laboratory safety

6.1 Introduction The release of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) (ITEEA, 2020a) re-energized the profession by providing a new set of standards that reflected relevant technological and engineering content and practices. This also left educators wondering, “What is next?” (Loveland et al., 2020; Reed et al., 2022). In one study following the release of STEL, ITEEA stakeholders voiced concerns about the adequacy of teacher preparation programs and expressed a need for professional development (Moye et al., 2020). These concerns reflected findings from previous research on professional development (PD): No matter how good pre-service training for teachers is, it cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they will face throughout their careers. Education systems therefore seek to provide teachers with opportunities for in-service professional development in order to maintain a high standard of teaching and to retain a high-quality teacher workforce. [Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2009, p. 49]

Based on stakeholder concerns, Moye et al. (2020) recommended that continuous PD efforts are needed to help educators better understand STEL and implement the standards in a manner that meets the needs of differing state and local education systems. This reiterated the continued importance of PD for technology, engineering, and design (TED) education as expressed by Avery and Reeve (2013), who suggested that rigorous standards-aligned PD focused on integrating engineering design with science and mathematics could enhance the quality of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs. Avery and Reeve also proposed that incorporating engineering design, a central component of TED education, in core academic subject areas like science and mathematics provided implications for fostering meaningful interdisciplinary design-based connections. Despite various studies highlighting the need for high-quality PD, the definition and implementation of PD remain broad, especially related to STEM education contexts. An OECD report (2009) defined professional development as “activities that develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise and other characteristics as a teacher” (p. 49). Specific to TED education PD research, studies have examined the influence of PD efforts focused on preparation to teach a specific curriculum [e.g., ITEEA’s Engineering by Design (Strimel, 2013); Project Lead the Way (Daugherty, 2010); Engineering is Elementary (Porter et al., 2019)]; to teach topics within a specific technology and engineering context area (e.g., manufacturing processes (Mian et al., 2016)]; and to integrate concepts from various content areas through an engineering design approach (e.g., Asempapa & Love, 2021; Avery & Reeve, 2013; Havice et al., 2018; Hughes & Partida, 2020; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021; Love et al., 2023a; Shernoff et al., 2017).

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

97

In light of the broad array of literature on PD with varying foci (especially, within STEM contexts), we conceptualized PD in the following way related to STEL. We believe PD which is multifaceted and can serve different purposes depending on the needs of the schools and educators involved. Some PD may focus on enhancing educators’ technical and content knowledge, especially when involving educators entering TED education from other content areas. PD could also focus on enhancing current TED educators’ content knowledge with a greater focus on new pedagogical strategies and tools. PD can also focus on other aspects of teaching that are essential to TED education, such as classroom management related to potentially hazardous lab activities (e.g., Love, 2022). Furthermore, providing high-quality PD can become more complex when accounting for other factors such as mode of delivery, participation of educators from various content areas who possess different background knowledge and experiences, and efforts to prepare educators for seamlessly integrating concepts from multiple areas of the STEL with other standards like the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) and the Common Core State Standards [Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), 2010]. All of these must be taken into account when planning and delivering professional development that models best TED practices (e.g., Asempapa & Love, 2021; Han et al., 2022; Kelley et al., 2022; Love et al., 2022b, 2023a). The importance of PD for TED educators is well documented in the literature due to the rapid evolution and emergence of technologies and processes that students should learn in order to develop greater technological and engineering literacy. With the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) (ITEEA, 2020a) providing a roadmap for curriculum development, new content and practices to be taught, and the need for innovative teaching strategies to implement such concepts and curricula, PD will be needed more than ever to help educators provide relevant and rigorous learning experiences aligned with these recently released standards. This chapter will present a synthesis of findings and recommendations from studies that examined STEM education PD, focusing primarily on PD involving TED concepts that reflect the core standards, practices, and context areas found in STEL. From this synthesis, recommendations for PD content and strategies aligned with STEL are provided to guide future PD efforts by professional associations, state departments of education, school systems, and teacher preparation programs offering PD opportunities.

98

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

6.2 Professional Development Connected to the STEL: A Key Component of TED Teacher Preparation and Growth PD can benefit a multitude of educators including novice teachers who recently graduated from a teacher preparation program, experienced educators who have been teaching and want to remain current on providing relevant TED learning experiences for their students, teachers from other content areas tasked with teaching TED courses, and alternatively licensed educators who have expertise from industry and transitioned into teaching (Avery & Reeve, 2013; Reed & Ferguson, 2021). Due to the broad array of educators teaching TED courses reflecting the STEL context areas (Love, 2015; Love & Roy, 2022; Williams & Ernst, 2022), PD may have to be tailored to meet the varying needs of these educators, who may have differing levels of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and teaching experience (Avery & Reeve, 2013). Although there may be some overlapping aspects of TED PD applicable to many educators [e.g., technical writing skills (ITEEA, 2020a, p. 5)], targeted PD may better support and prepare early career TED educators (Bowen, 2013; Bowen et al., 2019). Moreover, STEL emphasizes that “interdisciplinary connections are crucial to technological and engineering literacy and are a fundamental element found throughout Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy” (ITEEA, 2020a, p. 5). Recent TED PD efforts have focused on enhancing educators’ content and pedagogical knowledge to deliver design-based interdisciplinary instruction related to concepts highlighted in the STEL, such as mathematical modeling (Asempapa & Love, 2021; ITEEA, 2020a, p. 77). The vast array of educators tasked with teaching TED courses has been attributed to the continual shortage of highly qualified TED teachers (Bowen, 2013; Bowen et al., 2019; Love & Love, 2023; Volk, 2019). This shortage is not unique to the United States as it has also plagued other countries (Love & Love, 2023). Countries such as Australia (DATTA Australia, 2019), England (Long & Danechi, 2021), and New Zealand (Reinsfield & Lee, 2021) have each documented alarming rates of TED teacher shortages, which have resulted in educators who are not highly qualified to teach TED now providing TED instruction. These studies indicated that this has led to watered-down curricula, more focus on theory as opposed to hands-on applications, and increased liability and safety concerns. Hence, PD has been viewed as a critical component of preparing educators to teach TED content and practices while also avoiding program closures (Volk, 2019). In the United States (U.S.), PD to help support and prepare out-of-content and alternatively licensed educators to teach TED education and avoid program closures has been described as a slippery slope (Love & Maiseroulle, 2021). Volk (2019) highlighted this problem using the Project Lead the Way training institute model as an example, which he believed was undermining the basis for specialized TED teacher preparation programs and highly qualified educators. Furthermore, Volk (2019) described how research has demonstrated that alternatively certified teachers leave the profession at higher rates and that principals perceive these educators to be

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

99

underprepared and less effective in comparison to graduates of TED teacher preparation programs. A large percentage of teachers from other content areas have also been trained through PD to deliver ITEEA’s Foundations of Technology curriculum (Love, 2015; Strimel, 2013), which was aligned with the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007) but has since been updated to align with STEL. Overall, an alarming number of educators teaching TED courses in the U.S. have not completed a TED teacher preparation program but have entered the profession through an alternative licensure route or been tasked with teaching TED courses after completing PD on a TED curriculum (Bowen et al., 2019; Love, 2015; Love & Roy, 2022; Strimel, 2013; Williams & Ernst, 2022). PD aligned with STEL, which models interdisciplinary teaching practices, is a critical component for the future of TED education programs due to its extensive use of PD as a strategy to prepare educators and avoid program closures.

6.3 Focus and Format Considerations for TED Professional Development Many studies have investigated what constitutes “effective PD.” The OECD (2009) determined that: Effective professional development is on-going, includes training, practice and feedback, and provides adequate time and follow-up support. Successful programmes involve teachers in learning activities that are similar to ones they will use with their students, and encourage the development of teachers’ learning communities. This is growing interest in developing schools as learning organisations, and in ways for teachers to share their expertise and experience more systematically. (p. 49)

Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) viewed effective PD as “structured professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvements in student learning outcomes” (p. v). To improve teaching practices and student outcomes, a number of studies have suggested various structures and strategies for PD. DarlingHammond et al. (2017) found effective PD studies in the literature focused on discipline-specific curriculum development and pedagogies, engaged teachers in active learning like their students should experience, supported collaboration among educators, and modeled effective practices for participants (including lesson and curricula examples). El Islami et al. (2022) expanded on this work, compiling a list of 19 strategies from the literature that could be combined for effective PD. Those 19 strategies consist of: study of curriculum topics, immersion in inquiry and problem-solving, content courses, examining student work and thinking, demonstration lessons, lesson study, action research, case discussion, coaching, mentoring, instructional materials selection, curriculum implementation, workshops/institutes/ seminars, study group, professional networks, online PD, qualification programs, observation visits to other schools, and reading professional literature.

100

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

6.3.1 Alignment of PD with Science Standards Although many of the aforementioned strategies lend themselves to applications directly related to TED education PD, there remains less research on TED PD efforts in comparison to science and mathematics education PD research. As Kelley et al. (2021) pointed out, there have been considerable PD efforts focused on preparing educators to adequately integrate engineering design within science curricula. In the U.S., many of these PD efforts were prompted by the inclusion of engineering design within the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Examples of the results of such PD efforts were documented by Grubbs et al. (2016) and Maeng et al. (2017), among others. With the release of STEL seven years after the NGSS was published, this raises concerns about whether PD developers are aware of STEL and whether they will align PD efforts with the STEL. Many STEM PD efforts in the literature cite alignment with the engineering design standards from the NGSS; however, studies documenting PD efforts aligned with STEL are not as common, and evidence of growing inclusion of STEL in PD activities remains to be seen. STEL provides a deeper and more holistic view of engineering design and aspects of TED education in comparison to the NGSS. Continued engineering design-focused PD that is only aligned with NGSS and not also with STEL poses concerns that teachers are being prepared with a narrow view of the TED content and practices that students should be taught.

6.3.2 Elements of TED PD in the U.S. Within the literature specific to TED education PD, Custer et al. (2007) proposed the following aspects which are needed for the development and delivery of effective PD programs: research plans, development of a philosophical focus, identification of standards-based curriculum materials, collaboration among STEM disciplines, formulation of effective PD models, research specific to pedagogical content knowledge, and general justification and promotion of engineering and technology education as a recognized part of K-12 education. Avery and Reeve (2013) emphasized the importance of having a supportive PD environment, modeling the teaching of exemplar engineering design challenges, providing training on managing group projects and evaluating student contributions, training teachers how to develop their own standards-based engineering design challenges, and training teachers how to appropriately and intentionally integrate STEM concepts into their design-based instructional materials. There have been a number of PD recommendations published by professional associations that offer engineering design-based curricula and standards. Shortly after the release of the STL (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), the International Technology Educators Association (ITEA) released Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy (AETL): Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

101

Standards (ITEA, 2003). A section of this document provided seven standards to guide educators and school systems in developing high-quality PD aligned with STL. The seven PD standards in the AETL focused on: (1) alignment with STL; (2) providing educators with perspectives on students as learners of technology; (3) preparing teachers to design and evaluate technology curricula and programs; (4) using instructional strategies that enhance the teaching, learning, and assessment of technology; (5) preparing teachers to design and manage learning environments that promote technological literacy; (6) preparing teachers to maintain responsibility for their own continued professional growth; and (7) planning, implementing, and evaluating PD to collaboratively inform pre-service and in-service teacher preparation efforts. The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) later published Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering (ASEE, 2014), which focused on (a) engineering content and practices reflecting engineering design, engineering careers, and engineering and society; (b) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); (c) engineering as a context for the teaching and learning of concepts from various content areas; (d) curriculum and assessment; and (e) alignment with research, standards, best educational practices. Both AETL and Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering include a focus on enhancing educators’ content knowledge of TED concepts; pedagogical practices for fostering student-centered and designbased learning experiences; PCK; planning and teaching practices to intentionally integrate interdisciplinary connections; development of authentic design challenges; alignment of curricula and assessments; and engagement in reflective practices that involves collaboration with other educators, administrators, and practicing engineers and technologists. One noticeable difference is the Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering have four standards specifically dedicated to promoting engineering careers, whereas the AETL focuses on exposure to a broader range of technological and engineering-related careers that are embedded across multiple standards (e.g., Standard P-3: Technology program evaluation will ensure and facilitate technological literacy for all students). Another difference is that AETL has standards specifically dedicated to creating and managing TED learning environments, which include implementing a comprehensive safety program and maintaining safer occupancy load levels in areas where engineering laboratory activities are occurring (ITEA, 2003, pp. 87–88). Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering mentions introducing effective classroom management strategies and engaging participants in authentic engineering practices and processes that use engineering tools and technologies; however, safety is not specifically mentioned in any of the standards. Although both AETL and Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering have a focus on preparing educators to foster design thinking, the AETL refers to this as the design process since it was aligned with the STL and published prior to engineering being added to the STL. If AETL was rewritten to align with the more recently released STEL, it would most likely have a greater focus on the engineering design process as reflected by STEL. Another main difference between these standards is their literacy focus for all students. Standards

102

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering include standards specifically focused on developing literacy in engineering and society, engineering design, and engineering careers. The AETL provides a much broader perspective, focused on developing student literacy in a variety of technological contexts as well as engineering fields.

6.3.3 Elements of TED PD Outside of the U.S. The need for PD has also been documented by countries outside of the U.S. facing similar issues. The Design and Technology Teachers’ Association Australia (DATTA Australia) indicated that PD is essential to upskill teachers lacking TED qualifications who are being hired due to the shortage of highly qualified TED teachers. As a result, DATTA Australia recommended that PD focuses on work health and safety in TED learning areas, effective pedagogies for teaching TED and specialist skills, and safer operation of tools and machinery (DATTA Australia, 2019). They also recommended that professional associations, government agencies, and school systems work together in funding, developing, and delivering these much-needed PD opportunities. England’s House of Commons Education Committee (2017) also indicated that there is a critical need for continued PD on subject-specific knowledge, the ability to deliver that knowledge effectively that reflects current pedagogical research, and tailoring PD opportunities so they are relevant to educators at different stages of their teaching career. The importance of this was also emphasized due to the lack of qualified TED teachers (Long & Danechi, 2021). Similarly, in New Zealand, PD was found to be a critical need due to the shortage of TED teachers and the impact that was having on the rigor of instruction. Reinsfield and Lee (2021) proposed that PD was needed in New Zealand to ensure the retention of existing TED teachers and to help initial teacher educators better understand and improve their delivery of courses and curricula content while making learning engaging. Additionally, in South Africa, PD was found to be critical in helping educators enhance their discipline-specific knowledge and their instructional methods to implement a new national TED curriculum (van As, 2018). It is evident that PD is needed in many countries for various reasons and is an integral component of TED education.

6.3.4 Elements of Integrative TED-Based PD More recent TED education PD efforts have focused on preparing educators to teach engineering design through an integrative STEM education focus (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Geesa et al., 2021; Han et al., 2020, 2022; Havice et al., 2018; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Love et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2023a). Havice et al.’s (2018) summer integrative STEM education PD institute resulted in teams of teachers

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

103

and administrators reporting greater confidence in their understanding of integrative STEM education pedagogical methods, increased self-efficacy toward teaching integrative STEM education, and increased implementation of integrative STEM education in their school following the PD. Additional studies have also found integrative STEM PD with an engineering design focus to increase self-efficacy toward teaching STEM concepts (Kelley et al., 2020, 2021); increase views toward collaborating with educators from other content areas (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Han et al., 2022; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Love et al., 2022a, 2023a); and increase awareness of STEM careers (Knowles et al., 2018). While these PD experiences reflect the collaborative and integrative efforts called for by the STEL (ITEEA, 2020a, p. 5), researchers have cautioned about the challenges associated with preparing educators to have adequate content and pedagogical knowledge to teach the broad spectrum of STEM concepts embedded in an integrative STEM lesson (Avery & Reeve, 2013; Geesa et al., 2021; Love & Hughes, 2022; Rose et al., 2015). Researchers have emphasized the importance of collaboration among educators and reflective opportunities through various forms of integrative STEM PD (Chiu et al., 2021; Geesa et al., 2021). Collaborative experiences offered by PD opportunities have been found to provide unique benefits which educators may not get to experience during the school day (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Han et al., 2022; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Love et al., 2022a, 2023a).

6.3.5 PD Format Considerations One key aspect to consider when planning PD is the duration of the PD and post-PD follow-up efforts. Desimone (2009) suggested that 20 h is the minimum amount of time needed for PD to be effective, and Chiu et al. (2021) proposed that PD should be held over a sustained period of time to immerse teachers in design thinking applications and transform their practice. However, PD studies have shown benefits from sessions of various durations [e.g., one-day (Asempapa & Love, 2021); multiple weeks (Havice et al., 2018; Hughes & Partida, 2020; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021); etc.] as well as varying delivery modes [e.g., online (Love et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2023a); face-to-face (Grubbs et al., 2016; Havice et al., 2018; Hughes & Partida, 2020; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Maeng et al., 2017), etc.]. Some research has documented greater benefits from face-to-face PD in comparison to PD facilitated online (Hill et al., 2020; Love et al., 2022c). There are many factors to consider when planning PD to get the best outcomes, including complexity of the content to be covered, types of activities to be conducted, experience level of participants, and more.

104

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

6.4 Content Considerations for TED PD The literature indicates that while an integrative STEM approach with a focus on engineering design can be complex but offer additional positive outcomes, PD should not be approached as a one-size fits all experience (Avery & Reeve, 2013). Some studies have questioned the preparation of teacher educators who are responsible for planning and delivering PD efforts because they may not have extensive experience with integrating multiple disciplines or extensive content and pedagogical knowledge in all content areas (Brown & Bogiages, 2019; Love & Hughes, 2022). In turn, participants receiving PD from these teacher educators may also not experience examples of adequate integration and not receive the preparation necessary to engage students in the cross-cutting learning called for by current standards documents (e.g., STEL). PD providers then face the challenging task of trying to support teachers in planning and delivering cross-cutting instruction while they themselves may not have experienced learning or teaching in this way (Brown & Bogiages, 2019). Although many sources advocate for cross-cutting instruction to provide a more holistic learning experience for students within the context of engineering design, the literature also suggests that PD can be discipline-specific and tailored to be relevant to educators and their students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). This reflects the context areas of the STEL, which were developed to describe potential settings in which the core disciplinary standards and practices may be best taught or applied (ITEEA, 2020b). Table 6.1 provides examples of recent PD studies related to the eight context areas of STEL. Some of these also feature integrative connections beyond TED and provide examples of PD efforts that apply various core disciplinary standards and practices from STEL within specific TED contexts. Table 6.1 Examples of primary and secondary TED education PD studies STEL context area focus

PD studies

Agricultural and biological technologies

Han et al. (2022)*, Kelley et al. (2020, 2021, 2022)*, Knowles et al. (2018)

Computation, automation, artificial intelligence, and robotics

Love et al. (2022b)*, Neutens and Wyffels (2018), Portsmore et al. (2020)

Material conversion and processing

Mian et al. (2016)

Transportation and logistics

Wandeler and Hart (2020)

Energy and power

Marti et al. (2018), Mesutoglu and Baran (2020)

Information and communication

Asempapa and Love (2021)*, Song (2021)

The built environment

Hughes and Denson (2021)

Medical and health-related technologies

Love et al. (2022a, 2023a)*

Note *Mentioned alignment with STEL

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

105

6.4.1 Developing Teacher’s Knowledge Through PD Experiences PD research has suggested that effective PD helps to develop various aspects of educators’ knowledge, which reflects the categories of knowledge that Shulman (1987) proposed grow in the mind of teachers: (a) content knowledge; (b) general pedagogical knowledge; (c) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); (d) curriculum knowledge; (e) knowledge of learners and their characteristics; (f) knowledge of educational contexts; and (g) knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values and their philosophical and historical grounds. Examples of PD efforts aiming to develop these distinct categories of knowledge are documented throughout the literature. Developing teachers’ content knowledge is a common recommendation resulting from PD research, especially related to enhancing teachers’ understanding of detailed concepts that are specific to specialized TED topics or context areas (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Avery & Reeve, 2013; Kelley et al., 2020; Love & Hughes, 2022; Love et al., 2022a, 2023a; Phillips et al., 2009; Williams & Lockley, 2012). These detailed concepts can be focused on teaching and appropriate core design concepts and practices from the STEL within a specific technology and engineering context. Different contexts for applying the same core design standard(s) may require distinct content knowledge and pedagogical strategies. Hence, PD can help educators develop the knowledge and skills applicable to unique TED domains (Kelley et al., 2020). Improving educators’ general pedagogical knowledge is also a frequent recommendation in the literature, especially related to providing PD tailored toward educators who are new to teaching lab-based TED lessons (Kelley et al., 2021; Love, 2022; Love & Roy, 2022; Love et al., 2022c) or those entering the profession through the alternative licensure route (Bowen, 2013; Bowen et al., 2019). Studies have found educators’ proficiency in teaching TED (Love & Hughes, 2022) and science (Love & Wells, 2018) content and practices within engineering design-based units to be linked to specific preparation experiences, including PD on the curriculum to be taught. Improving educators’ knowledge about curriculum materials, how to modify/develop curricula, and how to implement already developed curricula have also been important components of PD efforts (Daugherty, 2010; Love & Hughes, 2022; Love & Wells, 2018; Strimel, 2013). While studies have reported benefits from built-in collaborative lesson and curriculum planning time during PD opportunities (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Kelley et al., 2020; Mian et al., 2016), Geesa et al. (2021) cautioned that expecting participants to develop high-quality curricular materials can present challenges if they are still developing their knowledge and skills on the PD topic. The importance of developing teachers’ knowledge of learners and their characteristics through PD was demonstrated by Hughes and Partida’s (2020) study examining how teachers adjust their practices to teach engineering design based on their evaluation of the interaction between student metacognitive functioning and other attributes. Their study described how effective teachers possess knowledge regarding when and how to appropriately adjust the difficulty of different aspects of an engineering design challenge based on each student’s level of understanding.

106

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

Hughes and Partida (2020) found that PD focused on increasing teachers’ metacognitive awareness enhanced teachers’ ability to recognize their students’ learning needs and address those needs to invoke more active student participation in engineering design activities. Knowledge of educational contexts to help make TED learning meaningful within contexts that are most relevant for students in a classroom or that are related directly to the community in which the school is located has strong ties to applying core design concepts to various technology and engineering context areas afforded by STEL. An example of this was demonstrated by Mian et al. (2016) in which teachers received PD on the latest manufacturing technologies and processes used in industry to pass those experiences onto their students from a region of the U.S. where the manufacturing industry had a large presence. Improving knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values, and their philosophical and historical grounds is apparent throughout the literature, which recommends that PD should provide teachers with a better understanding of the epistemology and ideals of TED education (Williams & Lockley, 2012). This is especially important for teachers from other content areas and those new to teaching. The last, and arguably most complex, knowledge category that has appeared in recommendations throughout TED PD studies is PCK. Williams and Lockley (2012) described PCK as “a special blend of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge built up over time and experience” (p. 468). Enhancing educators’ PCK (especially, related to engineering design) has presented many challenges. Many PD efforts have focused on developing deeper content knowledge about a topic, and/or modeling pedagogical strategies related to teaching that content or a specific curriculum. Examining this improved blend of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that develops with time and experience has proved challenging. When considering PD efforts focused on enhancing core knowledge and practices related to integrative STEM contexts, enhancing PCK becomes even more challenging due to the breadth and depth of knowledge and practices that are innate to integrative STEM instruction needed (Love & Hughes, 2022). Despite these challenges, some studies examining integrative STEM PD efforts have documented improvements in educators’ content knowledge (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Kelley et al., 2020; Love et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2023a; Maeng et al., 2017; van As, 2018), pedagogical practices (Du et al., 2019; van As, 2018), and PCK (Hughes & Partida, 2020; Kelley et al., 2020) as a result of a collaborative PD experience.

6.4.2 Preparation to Deliver Technology and Engineering Content and Practices One of the overarching themes apparent from the literature was concerns about the preparation of educators to safely deliver TED instruction. This was explicitly highlighted as a major concern in Australia (DATTA Australia, 2019), New Zealand

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

107

(Reinsfield & Lee, 2021), and the U.S. (Geesa et al., 2021; Kelley et al., 2021; Love, 2018; 2022; Love & Love, 2023; Love & Roy, 2022; Love et al., 2022c). Safety concerns have heightened due to the critical shortage of highly qualified TED educators, which has resulted in an increasing number of teachers from other content areas and alternatively licensed educators being tasked with teaching TED practices despite having limited to no safety training relative to TED labs (DATTA Australia, 2019; Love, 2018; Love et al., 2022c; Reed & Ferguson, 2021; Reinsfield & Lee, 2021). Love and Roy (2022) found a number of alarming safety concerns reported by TED teachers across the U.S., especially regarding the lack of PD teachers reported receiving that was focused on initial safety training and retraining. The implications for these safety concerns include the reduction or removal of hands-on prototyping and testing experiences that provide valuable engineering design applications and are one of the foundational practices identified in STEL (ITEEA, 2020), or the elimination of TED programs (Reinsfield & Lee, 2021). However, numerous studies have found PD to have positive effects on teachers’ perceptions of safety and safer engineering practices (Love, 2017a, 2017b, 2022; Love et al., 2022c; Reed & Ferguson, 2021). More importantly, comprehensive safety training has been found to reduce TED teachers’ odds of having an accident occur in their lab by 49% (Love et al., 2023b). Safety has a prominent presence in the STEL, embedded throughout the core disciplinary standards, practices, and contexts (Love et al., 2020). Furthermore, in many countries, safety training is legally required to ensure TED teachers have the appropriate safety preparation for the content and practices they are being tasked with teaching. For example, in England, teachers must complete approved safety training from the Design and Technology Association (DATA) (Love, 2019). In countries like the U.S., the onus of safety training is placed on pre-service teacher preparation programs and ultimately on the in-service employer (i.e., the school system). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHAs) general industry standards [e.g., Occupational Exposures to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories standard (29 CFR 1910.1450), Hazard Communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030), and other legal safety standards] explicitly require employers (e.g., school districts, libraries, community centers) to provide safety training for school employees who may be exposed to potential biological, chemical, or physical hazards and resulting safety risks (e.g., laboratory educators, librarians, makerspace supervisors) upon initial hiring, when changes in work assignments present new hazards (e.g., teaching a new course), or when there are changes in safety plans and workplace hazards (Love & Roy, 2022). Research, legal safety standards, and better professional safety practices such as those recommended by professional associations like ITEEA, DATA, and DATTA Australia indicate highly effective safety protocols call for employers to provide safety PD for new TED teachers, followed by periodic training updates. The importance of safety training and PD for pre-service and in-service T&E teachers (encompassing those with preparation experiences from a TED teacher education program, those who entered the profession through alternative licensure, and those who were recruited from another content area to teach TED due to teacher shortages)

108

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

is evident from the literature (Love et al., 2023b). Most importantly, PD focusing on safety issues serves as an invaluable proactive hazard analysis and resulting safety risk assessment measure, saving schools time and money in the event of an accident due to lack of training. Specific safety concepts and strategies that should be included in TED PD are discussed in detail by Love (2022). Furthermore, Love et al. (2022c) recommended professional associations and school districts align their safety PD sessions with the federal safety training resources and guidelines that are applicable to their jurisdiction [e.g., federal OSHA (OSHA, 2021) and/or OSHA approved state plans].

6.5 Conclusions From the PD studies presented in this chapter related to TED education and engineering design, it is evident that PD can have a positive impact on educators in various ways. However, there remains much to be discovered about the effectiveness of PD, especially in domain-specific contexts and unique integrative contexts that have a limited research base. As Chiu et al. (2021) pointed out, many PD efforts have generally been successful in preparing and measuring outcomes related to innovative teaching methods for interdisciplinary learning and scaffolding learning outcomes. The authors believe that there is an immediate need for a document directly aligned with STEL that provides guidelines for student assessment, PD, and TED programs. This document will be critical for helping state departments of education, teacher preparation programs, school districts, and others to develop and implement standards-aligned curricula and preparation programs, including necessary PD efforts.

6.6 Recommendations The recommendations in this section represent items derived from a synthesis of the literature presented in this chapter. These recommendations should be considered for developing STEL-aligned TED and integrative STEM PD guidelines. It is not an expectation that a PD opportunity must cover all of these guidelines; rather, their application will depend on the focus and goals of the PD. 1. PD models and materials should be based on current research that advocates for better practices relevant to learners and authentic contexts (ASEE, 2014; Custer et al., 2007). 2. PD should ensure participants have a clear understanding of the philosophical focus and epistemology of TED and design-based learning (Custer et al., 2007; Grubbs et al., 2016).

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

109

3. PD models and materials should be developed with direct alignment to and emphasis on the STEL core disciplinary standards. Applicable technological and engineering practices should be purposefully integrated within meaningful and innovative contexts. This could include multiple contexts simultaneously (e.g., robotics and automation in biomedical engineering settings [Love et al., 2023a]). The standards crosswalk documents developed by ITEEA (ITEEA, 2020a) as a supplement to STEL should also be used to infuse standards from other content areas where applicable. 4. PD should encourage participation and continued collaboration among educators from various disciplines. This includes time to participate in the PD together, time to plan integrative instruction, and time to discuss and reflect on the implementation of their integrative instructional efforts (Asempapa & Love, 2021; Custer et al., 2007; Havice et al., 2018; Kelley et al., 2020, 2021; Love et al., 2022a, 2023a). 5. PD should help educators develop their curriculum knowledge. This should entail teaching participants how to identify, analyze, modify, and/or implement standards-based curriculum to meet the needs of their students and/or school system. This should also include sharing exemplary materials and assisting educators with developing their own standards-based curriculum materials to implement in their school system (Avery & Reeve, 2013; Custer et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). 6. PD efforts should avoid a one-size fits all approach. This strategy may be more financially economical, but it may not be as effective at addressing the varying needs of the participants. For example, teachers who have completed an inservice teacher preparation program may require more technical content knowledge, whereas educators who entered the field from industry via alternative licensure may require more pedagogical training. PD experiences encouraging collaboration between various types of educators can help educators learn from each other’s expertise to address gaps in content and pedagogical knowledge (Avery & Reeve, 2013; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kelley et al., 2020). 7. PD should focus on enhancing educators’ content knowledge related to core TED concepts, practices, and emerging technological and engineering contexts. PD should also seek to enhance educators’ content knowledge in other content areas that can be purposefully integrated through a design-based learning focus (e.g., enhancing literacy skills through elementary engineering design challenges) (ASEE, 2014; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). 8. Every PD opportunity should incorporate information regarding the design and management of safer teaching/learning environments to promote technological and engineering literacy. This includes critical information related to facilities and material needs/usage, legal safety standards, better professional safety practices related to the contents of the curriculum and/or PD, and classroom management practices to uphold the safety of all students and instructors (Love, 2022). The aforementioned information is extremely important given the

110

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

growing number of educators without a background in TED education who are sent to PD sessions in preparation for teaching TED courses (DATTA Australia, 2019; Love & Love, 2023; Love et al., 2022c; Reed & Ferguson, 2021; Reinsfield & Lee, 2021). As exemplified by the STEL, safety is an enduring concept that should be embedded throughout TED instruction and PD (Love et al., 2020). Face-to-face instructor demonstrations of equipment/tool use and processes followed by directly supervised demonstrations from participants during PD engineering design activities (only allowed after the participant has passed all applicable safety tests and has a signed safety acknowledgement form on file) have been shown to increase safety awareness and self-efficacy (Love, 2017a; Love et al., 2022c). Safety updates and safety retraining efforts provided through PD are critically important for student/instructor safety and the survival of TED programs given comprehensive safety training efforts has been found to reduce the odds of an accident by 49% (Love et al., 2023b). 9. PD should enhance educators’ pedagogical knowledge and practices through active learning experiences. This includes modeling of appropriate practices by those delivering the PD. Participants should have opportunities to safely apply their ideas in classrooms/labs with students while under PD coach/mentor supervision, allowing time for reflection based on their observations and student feedback (Chiu et al., 2021). This can allow participants to also develop their knowledge about students as learners of TED and gain a richer understanding of how to address the needs of their students from a TED lens. Research also suggests incorporating coaching and mentoring opportunities to help educators during and beyond the PD (El Islami et al., 2022; Havice et al., 2018; Maeng et al., 2017). Furthermore, time for observing other participants teaching what was learned or developed from the PD provides a valuable reflective experience for educators (El Islami et al., 2022). 10. PD should help educators to develop a deeper understanding of formative and summative assessment strategies aligned with curriculum, the STEL, and design-based learning. This may involve presenting exemplars and assisting educators with developing or modifying assessment items to better align with curriculum their school system is implementing or that they developed from the PD experience (ASEE, 2014; ITEA, 2003). 11. The duration and delivery mode of PD should be carefully considered based on the experiences of the audience, location, cost, goals of the PD, and other factors. One-off workshops/PD sessions may provide certain benefits such as increasing awareness of new technologies or curricular materials but may not elicit the optimal longitudinal impact on changing practice that is intended. State departments of education, school systems, funding agencies, and professional associations should provide support for multi-day or multi-week standards-aligned PD opportunities. Furthermore, opportunities should be provided for sustained follow-up and collaborations beyond the PD, so educators feel supported and are more likely to continue implementing what they learned from the PD, as

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

111

well as to reflect on their experiences. This could take the form of professional learning communities, live online discussion sessions, or other strategies (Avery & Reeve, 2013; Chiu et al., 2021; Custer et al., 2007; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Love & Hughes, 2022). Through these follow-up efforts, educators should be gradually encouraged to maintain responsibility for their own continued professional growth. 12. PD efforts should be a collaborative endeavor between pre-service and inservice stakeholders. Collaboration during the planning, implementation, and evaluation of PD programs can better inform pre-service and in-service teacher preparation efforts (ITEA, 2003).

6.7 Recommendations for Further Research The following recommendations are provided for future research efforts examining TED education PD: 1. Studies should strive to examine the effects of STEL-aligned PD efforts beyond self-efficacy gains, changes in content knowledge, enhanced curriculum knowledge, and other commonly assessed outcomes discussed in this chapter. Examining outcomes related to TED educators’ metacognitive awareness, observed teaching practices, PCK, and connections to student performance is warranted (Chiu et al., 2021; Hughes & Partida, 2020). 2. Research examining safety PD efforts associated with STEL-aligned instruction should investigate the longitudinal effects of safety PD and the application to safety practices exhibited by instructors and their students (Love et al., 2022c, 2023b).

References American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). (2014). K12 Teacher professional development. https://www.asee.org/education-jobs/PREK-12/eGFI/k12-Teacher-ProfessionalDevelopment Asempapa, R. S., & Love, T. S. (2021). Teaching math modeling through 3D-printing: Examining the influence of an integrative professional development. School Science and Mathematics, 121(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12448 Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing effective STEM professional development programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v25 i1.a.4 Bowen, B. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness when comparing alternatively and traditionally licensed high school technology education teachers in North Carolina. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 82–100. Bowen, B., Williams, T., Napoleon, L., & Marx, A. (2019). Teacher preparedness: A comparison of alternatively and traditionally certified technology and engineering education teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 30(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v30i2.a.5

112

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

Brown, R. E., & Bogiages, C. A. (2019). Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17, 111–128. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10763-017-9863-x Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common core state standards. Author. https://learning.ccsso.org/common-core-state-standards-initiative Chiu, T. K. F., Chai, C. S., Williams, P. J., & Lin, T.-J. (2021). Teacher professional development on self-determination theory-based design thinking in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 153–165. Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Zeng, Y., Westrick, M., & Merrill, C. (2007). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Delivering_Core_Con cepts_Merrill.pdf Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. Daugherty, J. L. (2010). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 10–24. Design and Technology Teachers’ Association Australia (DATTA Australia). (2019). Technologies teacher shortage survey: National overview 2019. https://www.datta.wa.edu.au/wp-content/upl oads/2019/10/technology-teacher-shortage-survey-report-2019-datta-australia.pdf Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi. org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 Du, W., Liu, D., Johnson, C. C., Sondergeld, T. A., Bolshakova, V. L. J., & Moore, T. J. (2019). The impact of integrated STEM professional development on teacher quality. School Science and Mathematics, 119(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12318 El Islami, R. A. Z., Anantanukulwong, R., & Faikhamta, C. (2022). Trends of teacher professional development strategies: A systematic review. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 10(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v10i2.4628 Geesa, R. L., Rose, M. A., & Stith, K. M. (2021). Leadership in integrative STEM education: Collaborative strategies for facilitating an experiential and student-centered culture. Rowman & Littlefield. Grubbs, M. E., Love, T. S., Long, D. L., & Kittrel, D. (2016). Science educators teaching engineering design: An examination across science professional development sites. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(11), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i11.1832 Han, J., Kelley, T. R., Bartholomew, S., & Knowles, J. G. (2020). Sharpening STEL with integrated STEM. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(3), 24–29. Han, J., Kelley, T., & Knowles, J. G. (2022). Building a sustainable model of integrated stem education: Investigating secondary school STEM classes after an integrated STEM project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798022-09777-8 Havice, W., Havice, P., Waugaman, C., & Walker, K. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of integrative STEM education: Teacher and administrator professional development. Journal of Technology Education, 29(2), 73–90. Hill, H. C., Lynch, K., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2020). Professional development that improves STEM outcomes. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(5), 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172 1720903829 House of Commons Education Committee. (2017). Recruitment and retention of teachers. HC 199. London. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmeduc/199/199.pdf Hughes, A. J., & Denson, C. D. (2021). Scaffolding middle and high school students’ engineering design experiences: Quality problem-SCOPEing promoting successful solutions. Journal of Technology Education, 32(2), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v32i2.a.1

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

113

Hughes, A. J., & Partida, E. (2020). Promoting preservice STEM education teachers’ metacognitive awareness: Professional development designed to improve teacher metacognitive awareness. Journal of Technology Education, 32(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.1 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020a). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020b). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. Executive summary. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=168785&v International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. ITEA. https://www.iteea.org/42523.aspx International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Author. Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Han, J., & Trice, A. N. (2021). Models of integrated STEM education. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 22(1), 34–45. Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., Holland, J. D., & Han, J. (2020). Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(14), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-02000211-w Kelley, T. R., Sung, E., Han, J., & Knowles, J. G. (2022). Impacting secondary students’ STEM knowledge through collaborative STEM teacher partnerships. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09783-w Knowles, J. G., Kelley, T., & Holland, J. D. (2018). Increasing teacher awareness of STEM careers. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(3), 26–34. Long, R., & Danechi, S. (2021). Teacher recruitment and retention in England. House of Commons Library Briefing Paper no. 07222. House of Commons Library. https://researchbriefings.files. parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7222/CBP-7222.pdf Love, T. S. (2015). Examining the demographics and preparation experiences of foundations of technology teachers. The Journal of Technology Studies, 41(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.21061/ jots.v41i1.a.7 Love, T. S. (2017a). Perceptions of teaching safer engineering practices: Comparing the influence of professional development delivered by technology and engineering, and science educators. Science Educator, 26(1), 21–31. Love, T. S. (2017b). Tools and materials in primary education: Examining differences among male and female teachers’ safety self-efficacy. In L. Litowitz & S. Warner (Eds.), Technology and engineering education—Fostering the creativity of youth around the globe. Proceedings of the 34th Pupil’s Attitude Toward Technology Conference. Millersville University. Love, T. S. (2019). Safety perspectives and resources from across the pond. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 78(5), 34–37. Love, T. S. (2018). The T&E in STEM: A collaborative effort. The Science Teacher, 86(3), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst18_086_03_8 Love, T. S. (2022). Examining the influence that professional development has on educators’ perceptions of integrated STEM safety in makerspaces. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09955-2 Love, T. S., Attaluri, A., Tunks, R. D., Cysyk, J., & Harter, K. (2022a). Examining changes in high school teachers’ perceptions of utilizing 3D printing to teach biomedical engineering concepts: Results from an integrated STEM professional development experience. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 23(2), 30–38. Love, T. S., Bartholomew, S. R., & Yauney, J. (2022b). Examining changes in teachers’ beliefs toward integrating computational thinking to teach literacy and math concepts in grades K-2. Journal for STEM Education Research, 5, 380–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-022-000 77-3

114

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

Love, T. S., Cysyk, J., Attaluri, A., Tunks, R. D., Harter, K., & Sipos, R. (2023a). Examining science and technology/engineering educators’ views of teaching biomedical concepts through physical computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 96–110. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10956-022-09996-7 Love, T. S., Duffy, B. C., Loesing, M. L., Roy, K. R., & West, S. S. (2020). Safety in STEM education standards and frameworks: A comparative content analysis. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(3), 34–38. Love, T. S., & Hughes, A. J. (2022). Engineering pedagogical content knowledge: Examining correlations with formal and informal preparation experiences. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(29), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00345-z Love, T. S., & Love, Z. J. (2023). The teacher recruitment crisis: Examining influential recruitment factors from a United States technology and engineering teacher preparation program. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10798-022-09727-4 Love, T. S., & Maiseroulle, T. (2021). Are technology and engineering educator programs really declining? Reexamining the status and characteristics of programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 33(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v33i1.a.1 Love, T. S., & Roy, K. R. (2022). Safer engineering and CTE instruction: A national STEM education imperative. What the data tells us. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. https://www.iteea.org/safety Love, T. S., Roy, K. R., Gill, M., & Harrell, M. (2022c). Examining the influence that safety training format has on educators’ perceptions of safer practices in makerspaces and integrated STEM labs. Journal of Safety Research, 82, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.05.003 Love, T. S., Roy, K. R., & Sirinides, P. (2023b). A national study examining safety factors and training associated with STEM education and CTE laboratory accidents in the United States. Safety Science, 160(106058), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106058 Love, T. S., & Wells, J. G. (2018). Examining correlations between the preparation experiences of U.S. technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 395–416. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10798-017-9395-2 Loveland, T., Love, T. S., Wilkerson, T., & Simmons, P. (2020). Jackson’s Mill to Chinsegut: The journey leading to STEL 2020. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 79(5), 8–13. Maeng, J. L., Whitworth, B. A., Gonczi, A. L., Navy, S. L., & Wheeler, L. B. (2017). Elementary science teachers’ integration of engineering design into science instruction: Results from a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1340688 Marti, E. J., Kaya, E., Deniz, H., Yesilyurt, E., & Iglesias, J. (2018). Assessing high school science teachers’ nature of engineering (NOE) perceptions with an open-ended NOE instrument. Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. https://doi.org/ 10.18260/1-2-29821 Mesutoglu, C., & Baran, E. (2020). Examining the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(8), 1509–1529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10041-0 Mian, A., Pinnell, M., Petry, L., Srinivasan, R., Franco, S., & Taylor, M. (2016). Summer research and collaborative professional development experience for NSF RET teachers in advanced manufacturing and materials. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Education and Globalization: Vol. 5, Phoenix, AZ (pp. 11–17). https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2016-66141 Moye, J. J., Reed, P. A., Wu-Rorrer, R., & Lecorchick, D. (2020). Current and future trends and issues facing technology and engineering education in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 32(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v32i1.a.3

6 Considerations in the Development of STEL-Aligned Professional …

115

Neutens, T., & Wyffels, F. (2018). Bringing computer science education to secondary school: A teacher first approach. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 840–845). https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159568 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2021). Resource for development and delivery of training to workers (OSHA 3824-05R 2021). https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/ files/publications/osha3824.pdf Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. OECD Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264068780-en Phillips, K. R., De Miranda, M. A., & Shin, J. T. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge and industrial design education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 35(2), 47–55. Porter, T., West, M. E., Kajfez, R. L., Malone, K. L., & Irving, K. E. (2019). The effect of teacher professional development on implementing engineering in elementary schools. Journal of PreCollege Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.7771/21579288.1246 Portsmore, M. D., Watkins, J., & Swanson, R. D. (2020). “I understand their frustrations a little bit better”: Elementary teachers’ affective stances in engineering in an online learning program. Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--33969 Reed, P. A., & Ferguson, M. K. (2021). Safety training for career and content switchers. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(7), 16–19. Reed, P. A., Dooley, K., Love, T. S., & Bartholomew, S. R. (2022). Overview of standards for technological and engineering literacy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education, Minneapolis, MN. https://peer.asee.org/ 41253 Reinsfield, E., & Lee, K. (2021). Exploring the technology teacher shortage in New Zealand: The implications for quality teaching and learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), 1649–1658. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09668-4 Rose, M. A., Shumway, S., Carter, V., & Brown, J. (2015). Identifying characteristics of technology and engineering teachers striving for excellence using a modified Delphi. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 2–21. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40 594-017-0068-1 Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Song, M. J. (2021). Craftspeople’s new identity: The impact of digital fabrication technologies on craft practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(4), 2365–2383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09687-1 Strimel, G. (2013). Engineering by design™: Preparing STEM teachers for the 21st century. In J. Williams & D. Gedera (Eds.), Technology education for the future—A play on sustainability. Proceedings of the 27th Pupil’s Attitude Toward Technology Conference (pp. 447–456). University of Waikato. http://www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/PATT/PATT27/PATT27proceedingsN ZDec2013.pdf van As, F. (2018). Communities of practice as a tool for continuing professional development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9401-8 Volk, K. S. (2019). The demise of traditional technology and engineering education teacher preparation programs and a new direction for the profession. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 2–18. Wandeler, C., & Hart, S. (2020). The Fresno State transportation challenge. Mineta Transportation Institute Publications. https://doi.org/10.31979/mti.2020.1955

116

T. S. Love and K. R. Roy

Williams, J., & Lockley, J. (2012). Using CoRes to develop the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of early career science and technology teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 34–53. Williams, T. O., & Ernst, J. V. (2022). Technology and engineering education teacher characteristics: Analysis of a decade of institute of education sciences nationally representative data. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 23(4), 16–21.

Tyler S. Love (Ph.D., DTE) is a Professor of Technology and Engineering Education, and Director of Graduate Studies in Career and Technology Education for the University of Maryland Eastern Shore (UMES) at the Baltimore Museum of Industry. His research interests include T&E teacher preparation, safety/risk management issues associated with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and makerspaces, and physical computing within integrative STEM education contexts. Dr. Love is an Authorized OSHA Trainer for General Industry. Prior to his employment at UMES he was an Assistant Professor of Elementary/ Middle Grades STEM Education at Penn State University’s Capital Campus. There he was also the Director of the Capital Area Institute for Mathematics and Science (CAIMS), which provided numerous professional development outreach opportunities for K-12 educators each year. Kenneth R. Roy (Ph.D.) is Director of Environmental Health & Safety for Glastonbury Public Schools (CT). He also serves as Chief Safety Compliance Adviser and safety blogger for the National Science Teaching Association, and Safety Compliance Officer for the National Science Education Leadership Association. He is general manager and safety consultant for National Safety Consultants, LLC. Dr. Roy is a nationally/internationally recognized safety specialist, author of more than 13 laboratory safety books and over 800 safety articles in professional publications. He has presented safety programs for professional associations worldwide. He received training as an authorized/certified OSHA General Industry outreach trainer. Dr. Roy was a coresearcher on a recent Technology Education and Career & Technical Education scientific research study approved by the Pennsylvania State University’s Office for Research Protections.

Part III

Positioning Standards-Based STEM Instruction Within the Broader Educational Context

Chapter 7

Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator Perspective Steven L. Miller

Abstract School-based administrators in the USA are also instructional leaders in their school. Their responsibilities are immense—especially in schools with high-poverty levels and poor academic achievement results. Leaders must lead instructional improvement, manage faculty, staff, and students, and coach new teachers. Instructional improvement requires administrators to be familiar with various curricula and standards, such as the ITEEA Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL), and to build and maintain a repertoire of instructional coaching techniques. This chapter provides practical instructional coaching strategies for use with the STEL and an academic argument for school-based administrators to improve instruction by aligning instruction to state, national, and international educational standards. Keywords Standards for technological literacy · STL · School-based administration · Intervention · Whole child · C.A.S.-E. management pyramid · Increasing achievement · Technology, engineering, and design education · PAVE protocol

7.1 Introduction Successfully adopting a standards-based curriculum requires instructional leadership and support from school administrators at the school, district, and state levels. This chapter focuses on the support that school administrators can provide for adopting and implementing curricular content standards within schools. This chapter will discuss effective school-based administrative ways to promote and nurture teachers’ ability to deliver standards-based instruction and the implications for assessment. This chapter is written from the perspective of a school-based administrator in North Carolina in S. L. Miller (B) North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_7

119

120

S. L. Miller

the USA. In the USA, national, state, and local accountability expectations drive classroom instruction at varying levels. Although the administrative examples and strategies are from North Carolina, the educational rationale for implementing these strategies transcends state/national-level expectations. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) from the International Technology Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) are one of many sets of standards driving instruction within North Carolina and many other states, provinces, and nations (ITEEA, 2020).

7.2 A Brief History of Standards-Based Instruction and the Accountability Movement This chapter has two distinct sections. The first is devoted to educational research substantiating school improvement within larger educational systems, and the second section focuses on an anecdote of a real-world implementation of state-imposed standards. To frame the context of the author’s experiences of “best practices” and “strategies that didn’t work,” it is essential to briefly describe the events leading up to the current accountability expectations placed on school-based administrators. There is a moral and professional obligation to ensure all students meet or exceed their individual and school goals for educational attainment. State and federal organizations set these goals for educational attainment within the USA. This chapter section explains the daunting implications of state and federal regulations for student outcomes. The US Department of Education (E.D.) sets numerical achievement goals by grade level and subject. The goals are then normed by each state in agreement with E.D. (Cardichon et al., 2016). The written goals or standards are created and adopted by states for instructional purposes. For the system to work correctly, there should be alignment between classroom instruction and state and national standards. The pressures to meet these goals are intense, especially within schools and school systems that serve diverse student bodies. No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and its replacement, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; US Department of Education, n.d.), requires that states disaggregate student body data for each school for federal reporting purposes. The states negotiate their sample size for subgroup calculations. States then report subgroup educational attainment targets for each group of students by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, English-language ability, and disability status (Cardichon et al., 2016). Statistically, a homogenous group of students would contain no subgroups, and federal reporting would be more straightforward for those schools. Cardichon et al. (2016) report that if states select subgroup sample sizes that are too large, they miss the opportunity to provide targeted interventions for student groups needing that intervention and support. Cardichon et al. (2016) concluded that from a policy making perspective, the U.S. Department of Education should cap subgroup sizes for ESSA reporting to ensure statistical significance is met, but not to set them

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

121

so high as to work against the purpose of ESSA to identify and close gaps in achievement. They recommended that an N-size of 10 or fewer students would allow for effective accountability and a greater opportunity for the goal of equal educational attainment, which is imperative within ESSA. There are many models for educational transformation and improvement. One direct method to improve student achievement is to align classroom-based curriculum and instruction with national standards. School-based administrative assistance makes aligning standards to instruction more effective because resources and support external to the classroom reinforce the teacher’s mission to provide high-quality instruction. The National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report “A Nation at Risk,” released in 1983, significantly promoted the accountability movement in the USA during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Shortly after its publication, numerous professional organizations began publishing national and international standards, which became the basis for evaluating academic performance. The 1990s saw the implementation of high-stakes accountability systems across the country. In the early 2000s, the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) linked federal funding to measurable academic progress, measured through high-stakes testing. It included student subgroups in the formula, making the school’s success dependent on the performance of the lowest-performing subgroups. These expectations for school improvement motivated the work of DuFour et al. (2004) and other proponents of Professional Learning Communities and the Response to Intervention Movement. According to Dufour and Fullan (2013) and Fullan (2014), systemic improvement is achievable, but meaningful improvement does not come from excessive accountability, individualistic solutions, technology, or fragmented strategies. Fullan (2014) writes that systemic improvement, instead, comes from capacity building, collaborative effort, pedagogy, and systemness. Systemness is a word of Fullan’s creation that references how members of a complex system appropriately embrace and engage within a systemic improvement initiative. Within DuFour’s Professional Learning Community Movement and Fullan’s School Transformation Movement, collaborative team and capacity building go hand in hand with standards-based instructional alignment. Typically, these efforts begin with a focus on the people and follow with instruction, not because one is more important than the other, but because the organization’s personnel must be on board, engaged, and team-minded. After a thirteen-year run of negotiated amendments, state-level accountability plans (P.L. 114-95, 2016) were codified and signed into law in December 2015. ESSA contains many of the same general goals of NCLB, but there are definitive changes related to state-level control of development of state plans; the addition of growth and proficiency goals for each school; and the combination of test scores, achievement, growth, and graduation rates (USED, 2017). Response to Intervention, which is a cornerstone of the Professional Learning Communities’ movement, evolved into a more comprehensive system of intervention support, named the Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS). Although both intervention systems include universal

122

S. L. Miller

screening, progress monitoring, and progressively intensive levels of intervention, MTSS includes social and emotional support in addition to academic interventions (Porter, 2022). It is essential to note that some states continued with R.T.I. and did not evolve their intervention and support systems to include MTSS.

7.3 Guiding Principles of Standards-Based School Instruction The prior section provided a brief outline of the historical contexts of the school accountability and reform movement within the USA. To implement the guiding principles of standards-based school instruction, we must re-introduce several key highlights of the movement through a school-based administrative leadership lens. First, all schools have accountability targets measured by proficiency metrics. Second, Response to Intervention and Multi-tiered Systems of Support are expected frameworks for school administrators and Professional Learning Communities to use to ensure each student’s academic growth and proficiency goals are being met and, in the case of MTSS, the student’s social and emotional needs must also be met. Third, the introduction of subgroup analysis has created a focus on intensive intervention and support for students who deviate from expected academic performance in one way or another. This means that even a school with a nearly homogenous population and only one subgroup can be deemed deficient if that single subgroup fails to meet both growth and proficiency targets. Given these driving factors, the principal, administrative team, teachers, and families must function cohesively to ensure that every facet of the school supports student needs, teaching needs, teaching capacity, and academic focus.

7.3.1 School-Based Standards for Achieving Growth and Proficiency Targets High functioning and lower functioning schools can accept or negotiate their target proficiency standards in ESSA In most schools, these targets drive day-to-day instruction, school-community interactions, Professional Learning Communities of teachers and administrators, and strategic school improvement plans for individual buildings as well as for the overall school district. In some schools, attention to these proficiency standards can be less consuming because the school functions at a high level. In other schools, the lack of attention and follow-through on proficiency standards is a result of issues connected to staffing, student social–emotional issues and behavioral challenges, and other factors. It is clear from both the literature and the available data that socioeconomic factors, principally identified as high-poverty schools,

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

123

play one of the most significant roles in the level of challenge that a school experiences. To further accentuate the challenges of administration and leadership within high-poverty schools, research within the USA has shown that there is a schoolbased tipping point when 40% or more of the student body lives in poverty. At the poverty threshold of 40% or greater, the challenges of standards-based leadership through the management of student conduct, academic achievement, and student social–emotional needs grow exponentially, not incrementally (Banks, 2001). Gladwell (2000) wrote: “the tipping point is the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point” (p. 12). Tipping points are found in myriad settings, including elementary, middle, and high schools. Raspberry (2007) wrote her dissertation as a mixed-methods analysis of the nine tenets of Futernick’s (2007) tipping points of school reform. Her work focused on the school transformation process of five high-poverty, lowperforming schools. These tipping points are Teams, Time, Physical Environment, Class-size Reduction, Autonomy and Shared Governance, Leadership, A Wellrounded Curriculum, External Support, and Parent/Community Involvement. All schools within her sample began at roughly the lowest point possible for transformation and engaged in Futernick’s (2007) transformation process with differing levels of fidelity. There were stark differences in the success of the schools based on their adherence, follow-through, and dedication to the process. Raspberry concluded that all nine tipping point tenets were appeared within her sample and were implemented in varying levels of fidelity within the different buildings. Because there was evidence of successful transformation, but not across all five schools equally, Raspberry (2007) proposed that Futernick’s model should be analyzed to discern which of the strategies should take precedence and which could be lessened when the context of the environment argues a strategy which may not be necessary or successful within that school. Raspberry’s study (2007) revealed that some tenets may be more critical than others. The most successful of the schools in Raspberry’s sample implemented at least four of the nine tenets, with the most successful implementing six of the strategies. Raspberry provided insights into which strategies appear to be most important for successful transformation but stopped short of making any prescriptive recommendations. She placed the need for future research back onto Futernick (2007) by saying, “The resulting framework should be presented as a menu—rather than a recipe—for transformation to interested stakeholders. Schools could then pick and choose the areas they most need to address, based upon their respective needs and contexts, from a robust list of reform elements” (Raspberry, 2007, p. 150). Nevertheless, based on her analysis of the strategies used in these schools, Raspberry noted that Teams, Time, Physical Environment, A Well-rounded Curriculum, and Parent/Community Involvement were all well implemented at the schools that demonstrated moderate or high transformations (Raspberry, 2007, p. 87). Teams, Time, Well-rounded Curriculum, and Class Size Reduction are all well aligned with the strategies being proposed for school-level standards-based instructional leadership in the following sections. The concept of tipping points as it relates schools and their students’ socioeconomic characteristics is very important to standards-based school instruction because

124

S. L. Miller

of the work required to keep progress toward standards, targets, assessments, and classroom instruction on target. According to large-scale analyses within Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) in North Carolina and Fairfax County Schools (FCPS) in Virginia (Banks, 2001), there were statistically significant tipping points for schools with high-stakes mathematics and English assessments across many schools in two of the US largest school systems. Each analysis revealed that when between 40 and 45% of students qualified for free and reduced lunch, the schools began to tip downward in their academic performance. The tipping points became acute as poverty within the schools increased, but the tipping points beyond 45% were dramatic (Banks, 2001). The nature of these tipping points is very real for every employee within a high-poverty school. If school leaders happen to have all elements aligned; engage in a cohesive culture of support for each other, their students, and their community; and have a high-functioning school, they must not rest. To allow their protocols and procedures to slip is akin to sliding down an icecovered slope. Once the momentum tips, regaining student and school academic achievement is elusive, as is evidenced by the scarcity of high-performing, highpoverty schools and the plethora of low-performing, high-poverty schools. Historically, both WCPSS and FCPS treated these data so seriously that they engaged in elaborate processes such as assigning students to specific schools within nodes and creating specialized program schools, magnet schools, and reverse magnet schools.

7.3.2 On the Ground with Standards-Based School Administrative Leadership As the former principal of a high school with a racially and culturally diverse student body in which 90% of students received free and reduced lunch, standards-based instructional leadership was a crucial tool for me. In addition to providing support to many new and inexperienced teachers, students with unhealthy home lives, and no academic family support, there was an intensive demand for academic and social– emotional coaching in the local community. To add to this pressure, many inexperienced teachers were disinclined to act upon the greatly needed standards-based, tiered, academic intervention model needed to ensure the school would “tip” up, not down. My experiences as an administrator within the Wake County Public Schools showed me firsthand the dramatic implications of what happens when a school “tips” in an unfavorable direction. The school came with many challenges related to student misconduct, social–emotional needs, and significant academic disparities. Standards-based instructional leadership is one of just a few prime movers for bridging gaps in the student achievement of varying subgroups of students. It is the proverbial tip of the spear for school organization and alignment for improvement. Nationally and in North Carolina, there is a strong correlation between high-poverty schools and low-achieving schools. According to Hattie’s Visible Learning (2011)

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

125

effect size rankings, the most detrimental effects contributing to student marginalization and academic failure are family income, other family factors, and student mental health challenges. Chambers (2009) identified that the most significant effect sizes to ameliorate academic failure are achieved through high-quality teachers, engaging classroom instruction and curricular programs, and effective intervention strategies to close what he called “receivement” gaps (which will be explained in the next section). Although Hattie’s work on effect sizes came later, the meta-analysis included 15 years of educational research. Prior empirical research on this topic provided similar data and findings. Because the greatest effect sizes have been attributed to the practices of highly effective teachers and systems of instruction, it is critically important to support these systems of instruction with their respective standards. Because the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) (ITEEA, 2020) provide the standards, practices, and contexts that drive technology and engineering education, the rest of this chapter will discuss how these standards can be effectively adopted. STEL offers a common set of expectations for students within a variety of contexts and developmentally appropriate practices, as well as interdisciplinary connections (ITEEA, 2020).

7.3.3 The Contemporary Necessity of STEM Educational Standards—Especially Within High-Poverty Schools Although high-performing, mid-range, and low-poverty schools require careful standards alignment and instructional oversight, they are not typically at a tipping point. It is the high-poverty schools that require careful administrative attention to build a culture and capacity for academic “systemness” (Fullan, 2014). Systemness is based on having appropriate standards and instructional monitoring tools for teachers, administrators, and students. It is imperative within these school environments to engage in the perspective that Chambers (2009) put forth regarding what he called receivement gaps in education. The receivement gap is defined as a change of the prevailing perspective of deficit thinking, which insinuates blame on certain student groups and objectifies the achievement of other groups. The perspective of receivement more appropriately focuses on the greater issue of prevailing forces and a lack of systemic inputs for marginalized student groups (Chambers, 2009, p. 418). According to Chambers, the basis for this change in terminology forces informed educators to reframe the frequently espoused and racist perspective that Caucasian students are heroes for their achievement and students of color are to be blamed for their lack of output and ability. The term receivement flips the perspective back to the inputs of the system that is failing the students, rather than on students failing and lagging due to their lack of academic ability or standardized educational results.

126

S. L. Miller

To build capacity for high-achieving systems and students, STEM educators and administrators must ensure careful use of appropriate standards because these standards provide concise, direct, instructional targets for administrators, teachers, and students. Specific, standards-based, instructional targets align day-to-day instruction directly to adopted standards which remove non-essential instruction and classroom activity, thereby ensuring high-quality instructional inputs. Excellent teachers who eliminate receivement gaps by focusing on facilitating standard-based instruction with few classroom distractions, high expectations of students and their classroom work projects and activities. In states and nations where there are accountability systems that articulate standards for the course content being taught, administrators and practitioners must carefully assess the scope and measure of the expected outcomes and must make judgments about which are essential standards (Ainsworth, 2010). One of the most challenging parts of the first days of a new curriculum development process is to force the group to come to a consensus about what standards are essential rather than those that are merely nice to teach. After making the determination of which standards hold more importance, it is necessary to develop a pacing guide to merge the depth and breadth with the instructional time frame. This process provides clarity and direction as well as an agreement among the Professional Learning Community members. A second suggestion for school administrators is to support teachers by providing time for professional development. Particularly in schools where there is a lone teacher of one type of content within the building, such as a single Technology, Engineering, Design teacher, providing the teacher with release time, professional development days, and substitute coverage to meet with their peers to discuss the standards and how to implement them can provide an incredible boost to their professionalism and buy-in to the process. An integral part of this professional development time is to provide teachers with all the training and materials they need to understand the new standards. For example, when adopting STEL, teachers must be provided copies of the standards and associated support materials (ITEEA, 2020). To have the document at the ready is an important form of immediate access which can ensure a greater level of standards alignment within the unit and lesson planning process. Another resource provided by the ITEEA is the set of courses titled Engineering by Design (ITEEA, 2022). Teachers with similar disciplinary themes will gain professional insight and professional expertise as they work through the collaborative process of pulling the standards apart and reintegrating the content into unit and lesson planning appropriate for their site(s) through the Understanding by Design process (Bowen, 2017; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). To follow the Understanding by Design process requires professionals to evaluate their work at all levels. The process becomes very intentional, and through it, teachers develop student activities aligned to standards, rather than what might be called “hobby activities” that may or may not be in alignment. A third suggestion from a school administrator perspective is to encourage teachers to use multiple types of assessments within the classroom. Through assessment, teachers can measure and adjust their instruction based on what the data say

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

127

about student outcomes. For the purpose of this chapter on standards-based instructional leadership, both summative and formative assessments are needed. Summative assessments given at the end of a unit or course can show alignment with and attainment of standards. On the other hand, formative assessments are completed while the unit of instruction or course is in process. The results are intended to help students improve in the future by giving them an opportunity to correct and improve their work Within Technology, Engineering, and Design Education, the frequent use of formative, authentic assessments brings power to our students because they are able to receive feedback and make improvements prior to submission, when formal grading takes place.

7.3.4 School-Based Response to Intervention and Multi-tiered System of Supports The basis for this chapter has been to show a path for supporting an effective and systemic approach to increasing student growth and achievement through use of educational standards. Challenges to implementation are frequent and successes come only with careful, holistic, dedicated teamwork. Response to Intervention (R.T.I.) and a Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) are tools that help students achieve standards mastery. The underlying contexts of R.T.I. and MTSS focus on the process of monitoring student achievement toward an educational goal or standard. Within these monitoring systems, educators must intervene in response to deviations from standards-based expectations. However, the ideal approach would be for educators to work proactively, to work and think systemically, and to apply changes when needed to ensure expected outcomes.

7.3.4.1

School-Wide Systems for Standards-Based Monitoring

Systemic, school wide standards’ leadership incorporates a coherent system of classroom instructional practices, which are derived from standards-based curricula, and are taught through standards-driven classroom lessons. In the case of Technology, Engineering, and Design Education, the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020) provide our instructional guide. As a school principal in a high-poverty school with a diverse student body and a cadre of teachers with varying levels of experience, interest, and investment in reducing gaps in student receivement and increasing overall student achievement, it was imperative to have crucial conversations and trainings with teachers about their observed and desired instructional practices. Moreover, we had to foster a system for our administration to support the teachers’ work, especially as it pertained to the differentiation of instruction to support all learners (Grenny et al., 2022). To ensure the opportunity for positive collaborative instructional systems, our school-based administrative team

128

S. L. Miller

utilized many systemic instructional practices. Three practices that bear mentioning here included: (1) ensuring teachers had the appropriate standards and used them for instructional planning; (2) implementing a school-based lesson planning system (in my school, we used the PAVE Protocol); and (3) using a system of classroom walkthrough “snapshots,” (which we aligned with the PAVE Protocol). In my former school, we found that the PAVE Protocol was the most expedient, and minimally cumbersome, system for managing a teacher’s instructional path through the year. We used a cloud-based lesson planning system aligned to content standards and to many of the tenets of The First Days of School: How to Be an Effective Teacher (Wong & Wong, 2009). PAVE is an acronym depicting four steps: 1. Plan and post lessons: plan in the cloud and post learning outcomes and standards on the classroom board. 2. Adapt instruction to support all learners. This component of differentiation was an open notice to design classroom instruction for all students, not just those who sat quietly in the front row. 3. Visualize and implement a positive, inviting, and engaging classroom environment. This element was included because a significant number of the teachers were very negative in their student interactions. It was not uncommon to have teachers who created their own classroom disciplinary challenges. 4. Engage each student each minute of each day’s class. We incorporated engagement because our walk-throughs revealed valuable classroom instructional time being wasted in inactivity and with off-task instructional behaviors, or the permissive allowance of off-task student behaviors (Schultz & Miller, 2016). The PAVE Protocol was introduced at the school as a result of conversations with our instructional support specialist and by reviewing the school-based data, which indicated that our growth targets were not being met. After ongoing discussions about our greatest opportunities for improvement based on deficits found within our school data, the instructional support specialist designed the PAVE Protocol to address our specific needs and goals (Schultz & Miller, 2016). After sharing the PAVE Protocol and its rationale with department chairpersons, and through a variety of professional development activities, we began the process of administrative monitoring and classroom walk-throughs. The classroom walkthrough tool was a simplified Google Form that was automatically emailed to the teachers and administrators to review the standards alignment and implementation of the PAVE during walk-throughs. We designed the system to be very simple and able to be completed rapidly. Prior experience with complex walkthrough observation instruments that failed of their own complexity drove us toward simplicity. An important component of our professional development was the instruction to “Make the invisible, visible.” The act of teaching is incredibly complex. Teaching diverse groups of learners who are not at grade level is even more challenging. To acknowledge these facts, we emphasized to teachers that including descriptions and examples of what had transpired instructionally prior to our arrival was may be referenced to provide context to the walkthrough observer. This broader view of the scope of a walkthrough was used because our walk-throughs were of only a short duration.

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

129

The walk-throughs were only intended to last five minutes or less. We could quickly glean whether objectives and standards were aligned to PAVE, respond quickly to what we were observing, and offer recommended improvements. When we arrived in a classroom that appeared to be discordant with what was planned or posted or did not appear to include much engagement, we were able to informally meet with the teacher later in the day. During this meeting, we would use our protocol language and provide specific examples of what was observed that was going well and what was not observed and had not been made visible to us. Over time, we were able to build an objective, multi-faceted, array of data points for summative conversations with teachers, and for their initial professional development plan conversations which began the new school year. One of the accountability monitoring tools used by teachers and administrators in North Carolina uses a multivariate response model (MRM) to establish the expected academic growth projections for students. These projections are calculated by comparing a student’s projections against an actual result based on classroom testing and statewide assessments. The model would provide a score indicating whether the teacher was meeting or exceeding expectations for student growth. We were able to speak with teachers and to triangulate what we observed in our informal observations, in formal observations, and the MRM data. This holistic picture provided excellent and detailed input from various sources that could guide the teachers’ ongoing professional growth. In cases where teachers’ MRM scores were negative, it was important to review their instructional practices, standardsbased planning, and levels of student engagement. At times, teachers were teaching well, but they were teaching the wrong content according to their state and national standards.

7.3.4.2

Individualistic, Humanistic, C.A.S-E. Management of Standards-Based Monitoring

As a high school assistant principal and then later the principal, my role often took the form of managing personalized interventions when students deviated from the expected educational outcomes. Student deviations from the intended pathway typically fell into one or more of the following categories: conduct (misconduct), academic, or social–emotional. Conduct, Academic, and Social-Emotional variations form the basis of the acronym, C.A.S-E. Management. In response to intervention environments, case management of clients is imperative to move individuals and the organization forward (Miller, 2012). It became clear that I needed an easy way to show and share what was going wrong (diagnose) and then share a plan to move forward (prescribe) to regain the appropriate academic pathway. I began using what I coined as the C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid. With this system, I was able to explain quickly and effectively what was happening that needed to be corrected by simultaneously drawing the triangular shape and explaining the strength of a triangle to maintain stability. Each

130

S. L. Miller

leg of the triangle was given a label: conduct, academic achievement, and social– emotional challenges. Students, parents, and teachers understood the relationship between conduct, academic achievement, and social–emotional challenges as they acknowledged that the student’s current situation had deviated from the expected educational standards and that the situation would not improve until an appropriate plan was implemented and executed to correct the situation. These conversations were especially effective when we engaged in a mutual process of planning next steps. As with all work settings, it is imperative to use the right tool for the job. When holding such crucial C.A.S-E. Management meetings, it was also imperative to find root causes for the deviation from expected educational standards. The C.A.S-E. Management meetings revealed some classic examples of underlying challenges. The less severe instances emerged when students had significant gaps in their foundational learning standards (academic) and were acting out to cover for this deficit. In more extreme cases, students were experiencing emergent mental health issues (social– emotional) and their mis(conduct) took the form of absenteeism, which destroyed their grades (academics). As the administrator responsible for assisting students, staff, and parents toward addressing these forms of deviation, I had countless conversations about how the current deviation from the norm was affecting the individual. It became clear that I needed an easy way to show and share what was going wrong (diagnose) and then share a plan to move forward (prescribe) to regain the appropriate academic pathway. Minimal deviations were labeled Tier 1 and more substantial deviations were Tier 2 or Tier 3. Tier 3 was much more serious and required more intense levels of support to return the student to his or her expected academic pathway. Figure 7.1 illustrates a picture of the C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid used to provide Tier 2 and Tier 3 Interventions for students.

Academic

Conduct Fig. 7.1 C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid

Social-Emotional

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

131

The PAVE Protocol and the C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid are two school-based administrative strategies designed specifically to provide instructional leadership at the classroom level and intervention support for students, that is easily understood by parents and teachers. A brief, real-world example of each intervention may help to tie the theoretical to the practical. While conducting instructional classroom walk-throughs at my high school, I would use the Google Form aligned to the PAVE Protocol. In the case of PAVE, each element was included to maximize the intentionality of the teacher’s instruction and minimize off-task instruction and classroom challenges. On multiple occasions, I observed classroom instruction lacking the alignment from day-to-day teaching to the STL. The “P” in PAVE standards for Plan and Post. During each walkthrough, I would look to see the lesson plans for the day and what standards were posted on display within the classroom. In this Foundations of Technology Engineering Course, the teacher was vaguely teaching STEL-2Q to predict outcomes of a future product or system at the beginning of the design process. The teacher had included the standard in the lesson plan in their Google Classroom, but they had not posted the standard in the classroom and addressed the standard/instructional target with the students. The teacher had not provided a relatable example to the students about such a product. During the walkthrough, there were signs that the students were disconnecting from the lesson and (mis)conduct challenges would soon emerge. During my post-conference from the walkthrough later that day, I attempted to coach the teacher through a more direct connection between teaching to the STELs and what had transpired in class. I shared the expectation of sharing the standard with the students and making connections to the day’s lesson. I also included my thoughts on the strategy for describing the worst-case characteristics of electronic devices and applications as such a system without using words to give away what I was describing. I would then have the students engage in two quick activities. (1) They were instructed to turn to the student to their right and discuss and diagnose the product example given to them, and (2) Develop their instance of some system that meets STEL-2Q. This utilization of the PAVE Protocol is effective for classroom planning for groups of students. Implementation of PAVE adds precision to classroom instruction, thereby removing variables that create literal and figurative noise in the classroom. Poorly planned lessons that lack connection to standards perpetuate lowperforming teachers, classrooms, and schools. The following example of the C.A.SE. Management Pyramid addresses administrative Response to Intervention (RTI) for a student challenge rather than a classroom-based instructional opportunity for improvement. A significant component of school-based administration is supporting students through their best times and problem-solving with them through their most challenging times. C.A.S-E. Management provides a pyramid to diagnose and intervene when (mis)conduct, academics, and/or social–emotional challenges imbalance the student. Intervening and assisting the student and their family to find renewed balance are crucial for the student and the school. One significantly imbalanced student can begin to impact multiple other persons and, ultimately, the school. In my experience, awareness of the need to case manage a student is most visible in schools

132

S. L. Miller

through the “C” and “A” of the C. A. S-E. Management Pyramid. While social– emotional issues routinely emerge, their presence is most noticeable through a drop in grades or a significant increase in (mis)conduct referrals or absences. I’ve considered absenteeism as one form of misconduct. A lack of academic performance or a dramatic drop-off of their prior successful academic progress is another indicator for intervention. In the case where some form of process or progress monitoring reveals a student in need of C.A.S-E. Management, the administrator, teacher, or team must meet with the student and possibly their family as soon as the challenge is noticed. At the first meeting, explain to the student that their success is the schools’ success and you are willing to problem-solve, assist, and to be a significant part of their “team.” During the same meeting, I draw the C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid and very quickly explain what I’ve noticed has changed with their status. I show how (mis)conduct, academics, and social–emotional factors within their life affect other parts of their life and subsequently cause in imbalance. In order for them to regain balance and positive forward momentum, we must correct the deficiencies— no matter the level of commitment necessary. This is one situation which dictates the expression, “Whatever it takes.” In the case of a student who has experienced a significant academic decline, I engage in a conversation with them to ascertain what they believe has caused the change. It is routine for me to have to ask questions and include my own observations to arrive at an informal diagnosis so that problem-solving may begin. It is very appropriate when intervening with students who have academic issues to review respective course content such as Technology, Engineering, and Design and to talk through their perspective on the course. There are cases where it is very appropriate to speak to the student about what they should know and do at the completion of a course. In one particular circumstance, the student was participating in a Technology Engineering Graphic Communication Course and the student’s grade dropped when they began a unit largely based on STEL-7O, apply tools, techniques, and materials in a safe manner as part of the design process, and STEL-7V, improve essential skills necessary to successfully design. The student saw no importance in the attention to detail and repetition necessary to apply CAD and technical sketching principles appropriately within design constraints. The student, their teacher, and I created an academic recovery plan after finding that they had been absent at the start of the unit and missed the introduction and explanation of the purpose of the unit. They also missed the explanation provided, which explained this unit leading their work for the remaining time in the semester. After this clarification, a direct explanation about our expectations and the fact that mastery of CAD and technical sketching protocols were important well beyond this class because of how likely a person in the technology and engineering profession would utilize these skills. For the rest of the semester, I remained in contact with the student and the teacher about our academic recovery plan/agreement with the student. The student gained balance in their class and in their world outside of school because of our intervention and teamwork. They took time close to the end of the semester to thank the teacher and me for being dedicated to their success and for having spent the additional time. At our initial meeting, they were struggling with their academic crisis, which had also become a significant social–emotional, mental health issue for them.

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

133

7.4 Wrapping Up the C.A.S-E. for Standards-Based School Leadership According to Kahlenberg (2012), the percentage of high-flying (high-achieving), high-poverty schools in the USA was less than 1.1% of 7000 high-poverty, lowperforming schools when applying a uniform analysis of their overall measures of academic success. His analysis included all schools with a student population of 51% or greater who were eligible to receive Free and Reduced Lunch. Schools populated with a high percentage of wealthy students are rarely identified as low-performing because fewer variables work against high-quality instruction. In the rare case that such a school is identified as low performing, the greatest factor is most likely that they are teaching to the wrong standards. Even in a school with few students eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch and the usual factors for a high-achieving school, a teacher who fails to follow instructional expectations aligned to course standards will lead an underperforming classroom. The numbers reveal that there are entire schools and school systems filled with students whose academic needs are not being met, which is both an unfortunate and unconscionable reality. The educational deficit may be fixed only through intensive work at the societal and school level. While we can work systemically and societally, the changes of which we have most control relate to implementing high-quality instruction by aligning our instructional systems to high-quality standards. School leaders in the classroom or at the school level require a coherent set of standards to which our systems of instruction and monitoring are aligned. As this alignment is fully implemented, it must be process monitored for compliance at the student, the classroom, and departmental level. I have proposed a simple system for standardsbased lesson planning, classroom instruction, and classroom walk-throughs based on the PAVE Protocol. When deviations from the expectations of the system are observed, we must then respond with intervention(s) through Response to Intervention in a Multi-tiered System of Supports. These interventions are student-based and recognize that a deviation in conduct, academic, or social–emotional expectations has been discovered and must be ameliorated. The acknowledgement and plan may be accomplished through the simple C.A.S-E. Management Pyramid. This chapter has provided suggestions for addressing the challenges of teaching any discipline. Thus, these suggestions are equally relevant toward the Technology, Engineering, and Design Education field through the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020). Standards-based school administration is essential for all schools and school systems because the standards are the guiding star for accomplishing student learning goals within all schools, but especially low-performing schools. One foundational principle for increasing student achievement is school-based administrative support for standards-based education. Alignment to and compliance with a set of standards can begin to control the many variables contributing to low-performing schools. Student and staff engagement is also critical within these low-performing schools. Without intentional systems and methods of student engagement being implemented,

134

S. L. Miller

the students and the school are almost guaranteed to regress. The focus of staff and students needs to become aligned to the common goals put forth through standards so that distractions about those goals can be minimized. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy are a perfect tool for the T&E disciplines because they clearly map the instructional objectives for our discipline. They can also be an integrative and motivational tool to be used by the disciplines of mathematics, science, and English because the standards are written to support technological literacy for the next generation of lifelong learners (ITEEA, 2020).

References Ainsworth, L. (2010). Rigorous curriculum design: How to create curricular units of study that align standards, instruction, and assessment. Lead + Learn Press. Banks, K. (2001, March). The effect of school poverty concentration in W.C.P.S.S. (Report No. 01.21). Wake County Public School System. Bowen, R. S. (2017). Understanding by design. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https:// cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-design/ Cardichon, J., Beadley, S., & Charnov, A. (2016). Ensuring equity in ESSA: The role of n-size in subgroup accountability. Alliance for Excellent Education. https://all4ed.org/wp-content/upl oads/2016/06/NSize_UPDATED_Nov2018.pdf Chambers, T. V. (2009). The “receivement gap”: School tracking policies and the “achievement gap” fallacy. Journal of Negro Education, 78(4), 417–431. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/ 807007 DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn. Solution Tree. DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic places at work. Solution Tree Press. Fullan, M. (2014). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. Wiley. Futernick, K. (2007). Excellence loves company: A tipping point turnaround strategy for California’s low-performing schools. WestEd. Grenny, J., Patterson, K., McMillan, R., Switzler, A., & Gregory, E. (2022). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. McGraw Hill. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tip ping point: How little things can make a big difference. Little, Brown, and Company. Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing Impact on learning. Routledge. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2022) Engineering by design (EBD). https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/EbD.aspx Kahlenberg, R. D. (2012). High-flying high-poverty schools. American Educator, 6, 8–9. Miller, S. (2012). C.A.S-E. management pyramid for intervention. Wake County Public School System. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education (Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office distributor). N.G.S.S. Lead States. (2022). Next generation science standards: For states, by states, February 15, 2013.

7 Teaching a Standards-Based Curriculum: The School Administrator …

135

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319. (2002). https://www2.ed.gov/ policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Porter, S. G. (2022). It takes a well-organized village: Implementing RTI/MTSS models in secondary schools. In Research anthology on inclusive practices for educators and administrators in special education (pp. 339–368). I.G.I. Global. Raspberry, M. (2007). The tipping point of transformation: Analyzing school reform efforts in lowperforming, high poverty schools. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. ProQuest. https:// www.proquest.com/docview/304842076?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true Schultz, K., & Miller, S. (2016). PAVE instructional protocols for planning, instruction, and through observations. Clinton City Schools. United States Department of Education. (2017). Transitioning to the every student succeeds act (ESSA). https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/essatransitionfaqs11817.pdf United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Every student succeeds act. https://www.ed.gov/ essa?src=rn Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd expanded ed.). Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2009). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Wong Publications.

Steve L. Miller is a 25-year veteran of public school teaching and administration. He began teaching as a high school Technology Education and Trade and Industrial Education teacher and finished his classroom experience in middle school Technology Education. After completing a Master’s in School Administration, he worked as a state-level specialist for Trade and Industrial Education and Technology Education providing professional development, curriculum development, and program improvement. He returned to school-based work as an assistant principal and then as a high school principal for five years. He is currently an Assistant Teaching Professor at North Carolina State University.

Chapter 8

Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education (STEL) to External Audiences Edward M. Reeve and Steven Barbato

Abstract The “International Technology and Engineering Educators Association” (ITEEA) released in 2020 “Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education” or STEL (ITEEA in Standards for technological and engineering literacy: the role of technology and engineering in STEM education. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, 2020). The ITEEA made a strong effort to communicate information about the new standards to its internal constituents and its members using a variety of strategies. However, more needs to be done in communicating STEL to external audiences that include outside associations and organizations involved in some aspect of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. External communication can take many forms such as email, brochures, newsletters, posters, advertisements, and other forms of multimedia marketing designed to attract the interest of those external audiences the profession needs to influence. This chapter discusses the efforts of communicating STEL to external audiences. Keywords STEL · ITEEA · Communicating standards to internal and external audiences

E. M. Reeve (B) Utah State University, Logan, USA e-mail: [email protected] Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO), Bangkok, Thailand S. Barbato ITEEA, Reston, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_8

137

138

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

8.1 Introduction In 1983, a report entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, and it painted a grim picture of American education. One quote that still resonates from this report is as follows: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (p. 6). To improve American education, one of the recommendations in the report was a call for rigorous educational standards. The International Technology Education Association (ITEA, now International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, ITEEA) accepted this challenge and, after much development, released Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). The STL was national/international content standards that identified what to teach in the field of technology education. The STL was not a curriculum and thus did not address how to teach the standards. Development of curriculum models based on the STL has emerged in the years that followed. The STL was slightly revised twice (i.e., in 2002 and 2007), but they still needed a major revision to reflect current thinking and practices. In summer 2018, members of the ITEEA began work on revising the STL. After two years of research, discussion, writing, data collecting, external reviews, and editing, the ITEEA released Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education or STEL (ITEEA, 2020). This project was supported through grants from the National Science Foundation and the Technical Foundation of America. STEL promotes the technology and engineering content in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. STEL complements the previously released national/international content standards in science and mathematics to offer a complete set of standards for PK-12 STEM education. Information about the new national/international STEL was internally communicated and heavily promoted to all ITEEA members through various channels. For example, the new standards were prominently focused on the ITEEA website, which offered a free download of STEL (https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx). ITEEA members were also offered a discount on the printed publication prior to its release, and in November 2020, ITEEA’s journal, the Technology and Engineering Teacher, published a special issue with a focus on implementing Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. In addition, ITEEA’s journal The Elementary STEM Journal (formerly Children’s Technology and Engineering) published several articles related to using STEL in an elementary setting. The ITEEA did an excellent job of communicating internally to all its members about the new standards. However, to be truly effective, the new standards need to be communicated externally, especially to outside associations and organizations involved in some aspect of STEM education. Understanding STEL and implementing these new standards call on all STEM educators, and especially those educators within

8 Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

139

the technology and engineering education field, to realign and shift instructional practices. Moreover, what STEL represents and means that in terms of benefitting all students require a clear and direct communication of what the standards imply for all teachers, educational administrators, students, parents, surrounding communities, business/industry leaders, and government leaders. The focus of this chapter is to examine methods used to promote new information to external audiences (e.g., webinars, websites, presentations, and the development of supporting documents) and to document the efforts being made by the ITEEA and its councils, including the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education, or CTETE), and other professional organizations to promote STEL.

8.2 Promoting STEL to External Audiences STEL provides an up-to-date roadmap for classroom teachers, district supervisors, administrators, states, and curriculum developers to promote technology and engineering education program development and curriculum design from PreK through twelfth grade (ITEEA, 2020). The rewriting of STEL was a major undertaking, and the release of the new STEL impacted all stakeholders involved with developing and delivering STEM education. It is very important that the ITEEA engages with all of these stakeholders, as Atlwest Communications (2018) notes: When stakeholder engagement is done effectively, it improves communication channels between parties, creates and maintains support for the project, gathers information for the organization, reduces the potential for conflict or other project crippling issues and enhances the reputation of the organization and ultimately, the project. (para. 3)

This section will briefly review the various methods that can be used to communicate to external constituents. External constituents include all those with an interest in integrative STEM education, including teacher educators, state supervisors, local school administrators, curriculum developers, practicing teachers, and professional organizations and associations. In each method reviewed below, efforts already made by the ITEEA and other professional organizations to promote STEL will be noted.

8.2.1 Website Content To learn new information about a topic, many begin with a basic internet search to locate web pages, images, and videos related to the topic. Realizing the importance of this tool, the ITEEA created a very informative webpage (https://www.iteea.org/stel. aspx) dedicated to STEL. The organization monitors the site and updates as needed to make sure that links remain active and current. Opening the ITEEA webpage for STEL provides a wealth of information for external audiences, including an overview of STEL and a very informative video that reviews the basic structure of STEL. Also

140

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

Fig. 8.1 Example of other STEM standards related to STEL standard #7 and selected benchmark

included on this page is a link to download STEL for free, which the organization deemed essential for helping those involved in developing standards-based curricula. However, perhaps the best feature for external audiences is the STEL electronic tool, or eTool (https://iteea-stel-etool.github.io), that helps users find and develop curricula and detailed lesson plans. The eTool provides the user with the ability to perform searches of STEL by standard, benchmark, grade level, and keyword or phrase. For each search, in addition to STEL information, the user gets crosswalk information that shows how STEL relates to other established standards, including those in science, mathematics, and English language arts. For example, using the eTool a search of STEL #7 (Design in Technology and Engineering Education) at the grade band 9–12 identifies various benchmarks associated with this standard. In reviewing the benchmark: “optimize a design by addressing desired qualities within criteria and constraints,” a crosswalk of related standards will be shown (see Fig. 8.1).

8.2.2 Webinars and Other Live Events Webinars are seminars conducted over the internet. These and other live events broadcast on the internet provide external audiences an opportunity to learn more about the topic being presented. Often these webinars are recorded and archived and can be viewed at a later date. Webinars allow presenters to share all kinds of documents (e.g., notes, videos, and presentations), but the most important and biggest use for webinars is to educate and engage an audience (Sheth, 2021). When STEL was released in July 2020, the ITEEA held numerous online “STEMinars” to promote STEL. All ITEEA STEMinars are offered free to its members, and for a nominal cost, non-members could also participate (https://www.iteea. org/STEMCenter/EbD-PL/STEMinars.aspx). All of the STEMinars are archived. For example, in September 2020, members of the STEL revision leadership team

8 Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

141

presented a webinar entitled The Launch of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. This professional webinar provided an overview of the core standards and technology and engineering practices as they can be applied within the various technology and engineering contexts. Further, ITEEA STEMinars (e.g., Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) and your State’s Standards; ITEEA’s Lesson Plan Tool or Making and Doing with STEL: Combining the Signature Trademark of T&E with the New Standards) provided an opportunity for members of the organization to learn more about STEL. Archived recordings of all STEMinars remain available for viewing.

8.2.3 Conferences A highlight of the ITEEA is its annual international conference, which brings members of the association together for networking opportunities and to learn about the best practices in developing, delivering, and assessing activities in technology and engineering education (https://www.iteea.org/Activities/Conference.aspx). During the conference, various councils associated with the ITEEA provide a more focused message to their members. For example, the CTETE will present a program that may deal with research in the profession and professional interests related to higher education. Other councils associated with the ITEEA include the Council for STEM Leadership (CSL), which provides leadership to technology education coordinators and administrators, assists in curriculum development, promotes model programs, and provides teacher in-service. The Elementary STEM Council (ESC) promotes technology education in the elementary schools by supporting teachers with instructional materials and in-service monographs, workshops, and technology activity curriculum packages. The Technology and Engineering Education Collegiate Association (TEECA) consists of undergraduate student organization chapters and individual memberships. By joining ITEEA, student members are automatically made members of TEECA at no additional charge. The ITEEA annual conference is open to anyone interested in learning more about technology and engineering education and STEL. The conference offers perhaps the best “one-stop” event for external audiences to learn more about best practices related to using STEL. Recognizing the importance of promoting STEL, the ITEEA has focused its conference themes since 2020 on STEL. For example, the 2022 conference theme was Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: The Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education—Keys to Success! and the 2023 conference theme was Learn It, Try It, Teach It!—STEL Experiences to Advance our Profession. In keeping with these themes, presenters have been encouraged to share specific examples of ways to successfully integrate and apply STEL standards and practices in various contexts through hands-on activities and interactive session experiences.

142

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

8.2.4 News Releases To keep members and others in the STEM education community informed, the ITEEA currently uses electronic versions of publications known as “The LISTT” (i.e., Latest In STEM: Timely Topics—https://www.iteea.org/News/listt.asp) and “STEM Connections” (https://www.iteea.org/News/STEM_Connections.aspx) to keep its members informed about happenings in STEM. The LISTT is a weekly reminder from ITEEA focused on STEM happenings, and STEM Connections is a monthly publication that highlights the latest information and resources pertaining to STEM. Although primarily intended for ITEEA members, archived versions of both publications can be freely accessed by anyone interested in STEM. To inform external audiences of happenings in the association, the ITEEA’s primary method is through news and press releases. Press releases are typically short, prepared articles published by an organization or association to document major happenings. Press releases are written for both internal and external audiences to pique their interest in learning more about the major happening (Roos, n.d.). When STEL was released in early July 2020, the ITEEA did multiple news releases (https://www.iteea.org/News.aspx). The first news release informed all that the new standards were available through ITEEA. The next news release later in the same month informed all that ITEEA began shipping the print version of STEL. Subsequent newsletters informed the membership and others about webinars related to STEL and about available discount pricing for print versions of the document.

8.2.5 Social Media Social media is another important tool used to share information with internal and external audiences. Social media includes applications (“apps”) and websites that let users create and share content. According to Walsh (2022), the top social media sites and platforms for 2022, each of which has over a billion monthly active users, included Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and TikTok. Social media is an excellent tool to deliver messages to external users about happenings in the organization. The ITEEA has a social media presence and has used it to share information about STEL. Active ITEEA social media sites used to share information about STEL included Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/iteeastem) and a YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4QD5WNBa48).

8 Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

143

8.2.6 Translations into Other Languages STL and STEL were written in English. To better reach international and external audiences, the ITEEA received numerous requests to translate the standards into other languages. For example, the original STL was translated into Finnish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Estonian, Greek, and German (ITEEA, n.d.). Translating STEL into other languages is an excellent method to promote STEL around the world. The first translation of STEL was into Korean in 2021. As Professor Choi Yu-Hyun (Dean of Normal University of Chungnam University Normal University) noted, “I hope that this book will help us understand the current state of technical engineering education in the United States and give a referential implication to the development of our country’s technical engineering curriculum” (Lee, 2021). The Marubeedu Publisher company has an agreement through ITEEA for distribution and sales in Korean. This work was spearheaded through the Korean Technology Education educators group. This finished resource is available on the ITEEA website under the STEL international resources (https://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/STEL/stel_r esources/189171.aspx). There are additional separate agreements in place for additional translations in Chinese, Japanese, German, and Estonian. These translations provide a global network to learn and apply the concepts and practices that these STEL standards provide for the PreK-12 education community. As other translations are completed, they will be posted on the STEL International Resources area of ITEEA’s website.

8.3 Lessons Learned Many challenges were faced in trying to promote STEL to external audiences. Perhaps the biggest challenge was that in the USA, there is no national curriculum, and each state can implement STEM education into their state as best as they see fit. It is hoped that each state develops “standards-based curricula” based on recognized international/national STEM standards, but there is no guarantee that this will happen. As noted in STEL (ITEEA, 2020), “It will be up to states and provinces, school districts, teachers, and others to develop curricula based upon these standards in ways that make sense for particular educational settings” (p. ix). To compound this challenge, personal observations show that many states now have state-level technology and engineering education supervisors who have many responsibilities. At one time, most states had a state supervisor with a background in the subject area. But due to budget cuts, difficulty in finding qualified personnel, and other factors, this is no longer the case. Nevertheless, there remains an important opportunity for the ITEEA to reach out to this group of individuals and provide them with information about STEL and the increasing body of support materials available for implementation of the standards.

144

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

STEL needs to be promoted to external audiences by all those involved in the ITEEA. For example, when STL was released in 2000, the Council on Technology Teacher Education (CTTE, now known as the CTETE) published an entire yearbook dedicated to the standards (Ritz et al., 2002). This yearbook (#51) was entitled Standards for Technological Literacy: The Role of Teacher Education (http://hdl.handle. net/10919/19151). The CTETE yearbook of which this chapter is a part focuses on STEL and ways to promote the standards to a broader audience but represents a first step. Future CTETE yearbooks could focus more specifically on standards’ implementation strategies, particularly as they relate to programs that prepare STEM and technology and engineering teachers. STEL provides an excellent platform to reach and connect all educators to implement these core standards and practices within any of the STEM fields and areas of content. Three organizers used within STEL, when embedded into courses and activities, work together as an effective framework for teaching technological and engineering literacy. These include the core disciplinary standards, technology and engineering practices, and technology and engineering contexts (ITEEA, 2020, p. 11). The graphical depiction shown in Fig. 8.2 can be imagined as a set of three octagons that can be rotated to indicate the application of the core standards across a range of disciplinary contexts and using a variety of technology and engineering practices. The ITEEA leadership and its Councils must use the STEL as a collaboration tool and reach out to other education associations and groups that include business/industry, foundations, and others that influence education decision-makers. Two other groups of external stakeholders that need to learn about STEL are practicing STEM teachers and local district supervisors/curriculum specialists. Again, this is an opportunity for the ITEEA, but it will require a lot of effort. Targeted resources need to be developed to assist states with their unique educational requirements to understand and implement STEL. For example, after the release of the STL, ITEA published Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy: Student Assessment, Professional Development, and Program Standards (AETL) (https:// www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=78445&v=1476043b). AETL provided the means for implementing STL in K-12 laboratory classrooms. The ITEEA should also consider developing addenda to STEL, as was done for the STL. It is hoped that new technology and engineering education teachers will learn about STEL in their undergraduate studies, but again, there is no guarantee this will happen. STEL resource guides for higher education teacher preparation institutions will help to better prepare both pre-service and in-service educators. Professional development for all STEM teachers about STEL is another avenue to explore. These are strategies that teacher educators, the ITEEA and its affiliate councils, and state departments of education must all pursue. An opportunity to promote STEL to external audiences may be in the form of a new national “technology and engineering education” Praxis test. Developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), the Praxis tests are used by many states to measure teacher candidates’ knowledge and skills in select areas and are used for licensing and certification (e.g., see https://www.ets.org/content/dam/ets-org/pdfs/ praxis/5051.pdf). It is hoped that a new test based on STEL will be developed by the

8 Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

145

Fig. 8.2 Three organizers of STEL

ETS. In 2021, a letter from the executive committee of the CTETE was sent to ETS asking that an updated test reflects STEL (Steven L. Shumway, President CTETE, personal communication, February 26, 2021). All states have been asked to adopt and implement STEL standards. This is a complex challenge. The process will require states to adopt new curriculum models and to develop new assessments to measure student progress toward meeting the embedded standards. ITEEA and its councils will need to provide leadership on creating tools for assessing student progress, as well as related resources to successfully help states adopt and implement STEL. Professional and nongovernmental organizations need to be informed, especially about STEL and how to use the document when updating their assessments of technology and engineering literacy. Examples of such organizations include the National Academies; the National Assessment Governing Board, which develops the National Assessment of Educational Progress Technology and Engineering Literacy assessment (NAEP TEL) (https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel); and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which develops the

146

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assessment to measure 15year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics, and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges (https://www.oecd.org/pisa). Furthermore, parents will need resources provided by the profession’s leadership to familiarize themselves with STEL in order to become involved with their children’s education and to reinforce the concepts and processes being taught. Parents of home-schooled children will also benefit from these resources and supports to incorporate STEL into their child’s instruction. Given limited state education agency capacity in all STEM-related fields, many states depend heavily on their STEM vendors to produce high-quality and aligned resources to meet the standards. The success of this approach pivots on vendor proficiency in STEL teaching, learning, and implementation with a commitment to developing new approaches, designs, and tasks that address STEL core standards and practices across the broad context areas. Most vendors have limited content expertise; their education experts are often well-versed in traditional approaches to technology and engineering [e.g., often basic career and technical education (CTE) approaches to instruction] teaching and learning but are not deeply involved in working with STEL. While vendors may involve technology and engineering/STEM experts in advisory roles, the majority of the individuals engaged in the design, assessment development, and curriculum writing have at best a superficial understanding of STEL and its implementation. This demands attention that provides access to resources and experts in the technology and engineering field that embodies STEL. State agencies and local districts involved in curriculum development, teaching, or assessment must work collaboratively to provide a comprehensive delivery with a realistic set of expectations to achieve technological and engineering literacy for all students. When states adopt these standards, they are making a statement to all shareholders in their states that STEL standards and practices are required for students to be considered “college and career ready” in STEM.

8.4 Conclusion The ITEEA released STEL in 2020. The document is a major update to STL, released in 2000. The ITEEA made a strong effort to communicate information about the new standards to its internal constituents and its members using a variety of strategies. The ITEEA’s STEL marketing task force has contributed significantly to these efforts. ITEEA’s task forces are assigned specific tasks to study and then to make recommendations to the ITEEA Board of Directors. The STEL task force has been charged with creating a three-year marketing plan to raise awareness, increase understanding, and promote adoption of STEL (https://www.iteea.org/About/committee. aspx). However, more needs to be done in communicating STEL to external audiences that include outside associations and organizations involved in some aspect of STEM education.

8 Communicating Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy …

147

The relationship between ITEEA’s STEL standards and practices and external groups is a complex undertaking, but one that must be achieved. Technology and engineering leaders and experts at every level must recognize the critical importance of targeting communications to external stakeholders. This allows the profession to provide a clear message that technological and engineering literacy is essential for all PreK-12 students. Moreover, conveying this message will require a multipronged effort that entails helping external audiences understand how technology and engineering education is situated within the broader STEM umbrella; engaging them to acknowledge and understand STEL; and providing them with tools and resources to facilitate adoption of new curricular approaches and new assessment tools that can measure progress toward standards-based outcomes for students. External communication can take many forms such as email, brochures, newsletters, posters, advertisements, and other forms of multimedia marketing designed to attract the interest of those external audiences the profession needs to influence. The goals of communicating successfully with external audiences must include: • Developing community relations at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. • Creating user-friendly communications that share research and outcomes directly related to STEL, demonstrating how technology and engineering literacy can improve our society as a whole. • Optimizing and leveraging business and industry to better support the implementation of STEL in PreK-12 settings. • Building a new vision with branding through STEL to optimize networking through educational, business, and government groups. A strong external communication strategy will drive and promote STEL. ITEEA and its overall group of professionals, including its affiliate councils, must remain vigilant about communicating STEL in every aspect to both internal and external audiences. Teacher educators can play a critical role by conducting research that documents standards’ implementation and student outcomes and by updating their own programs to better reflect the standards, practices, and contexts detailed in STEL. The way the ITEEA and its partners communicate to internal and external audiences will influence the future viability of technology and engineering education. All those involved with STEL must take the time and effort necessary to make this happen—right now!

References Atlwest Communication. (2018). Why stakeholder engagement is important for big projects. https:// www.atlwest.ca/blog/why-stakeholder-engagement-is-important-for-big-projects International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. https://www.iteea.org/ STEL.aspx

148

E. M. Reeve and S. Barbato

International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology—STL. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. https://www.iteea.org/42511.aspx Lee, H. (2021). Chungnam National University professor Youhyeon Choi publishes the Korean version of “Standards for Technology and Engineering”. http://www.ccdailynews.com/news/ articleView.html?idxno=2059253 National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. https://www.reaganfoundation.org/media/130020/a-nation-at-risk-rep ort.pdf Ritz, J. M., Dugger, W. E., Jr., & Israel, E. N. (Eds.). (2002). Standards for technological literacy: The role of teacher education. In CTTE 51st yearbook. Glencoe McGraw-Hill. https://vtechw orks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/19151 Roos, D. (n.d.). How press releases work. How Stuff Works. https://money.howstuffworks.com/bus iness-communications/how-press-releases-work1.htm Sheth, A. (2021). What is a webinar & how does it work? Venngage, Inc. https://venngage.com/ blog/what-is-a-webinar Walsh, S. (2022). The top 10 social media sites & platforms 2022. Search Engine Journal. https:// www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-social-media-sites/#close

Edward Reeve is a professor emeritus and former teacher educator in Technology and Engineering Education from the department of Applied Sciences, Technology and Education at Utah State University in Logan Utah. His professional interests, research, and numerous publications and presentations have been in areas related to educational standards, curriculum development in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and improving teaching and learning. He has experience as a Senior STEM-Ed. specialist, a secondary education teacher, a university administrator, and is a past president of both the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association and Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education. Steve Barbato is a Senior Fellow at the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). He is also a former Executive Director/CEO of the ITEEA (2013–2021). Prior to that, he was involved in education in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Serving six years as State Supervisor for Technology Education at the Delaware Department of Education, five years in private business, and thirteen years as a school district administrator in Pennsylvania (Lower Merion School District) as a Director of Curriculum, as well as the Science and Technology Education Supervisor. He received his educational training at Millersville University of Pennsylvania.

Chapter 9

Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners Marc J. de Vries

Abstract Research for STEL practitioners has gone through a development from mainly quantitative studies to a broader spectrum of studies and more emphasis on qualitative studies with methodologies like phenomenography. Design-based research is a type of research that is particularly attractive for STEL practitioners because it has a direct link with teaching practice. More than before, practitioners (teachers) themselves have become researchers, which gives the research an even stronger bond with classroom practice. Keywords Quantitative research · Qualitative research · Phenomenography · Design-based research · Teacher–researchers

9.1 Introduction The implementation of standards is ideally supported by educational research. Although considerations regarding implementation may have played a role in developing new standards, the actual implementation can always reveal aspects that were not included and probably could not have been. This is due to the complexity of the educational context. Standards always have a generic character, even though they can be specified for particular levels or school types. This complexity has consequences for the way research needs to be conducted to support implementation of standards. For any kind of educational innovation, support by research is desirable. Often the term “evidence-based” is used for this. It suggests that hard evidence can be produced to prove that a certain innovation had an impact on learning. Particularly when it comes to the implementation of standards, that impact is a clear expectation conveyed by supporters and skeptics alike. After all, how can the implementation be justified if it is not possible to get any evidence of the effect of this implementation? Standards are often prescribed by governments wanting to realize their intentions. M. J. de Vries (B) Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_9

149

150

M. J. de Vries

Their political credibility to some extent depends on such evidence. When the standards are not developed and implemented by the will of governments but rather by educators, they, too, need to justify the changes they make (to parents, school boards, etcetera). So the popularity of the term “evidence-based,” particularly in political circles, is understandable. Yet, it mostly suggests more than can be realistically obtained. “Evidence” is quite a substantial requirement in an educational situation. These settings are usually way too complex to enable unambivalent traces of effect on learning as caused by the implementation of the standards. When new standards are implemented, a lot of other factors necessarily also change. Educational changes are not made in a laboratory situation in which one can change one variable at a time. Even though there are statistical tools to separate influences of different factors for quantitative situations, and tools for qualitative data analysis that do the same, it remains difficult to get certainty about what exactly caused the changes one can observe. That does not mean that nothing can be stated on the basis of research. A more modest term like “research-informed” would do more justice to the complexity of educational innovation, including the development, implementation, and evaluation of new standards (Chalmers, 2005). Research can play a valuable role in all stages, even when it is more of an informing nature than as a rock-solid basis for practice. The development of the standards can be supported by theoretical research into the nature of the discipline at stake, its concepts to be taught and learnt, its methodologies, and its social aspects that need to be included in the standards. In the development stage, small-scale pilot implementations can be carried out to see if standards are feasible for teaching and learning. Such studies will often be qualitative in nature so that not only the overall effect is measured but also the mechanism that causes the effect. Such information can support the revision of standards during the development process. The process of actual implementation (for instance, nationwide implementation) also can be informed by systematic collection of data concerning the process and effects of introducing the standards in educational practice. Finally, after some time (maybe four or five years), one is interested to get some insight into the effect of the new standards on learning outcomes. Here, again, research can be used to get from anecdotic impressions to more empirical and general evidence of how the new standards have affected student learning. There can even be a next phase in which a long-term and internationally comparative study is made that enables indication of the extent to which the effects are sustainable and transferrable. So, educational research can inform the development and implementation of standards in all phases. The purpose of this chapter is to show a range of research types that can be used to support development, implementation, and evaluation of technological literacy standards. For each type, there will be several examples of studies that have been published in academic journals or books. These are used to provide an opportunity to see concrete examples of each of the individual types of research that are discussed in this chapter. The examples are only briefly described as the purpose of mentioning them is primarily to stimulate readers to read the articles themselves and thus get a concrete idea of what such a study can look like. Examples will be taken not only from the USA but from other countries as well. First, the more classical types

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

151

of study will be dealt with. By “classical” I mean a type of study that was common until around the 1970s, when most research was still mainly quantitative. Qualitative methodologies have existed since WWII, but before the 1980s, their use was the exception, not the norm. Still today, there are journals that feel more comfortable about accepting quantitative research articles than qualitative. Quantitative research is still done today, and in that sense, the term “classical” does not refer to a certain period of existence, but an order of emergence. Two types of classical research will be distinguished: theoretical and empirical studies. Then more contemporary, qualitative, and mixed-method research types will be discussed: design-based research and action research. It is not possible to describe all types of research in this chapter. The reader will not find arts-based research, discourse analysis, and narrative studies here, to mention just a few. A selection had to be made. Finally, research in which teachers act as researchers will be discussed. That sort of research is non-classical in the sense that it is only recently that teachers have been given a more active role in research and become researchers themselves. The chapter will finish with some concluding remarks about how to enable teachers to act in the role of researchers.

9.2 “Classical” Types of Educational Research into Standards for Technological Literacy 9.2.1 Theoretical Studies The transition from an industrial arts type of technology education in which developing practical, mostly making skills was the main goal of technology education, to a stronger emphasis on technological literacy, was accompanied by research that focused on developing a conceptual basis for technology education. After all, technological literacy entails having a good understanding of the nature of technology, and that was new for technology education. There was also the need to reflect systematically on the content of the new curriculum. In the scholarly journals, there appeared purely theoretical articles that developed conceptual ideas and curricular foundations related to understanding the nature of technology. Ingerman and Collier-Reed (2011) is a good example of a theoretical study aimed at understanding the nature of technological literacy. In the article, a model is developed that can be used for developing curricula. It distinguishes potential for technological literacy from enactment of technological literacy. Potential consists of knowledge a person has, personal engagement, and social engagement. But these potentials only become reality when enacted upon, which according to the model means recognizing needs, articulating problems, contributing toward the technological process, and analyzing consequences. The article is purely theoretical and builds upon existing literature. Cajas (2002) offers a similar, earlier study that not only

152

M. J. de Vries

presents a model for technological literacy but also discusses the consequences for research supporting the implementation of curricula based on those concepts. Asunda (2012) provides another example of a theoretical study, but of a different kind. The research question for this article is: “Which content standards should guide what students need to know with regard to comprehending principles that may lead to the goal of STEM literacy?” The article contains comparisons of Standards for Technological Literacy as defined by ITEEA with the National Science Education Standards, the ABET Engineering Criteria, and the Common Core State Standards Initiative for Mathematics. The author then compares concepts in technology education courses with all four standard documents. The outcomes give directions for improving these standards. The study is purely descriptive (in spite of the normative research question with the word “should” in it). A study that also compares standards in existing documents is Skophammer and Reed (2014). Here, though, the study is not presented as an essay like Asunda’s work (2012), but uses a more formal method of analysis (content analysis). This study shows that theoretical research can be more than just an ad-hoc reflection but can use a more formal and systematic method for analysis. An example of a theoretical study drawing strongly from philosophy is offered by Petrina (2000). It is a study that reflects on the meaning of technological literacy as it had developed over time and was turned into practice in education. Petrina shows how that concept of technological literacy is far from neutral. There are always hidden political agendas behind technology education and they often reflect an attitude of technological supremacy of certain countries and cultures over others. This is also argued by Ankiewicz (2021) in his critical analysis of various intended or specified curriculum documents in South Africa during the period of the transition from apartheid to the current situation. A study like Petrina’s clearly goes beyond the level of description and is quite normative in nature. More so than Ankiewicz, Petrina criticizes the current ideas and suggests an alternative. Although this study is listed here in the classical category, its normative character is not really classical in that in the classic period a common belief was that academic research should be purely descriptive and refrain from any kind of normativity. For educational research that belief is quite unnatural, because this research always aims at improving education, not just understanding it. Yet, having normative elements in educational research studies is now something that has been widely accepted, as we will see in the next sections.

9.2.2 Empirical Studies Here, too, we will distinguish two types: surveys and (quasi-)experimental studies. Surveys are mostly large-scale studies into pupils’ or teachers’ ideas about technological literacy. These studies are purely descriptive. They do not aim at investigating how these ideas can be changed but refrain to measuring them. Common methods of analysis are frequency statistics, factor analysis (to determine the dimensions in

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

153

the respondents’ ideas), tests between subgroups (like t-tests for data with a normal distribution), and ANOVA for determining the relative weight of independent variables on the technological literacy indicators that were measured. Sometimes more sophisticated statistical methods are used, such as path models (as in Avsec & Jamšek, 2018, who investigated factors affecting secondary school students’ technological literacy). There is also a more qualitative type of survey that can still be called classic. Delphi studies are an example of that. In such studies, a group of typically 10–25 experts is asked to generate ideas related to the content of technological literacy, and in consecutive rounds, they can adapt their scores on the importance of those ideas based on the average score of a previous round. Rossouw et al. (2011) are an example of that. Other studies do not use more than one round. Rose (2007) interviewed 13 leaders of national educational organizations by phone and based on their answers deduced six perspectives on technological literacy in this group. An example of a large-scale quantitative study is Luckay and Collier-Reed (2014). In this study, 1245 South African students in upper secondary school filled in a questionnaire on technological literacy. A factor analysis showed five dimensions in their thinking: technology as artifact, technology as process, technology as direction/ instruction, technology as tinkering, and engagement in technology. The reliability of the dimensions was tested by Cronbach’s alpha, as is common in this type of study. It must be added that the study built upon a more phenomenographic study, which is not really classical. But there are many similar quantitative studies that only use some interviews to develop items for a questionnaire, which cannot really be regarded as phenomenographic. Later, we will discuss this non-classic research type more extensively. Another example of this type of research study is the work of Russell (2005). A total of 389 participants at the 2003 and 2004 annual ITEA conferences responded to a questionnaire about their awareness, adoption, and implementation of the Standards for Technological Literacy that had been published in 2000. A large collection of survey studies can be found in proceedings of the Pupils’ Attitudes Toward Technology (PATT) conferences. PATT is now a series of international conferences on technology education but started as a classic research study into pupils’ concepts of and attitudes toward technology in the Netherlands (Ankiewicz, 2018). The PATT questionnaire was developed in the Netherlands in the early 1980s when technological literacy standards and a school subject “Techniek” (Technology) were about to be introduced in lower secondary education. To get an impression of what pupils’ preconceptions regarding technology and their attitudes toward it were, a national survey was done. The outcomes gave rise to concern. Pupils appeared to have a rather narrow view of technology (mainly high tech, and computers in particular). Their focus was on objects rather than on processes and social impact. The conceptions of and attitudes toward technology were related, in that a narrower view went along with a more negative attitude, particularly among girls. These outcomes motivated researchers in other countries to administer translated versions of the questionnaire, along with other instruments like drawing assignments and interviews. The results found in the Netherlands were also observed in other countries. Later, the instrument

154

M. J. de Vries

was revised by several other researchers (for instance, Ardies et al., 2013), and still today, PATT studies are occasionally done (e.g., Svenningsson et al., 2022). The second type of classical empirical study is the (quasi-)experimental type. Here, the effect of an effort to develop technological literacy with pupils is investigated in a quantitative manner. In the past, educational sciences were often modeled after the natural sciences with their high level of generalizability and abstraction. In natural sciences, experimental conditions are created that exclude much of the complexity of reality in order to focus on certain variables, with the aim to develop a theory that is as context-independent as possible. By using set-ups with experimental and control groups and large numbers of pupils, many variables were kept the same (at least, that was the intention, but it can be questioned if that is possible at all in a practical educational situation) and only one or a few variables were varied in a controlled manner. The large numbers were needed to eliminate the effect of other differences within and between groups. Typically, the effect of the implementation was measured by pre- and post-tests. Statistics show correlation, but causation is more difficult to establish. That makes it difficult to draw conclusions about how to improve the implemented intervention, because one does not definitely know what is cause and what is effect. An example of such a study is Kwon (2017). The study investigated the effect of the Elementary School Technology Education (ESTE) program in Korean schools. In Kwon’s research, 127 elementary school pre-service teachers filled in a questionnaire before and after a seven-week in-service training program. In spite of the relatively small sample for a study like this, significant differences between the teachers’ responses before and after the treatment could be statistically demonstrated, both for their knowledge and attitudes. Although the study in itself is purely descriptive, it is clear that the outcomes have a normative meaning. Apparently, the program worked well. The study, however, does not yield clues as to how to further improve the course. It was shown that the course was successful to some extent, but not why and how. For this, other studies are needed that will be described in the next sections.

9.2.3 Value and Limitations of Classical Studies Classical studies were good for the time in which they were conducted, namely in the early years of the development of standards for technological literacy, when the transition from craft-oriented types of school subjects to a newer educational model that was more focused on contemporary technologies occurred. In those years, there was much uncertainty about the nature of technology and technological literacy and of the content of specific concepts in technology. During that time, theoretical studies played a very useful role. Empirical studies were used to get experts’ opinions on these issues as well. One would have expected that in such an exploratory phase of standards for technological literacy, the focus would be on qualitative studies. There were not yet many curricula that were sufficiently mature to lend themselves to quantitative evaluation. Yet, most studies in those early years were quantitative in

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

155

nature. This can, however, be explained from the overall context of education research that for other subjects, too, was more oriented toward quantitative studies. There was still some suspicion against qualitative studies because their generalizability was believed to be limited, and establishing validity and reliability more problematic than for quantitative studies, in which statistics could be used. It was only when, in the wider educational research community, qualitative research became more acceptable that research into standards for technological literacy also moved toward that newer type of research. We will now continue to see how various types of new research studies developed in the later years.

9.3 Contemporary Types of Educational Research into Standards for Technological Literacy Nowadays, we have come to realize that educational reality is only to some extent captured in the types of studies described above. In reality, there are numerous variables that all change at the same time and can only very partially be controlled and certainly not one by one. This calls for different types of research studies with more ecological validity. Such studies investigate the full complexity of the implementation of standards. Besides that, the beginning and the end of the process are investigated in addition to the process itself. Using only pre- and post-tests shows if the intervention worked or not, but not why (at least, this is difficult to establish). The consequence is that it is risky to make any adaptations in the interventions because it is not clear what contributed to the success (or failure) of standards’ implementation. Many contemporary studies related to Standards for Technological Literacy are qualitative or are a combination of qualitative and quantitative (mixed-method). In the past, qualitative studies were seen as suspicious because they could not provide evidence of a general nature. In other words, the outcomes could only be said to apply to a limited situation, and this was seen as a serious weakness of qualitative research. Nowadays, we appreciate qualitative research for what it can do and do not make claims that are not supported by the qualitative data. It must be admitted, though, that today there are sometimes studies that were meant to be quantitative but did not have sufficient respondents and are then presented as qualitative (assuming that the difference between the two types of research is only in the number of respondents). This is, of course, not correct. Qualitative research is research of its own kind with its own strengths. In general, one can say that the aim of qualitative research is to get in-depth insight into a phenomenon or to document its existence. If one wants to prove that in a park there are black swans, observing one black swan is sufficient to prove that there are indeed black swans in that park. One does not know yet what percentage of all swans in that park is black. For that, quantitative research is needed. Nevertheless, for qualitative research, as for quantitative research, it is necessary to adhere to practices that help establish the credibility (validity), dependability (reliability), and transferability of the findings to new situations. In the example: the

156

M. J. de Vries

researcher needs to make sure that the black swan that was observed is indeed a black swan and not a white swan that had fallen into the mud, or a painted white swan. Also, more than one observer needs to confirm that there is in fact a black swan in the park. Qualitative research can also deepen our understanding of the phenomenon. Once the black swan has been detected, the nature of black swans can be investigated by making additional studies of the black swan that was seen. Just as the observation of one black swan is sufficient to prove the existence of black swans, qualitative research can demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon, with the added benefit of being able to describe it more fully. Qualitative research can also be followed by quantitative studies to test a hypothesis developed as a result of prior observations. Qualitative research is particularly suitable in an exploratory phase when not much is known yet about a certain matter, so that it is difficult to state and test hypotheses. Methods used for qualitative research are, among others, interviews (individual or in focus groups), observations, logbooks, and small-scale surveys. The analysis of qualitative data is not as easy as it may seem, especially for beginning researchers. The analysis of such data depends on interpretation, which can be subjective (this critique, by the way, overlooks that quantitative data also need interpretation). Fortunately, as in quantitative research, there are standardized techniques for analyzing qualitative data, including different types of coding (open-ended, axial). There is also software for that purpose (for instance, Atlas.ti, NVivo). Interrater reliability, for instance, can help to establish reliability. Another strategy is to compare qualitative and quantitative data through mixed-methods’ research to address these issues. For a more extensive reflection on qualitative research for education, see Hoepfl (1997).

9.3.1 Design-Based Research Probably the most interesting type of research for supporting standards’ implementation in technology and engineering education is design-based research. This type of study is characterized by the fact that an intervention is designed (here: the implementation of standards) and the effect is measured, but not just with a pre- and post-test as in classic quantitative research. The factors that had an influence are also explored, including the teacher’s behavior. A mechanical comparison may help to illustrate this. In this example, the study seeks to find out what buttons on a machine (the intervention) can be turned to make a difference for certain aspects of the functioning of the machine (in other words, the learning that results from the intervention). In a next phase of the study, these buttons are turned, and by systematically doing so and documenting the effects, it can be established what is an optimal position for the combination of all buttons. This is done in a cyclical process in which the prototype intervention is constantly adapted and improved. Normativity is part and parcel of this type of study. The aim is not primarily theoretical insight (although that can be a valuable side effect), but improvement of education. Here, educational sciences look more like engineering sciences than like natural sciences.

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

157

Although this type of research seems so appropriate for education, not many design-based studies related to implementing and improving Standards for Technological Literacy can be found yet. Even if the term “design-based” is not used as a search term, but other terms are used to describe this methodology in different words, it is difficult to find studies in which interventions were developed, investigated, revised, investigated again, and so on, as would characterize this type of study. A good example of a design-based research study is Van Breukelen et al. (2017). It deals with design-based learning of concepts related to various domains of physics. Technological literacy is not just developed in technology education but also in science education, when designing is used as a pedagogic vehicle for learning. Van Breukelen et al. showed that the role of teachers is crucial for this instructional approach. With a passive teacher who does not explicitly direct pupils toward the use of certain concepts, concept learning does not take place. With an active teacher, however, it does happen, and in-depth insight is gained because of the practical situation in which the concept is learnt.

9.3.2 Action Research and Ethnography Design-based research is an example of a wider class of research studies in which designing of the intervention is not necessarily part of the set-up. However, changing reality is always part of action research, as is the absence of an “artificial,” controlled situation. The researcher is not seen as external to the educational situation, but as part of that context. In ethnographic research, the researcher is totally integrated in the context. The early use of ethnography was in the study of anthropology when researchers went to live in a local community, for instance a tribe in Africa, to be able to get an inside view of these people and to observe them and interact with them in the most natural way possible. They used diaries and logbooks to record their findings, and this gave rise to the critique that it is almost impossible to separate observation and interpretation. Yet, the advantages of this type of research were more and more acknowledged, and now, this type of research is applied in other domains, such as education. Action research has limited generalizability, as in all qualitative research, but this is not the primary aim of the research. The closer the knowledge stays with the particular context, the more applicable it is. Case study research may not be easily generalizable, but it can provide valuable insights into the existence of certain phenomena. The frequency with which these phenomena occur can then later be studied in more classical set-ups. Kola (2019) is an example of action research related to the implementation of standards for technological literacy (although the term is not used as such). Kola investigated how lesson planning in technology education by third-year pre-service South African teachers could be improved. It appeared that the teachers found it difficult to see what influenced them while selecting appropriate methods for teaching. A good understanding of the content of what was to be taught improved the process of teaching method selection substantially. Qualitative data from 49 teachers, gathered

158

M. J. de Vries

by open-ended questions and video analysis, were used to reach these conclusions. Another example of action research in the domain of technological literacy is Mapotse (2012). This study concerned technology teachers in the Limpopo Province in South Africa and was conducted because at that time teaching for technological literacy was new to these teachers. In such an exploratory situation, qualitative action research is an appropriate choice. The study by Frank and Barzilai (2006) in Israel is a good example of a mixed-method study on implementation of standards for technological literacy. The study showed the advantages of using a project-based technology approach for teaching technological literacy. An example of an ethnographic study can be found in Roël-Looijenga et al. (2020). The researcher was not the teacher, but she was very much acquainted with the situation as she was a primary teacher herself and spent all her time in the classroom as long as the activities were conducted. She got to know the children well enough to get an in-depth understanding that she would not have gained as an external observer with a camera. Her study showed the importance of a well-defined and structured design task to stimulate engagement of the children. Another interesting example of an ethnographic study is Mawson (2006), because it is a longitudinal one. This is rare, particularly with the funding structures in most countries that only provide money for a three- or four-year study. This is a pity because longitudinal research can be very informative, particularly in design-based studies in which it is preferable that several iterations for the intervention (the design) are made. Mawson’s study dealt with the progression of technological literacy with 20 children in primary education in New Zealand. The study showed the importance of planning school-wide programs, of creating a school technology scheme that stimulates general knowledge to be acquired and not just detailed and specific knowledge, and of consistent long-term professional development for teachers. The use of case studies in qualitative research can be illustrated by Daugherty (2010). She selected five projects as cases for investigating the professional development of secondary teachers in the USA. Structured telephone interview, document analysis, observations, and interviews were used for collecting qualitative data for each of the individual projects. Then, the cases were compared to see what worked and what did not work in professional development activities for these teachers. Koch and Burghardt (2002) investigated the effect of requiring primary teachers in the USA to do action research during their Master of Arts Program in Elementary Education. Doing action research appeared to improve their capacities for becoming reflective practitioners. It stimulated them to be more student-centered in their teaching, because they had to observe students’ behavior closely in the research study. This study provides a nice bridge to the next section, in which the role of teachers as researchers will be discussed.

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

159

9.3.3 Teachers as Researchers Because the researcher is part of the practice in action research, it is not only professional researchers but also teachers who can play the role of researcher. That has certain advantages: The teacher has knowledge coming from limited new observations but also a deeper knowledge that was developed in years of experience in the practice. Also, the teacher can execute the designed intervention exactly as intended. When a researcher has to instruct someone else to realize the intervention, there is always a chance that the teacher will use his or her own insights to make changes in the intervention, in which case the research is disturbed. Of course, the knowledge gained when the teacher is also a researcher should not cause biases for the new observations, but the value of the pre-scientific knowledge a teacher has of his or her own pupils/students should not be underestimated. Another advantage of teachers as researchers when choosing a topic for a Ph.D. study is that they will always focus on improving the practice and not just seeking new theoretical insights, as perhaps professional researchers would. In the past, there was often a separation between the work done by the researcher and the work done by the teacher. There is now a trend to integrate the two so that the often-felt gap between research and practice is reduced. This is particularly important when new standards are implemented and theoretical and practitioner knowledge and expertise need to be used in combination. Teachers often need additional training to act as researchers. Sometimes, this is arranged in special Research Schools for teachers, such as the FontD research school in Sweden. Hartell (2013) is an example of a research study conducted by a teacher. She investigated the way Swedish teachers deal with the continuous (formative) assessment of their pupils during their teaching (looking for the “glimpse in the eye” that reveals understanding). Hartell’s publication is one chapter in a book that is entirely dedicated to the work of teacher–researchers in one of the Swedish TUFF research schools. A second example of research done by a teacher is Shilkus (2001). It deals with tutoring adult students (veterans) in the USA in building racing cars and the multiple intelligences that can be stimulated by such an activity. This, too, is one chapter in a whole book on teachers as researchers. The fact that several books on teachers as researchers have been published indicates that this type of research has rapidly gained in popularity. The two examples mentioned here are qualitative in nature, but the book on the TUFF research school (Skogh & de Vries, 2013) also has examples of quantitative research.

9.4 Concluding Remarks The development, implementation, and evaluation of STEL standards need a combination of classical and more contemporary studies. Each phase requires different types of research studies. Although research in education is not likely to provide hard evidence for effects, it can most certainly serve a useful purpose for informing policy

160

M. J. de Vries

makers and others involved in educational innovation, to get a research-informed impression of what new standards work out. Teachers play a key role in this whole process. In the past, their role in research was mostly limited to providing settings for data collection by researchers. They would typically not be involved in the data collection itself, nor in stating research questions, conducting data analysis, and publishing the outcomes. In this chapter, a plea is made for an approach in which teachers are seen as active partners in the research efforts, preferably in all the stages of development, implementation, and evaluation. Teachers as researchers can help to close the gap between educational research and educational practice, assuming that they have received appropriate professionalization. For this, some recommendations can be made. In the first place, doing some research should be part of all teacher education programs for technology education. That holds for all subjects, but particularly for a domain in education that is very dynamic because the content of what is taught is very dynamic. Of course, science education is also dynamic in a certain respect, but the laws of science are less dynamic than the constant emergence of new technologies, systems, and devices, some of them quite disruptive. Teachers in technology should therefore be prepared in such a way that they can actively participate in educational research into technology education innovations, including the introduction of new standards. It is recommended to make these research moments in pre-service education not artificial by shaping a too-simplified version of an innovation that does not give a good image of what change in real practice looks like. Of course, in this learning situation, student teachers cannot be expected to be able to cope with the full complexity of educational change. A balance has to be found between what is feasible and what is realistic. There are also limitations to the variety of research types that student teachers can be acquainted within the course of their pre-service training. By offering in-service training, this range can be extended, depending on the specific needs of teachers being involved in certain phases of standards’ development, implementation, and evaluation. This can be organized in a structural manner in special research schools, such as the Swedish TUFF and FontD. In the Netherlands, there is a similar program called DUDOC (Goedhart, 2013). Teachers meet regularly and present their work to their fellow teacher–researchers. This can be very helpful as it provides them an opportunity to share the tensions of doing research as a teacher (particularly because it can pose quite a time challenge to combine the two activities) and to give each other suggestions about how to deal with that tension. Apart from in-service training for practicing teachers, material can be offered that teachers can use when doing standards-related research. Such material could contain short and practical “how to…” sorts of descriptions for conducting different types of research studies, accompanied by some examples of previous studies done by teachers. This material, of course, can also be used in in-service training sessions. Implementing new standards is not a frequent process. There is an approximately 20-year gap between the first Standards for Technological Literacy and the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. Before that, the Standards for Industrial Arts Programs had been published, again with an approximately 20-year gap in between. In other countries, standards’ revisions take place more frequently (in the

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

161

Netherlands, for instance, the first standards for technology education were published in 1993, and since then, revisions have been made every 5–6 years; in England and Wales, standards’ revisions took place in 1988 with the first national curriculum and again in 1994, 1999, 2008, and 2014, a time span similar to the Dutch one). The advantage of long periods in between standard versions is that this allows for sound support by research. Planning and conducting research takes time, particularly when not only university researchers are involved but also other parties like teachers. It is good to see that research did play a role in the consecutive standards’ development projects in the USA. This is an inspiring example for other countries as well nicely organized chapter.

References Ankiewicz, P. (2018). Perceptions and attitudes of pupils toward technology. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 581–595). Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44687-5_43 Ankiewicz, P. (2021). Technology education in South Africa since the new dispensation in 1994: An analysis of curriculum documents and a meta-synthesis of scholarly work. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 939–963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798020-09589-8 Ardies, J., De Maeyer, S., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Reconstructing the pupils attitude towards technology survey. Design and Technology Education, 18(1), 8–19. Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEM education delivery through career and technical education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44–60. Avsec, S., & Jamšek, J. (2018). A path model of factors affecting secondary school students’ technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9382-z Cajas, F. (2002). The role of research in improving learning technological concepts and skills: The context of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020212801249 Chalmers, I. (2005). If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn’t work in theory? Evidence and Policy, 1(2), 227–242. Daugherty, J. L. (2010). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 10–24. Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2006). Project-based technology: Instructional strategy for developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 18(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.21061/ jte.v18i1.a.3 Goedhart, M. (2013). DUDOC as symbiosis of educational research and educational practice. Pedagogische Studien, 90, 78–84. Hartell, E. (2013). Looking for a glimpse in the eye: A descriptive study of teachers’ work with assessment in technology education. In I. B. Skogh & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International Technology Education Studies: Vol. 10. Technology Teachers as Researchers (pp. 255–283). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-443-7_12 Hoepfl, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 47–63. https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/ pdf/hoepfl.pdf Ingerman, Å., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 137–148. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10798-009-9108-6

162

M. J. de Vries

Koch, J., & Burghardt, M. (2002). Design technology in the elementary school: A study of teacher action research. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte. v13i2.a.2 Kola, I. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ action research: Technology education lesson planning in a South African University. Educational Action Research, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 50792.2019.1686043 Kwon, H. (2017). Delivering technological literacy to a class for elementary school pre-service teachers in South Korea. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 431– 444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9360-5 Luckay, M., & Collier-Reed, B. (2014). An instrument to determine the technological literacy levels of upper secondary school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9259-3 Mapotse, T. A. (2012). The teaching practice of senior phase technology education teachers in selected schools of Limpopo Province: An action research study. University of South Africa, Pretoria. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/7717 Mawson, B. (2006). Factors affecting learning in technology in the early years at school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17, 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10 798-006-9001-5 Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. Roël-Looijenga, A., Klapwijk, R. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2020). How focus creates engagement in primary design and technology education: The effect of well-defined tasks and joint presentations on a class of nine to twelve years old pupils. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(2), 10–28. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2690 Rose, M. A. (2007). Perceptions of technological literacy among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics leaders. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 35–52. https://scholar.lib.vt. edu/ejournals/JTE/v19n1/pdf/rose.pdf Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9129-1 Russell, J. (2005). Evidence related to awareness, adoption, and implementation of the standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. The Journal of Technology Studies, 31, 30–38. Shilkus, W. (2001). Racing to research: Inquiry in middle school industrial arts. In G. Burnaford, J. Fischer, & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 143–149). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Skogh, I. B., & de Vries, M. J. (2013). Tuff and the value of teachers as researchers. In I. B. Skogh & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International Technology Education Studies: Vol. 10. Technology teachers as researchers (pp. 1–13). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-443-7_1 Skophammer, R., & Reed, P. A. (2014). Technological literacy courses in pre-service teacher education. Journal of Technology Studies 40(2), 68–81. Svenningsson, J., Höst, G., Hultén, M., & Hallström, J. (2022). Students’ attitudes toward technology: Exploring the relationship among affective, cognitive and behavioral components of the attitude construct. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1531–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09657-7 Van Breukelen, D. H. J., de Vries, M. J., & Schure, F. A. (2017). Concept learning by direct current design challenges in secondary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9357-0

Marc J. de Vries is full professor of Science and Technology Education and professor of Christianx Philosophy of Technology at Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. He serves as the editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Technology and Design Education (Springer)

9 Areas of Research for STEL Practitioners

163

and series editor of the International Technology Education Studies book series (Brill). He coordinates the international Pupils’ Attitude Towards Technology conference series. He wrote a monograph Teaching About Technology, which offers an introduction to the philosophy of technology for technology educators.

Part IV

International Implementation of Standards-Based Curriculum

Chapter 10

International Applicability of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy P. John Williams

Abstract This chapter will examine some of the international curriculum developments in Technology Education and speculate about the applicability of the ITEEA’s Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy to these developments. There are 19 international ITEEA STEM Centres around the world, some of which used the previous Standards for Technological Literacy for a range of purposes, and their past and future use of Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) will be discussed. The chapter will conclude by framing STEL within international concepts of postcolonialism, postmodernism and neoliberalism, all of which significantly impact international educational developments and provide a framework for the critique of such developments. Keywords International standards · Global · Contextualization

10.1 The Internationality of ITEEA The ITEEA organization first included “international” in its name in 1985 when it changed from the American Industrial Arts Association to the International Technology Education Association. The significance of the inclusion of International in the name was overshadowed by the philosophically based change from Industrial Arts to Technology Education. The name change did, however, pave the way for the co-location of the Pupils Attitudes Toward Technology (PATT) Conference in 1988, consequently impacting the number of international special interest sessions at the annual conference (Reed & LaPorte, 2015). This impact was significant initially, but over time has made little difference to the number of international presentations. A more significant impact of this relationship has been the publication of the PATT Conference proceedings on the ITEEA website. This represents a very P. J. Williams (B) Curtin University, Perth, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_10

167

168

P. J. Williams

significant repository of peer-reviewed research-related conference presentations and compensates for the largely absent peer-reviewed research presentations at the ITEEA Conference. The other significant link to the rest of the world is the distributed individual memberships from over 45 countries and the International ITEEA STEM Centres in 21 countries. Neither of these links has a significant impact on the internationalization of ITEEA. The STEM Centres tend to have an effect on the country in which they are located, mostly through the broadcast of the Standards for Technological Literacy, and more recently the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. The individual memberships expose the members to the benefits of ITEEA membership.

10.2 ITEEA and Standards The development of standards by the organization began almost 30 years ago with the Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) in 1994, which provided the basis for the development of the Standards for Technological Literacy in 2000. These standards led to the 2003 publication of Advancing Excellence for Technological Literacy, and then the revision of the 2000 standards in 2021, resulting in the most recent publication: Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL). In consideration of the international applicability of the ITEEA-developed Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy, the following questions will be considered: What do the Standards state about their international applicability? How have the Standards been used internationally in the past, and how might they be used in the future? What are some conceptions of the use of the Standards?

10.3 What Do the Standards State About Their International Applicability? While STEL does not comment explicitly about its international applicability, there are comments made which imply elements of applicability. In the description of the foundations of the standards, there are a number of principles stated which are synonymous with Technology Education in other countries. Technology for all through developing technological literacy has been a strong theme of the standards through all their iterations. This resonates with Technology Education in many countries; however, despite the logic of the argument for technological literacy being indisputable, in most countries it has not had the level of social acceptance that the profession would like (CITE). In the preface to the standards, reference is made to design-based learning through inquiry, critical thinking and hands-on making and doing (ITEEA, 2020, p. viii); and

10 International Applicability of Standards for Technological …

169

in the section titled Defining Literacy, to action learning, designing and making (p. 2). These elements of Technology Education are perceived in many countries to be the practical fundamentals of the field, which in many locations is titled Design and Technology Education. The Preface also highlights the interdisciplinary nature of technology and engineering, and the importance of considering social, economic, environmental and aesthetic factors in thinking about technological issues, problems and solutions. Educators in many countries similarly recognize the interdisciplinarity of technology, so this approach will resonate with them. Any curriculum that is designed or revised is essentially based on what has gone before; it builds on the foundation of social and technological understandings of the culture and the country in which it is being developed. STEL seems to recognize this by acknowledging that it is up to others “to develop curricula based upon these standards in ways that make sense for particular educational settings” (p. ix); and further, that STEL “is a foundation upon which educators can build curricular approaches and assessments, design learning environments, connect with the larger educational community, and prepare students for their future” (p. ix). STEL also notes that technological literacy is a fluid construct (p. 2) and that technology is constantly evolving (p. 6). However, the document claims that the focus of STEL is on essential knowledge which defines an expected level of literacy (p. 6) and provides a comprehensive structure that details the elements of technological and engineering literacy for all (p. 4), regardless of where students live or what their future goals may be (p. 9). These statements seem somewhat inconsistent, referencing fluidity and change but then proposing a certain level of literacy achieved by a set structure of technology for all students. Further, the acknowledgement of technological literacy as an individual construct, aligned with the understanding that students’ cognitive development occurs at different rates, would seem to be at odds with the STEL advocacy that in order to be technologically literate by the end of secondary schooling all the standards must be achieved. Such inconsistency could limit the applicability of STEL to other countries, or even regionally within the USA. An additional insight into the nature of STEL and its international applicability is provided through an analysis of the diagram of the structure of the standards in Fig. 10.1. The three subsections of the standards represented in this diagram are, from the centre, Standards, Practices, and Contexts. The eight Standards are variously prefaced by “content” (p. ix) or “discipline” (p. 20) standards, which leaves open the question: Are the standards descriptive or prescriptive? The eight Practices are generally applicable to Technology Education approaches, though could be added to with planning, researching, evaluating, identifying problems, testing, ideation, modelling, documenting and so on. As with many approaches to procedural knowledge in Technology Education, there is a selection from a broad range of practices to suit the context, the task, the pedagogy and the student. Finally, in the diagram are the eight contexts. As a way to test the applicability of the contexts, I think about the diverse contexts of the technology curriculum I have played a role in developing: mudbrick production in Botswana, thatching in

170

P. J. Williams

Fig. 10.1 Components of STEL

Zimbabwe, cookstove design in Kenya, fishing in Seychelles, sustainable sanitation in central Australia, mass production in the USA, agriculture in New South Wales and rocketry in Western Australia. If the eight contexts of STEL were broadly interpreted, it would seem that these curriculum areas could be encompassed.

10.4 How Have the ITEEA Standards Been Used Internationally in the Past, and How Might They Be Used in the Future? In order to answer this question, a survey was sent to all of the contacts of the following ITEEA International STEM Centres: Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Taiwan and Thailand. These international centres have been established to provide information about ITEEA and its benefits

10 International Applicability of Standards for Technological …

171

through a nominated “ambassador”. The survey asked if the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) had been used in their country, and if there were plans to also utilize the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) in the future. Responses were received from eleven countries. Scotland, New Zealand and Australia have not significantly used the Standards, though various groups and individuals within those countries had made mention of them. Germany, Finland, Japan, Estonia and Taiwan have translated the Standards for Technological Literacy (2000) into their national language. The Finnish translation of the STL has been made available on the web-pages of the Finnish Association of Technology Education (FATE). Information about the existence of the translation was delivered through that organization’s website, blog and magazine. They have been used as a source of ideas for teachers and have been referenced at some universities for teacher training. The existence in Finland of “Craft” rather than Technology as a school subject has been an impediment to their broader use. An impediment to STEL is perceived to be the absence of a single word or concept in the Finnish language representing “engineering”. In Estonia, STL was translated and produced as a textbook to be used by teachers, for teacher training and in master’s courses. It seems that the diagram of the core disciplinary standards in STEL resonates with technology educators in Estonia, and they will evaluate whether to translate STEL. The STL Phases 1–3 were translated into Japanese, and this content was described in the Japanese Course of Study. The professional association is considering also translating STEL into Japanese, and making this widely available to Japanese society members. The Taiwan technology teachers association translated the executive summary of the STL and posted it on their Facebook page. The standards were used as a supporting resource and knowledge base, and reference for the development of the technology curriculum. They were cited in the successful argument that Technology should be a stand-alone key learning area in the Taiwan national curriculum. It is anticipated that STEL will also be used as a reference point for Technology Education. In the Netherlands, STL was used in teacher education programmes to make future Dutch technology teachers aware of this resource and explain the value to them. In the review of the role of Technology in the Dutch curriculum, STL was used as a reference to point out that technological literacy is not confined to one school subject, but should pervade the whole curriculum. The new STEL will continue to be a resource in teacher education programmes. STL was translated into Greek and used in Cyprus. Cyprus utilizes the Maryland Plan and the alignment that the standards provided was a good fit to support practice. Some instructional support material has also been developed based on the 2000 standards. It is estimated that 25% of technology teachers in Cyprus are aware of the standards, and there is a plan to translate the new STEL into Greek. In Thailand, Science and Technology is an integrated subject in the curriculum, and in the most recent curriculum review, some of the STL standards were used to

172

P. J. Williams

guide the development of Thailand’s curriculum (e.g., the sections on the nature of technology, evolution of technology and impacts of technology). The Thai educators reported that STEL will definitely be useful in Thailand in future revisions of the curriculum.

10.5 What Are Some Issues and Conceptions of the Use of the Standards? Contextualization is important for effective learning. National curricula are often devised as a framework for teachers, within which they can develop specific learning activities that are relevant to the context in which the students live. To some extent STEL enables this approach at the general component level; however, because the benchmarks are more specific there is less opportunity for contextualization at this level. Global challenges are expected to be an essential element of exploration in Technology Education, to provide a framework for students to critique technological developments and the impacts of technology. So the question arises: Do the Standards provide an opportunity to frame the study of global issues related to technology (e.g. climate change, sustainable development, global food security, fake news and wealth inequity)? While not explicit in the Standards or the Contexts of STEL, there is scope within the exploration of these areas to include global challenges, and some of the benchmarks are quite explicitly inclusive. Engineering, as a curriculum alliance with Technology, will appeal to some countries but will be foreign to the majority of others that do not have Engineering as a component of the school curriculum. This may result in an impediment to the usefulness of STEL. The notion that it is the use of engineering as a verb (rather than a noun) in STEL is problematic. Firstly, this is not consistent throughout the document, and secondly, it may negate, unintentionally, its application in those countries where effort has gone into the development of Technology as both a noun and a verb (the technological process). It does, however, align with those countries that have adopted the Next Generation Science Standards approach, where the “E” in STEM is characterized by the engineering process. Home economics is included within the technology learning area in many countries and includes study areas such as food technology, nutrition, health, personal finance, textiles and clothing, and hospitality. While some of these areas could be encompassed within STEL, others do not align, which could represent an impediment to the usefulness of STEL in some countries. Technological literacy is an individual construct and changes over time, both as an individual develops and also as technology develops. It is not clear how this notion of fluidity aligns with the STEL concept that all the standards must be achieved and

10 International Applicability of Standards for Technological …

173

the processes experienced in order for literacy to be achieved. This gives rise to some internal tension within STEL between the theme of constant change and the notion of essential knowledge. Postcolonialism, postmodernism and neoliberalism. The curriculum ideas which came to be known as Jackson’s Mill Curriculum Theory identified four universal technical systems that are basic to every society: communication, construction, manufacturing and transportation (Hales & Snyder, 1981). The notion of “universal” was that the systems were timeless and had existed since the beginning of technology, and that they were spacious and existed in every country. In a post-colonial era, we would view this type of universal narrative as very modernist and rational; modernist because of the promotion of a single standardized truth for all, and rational because of the inappropriate view of knowledge as non-territorial: truth which has been revealed by an objective process as valid for everyone, anywhere, at any time (Scholte, 2005, p. 151). Postcolonialism coincided with the rise of postmodernism in Western society. Although also fraught with battles over definition, a general tenet of postmodernism is the existence of an antecedent practice that laid claim to a certain exclusivity of insight, which is rejected (Appiah, 2000). In its place is the foundational principle that there is no universal knowledge, but only that which is developed within conditions of specific geographic, cultural and social formations. A critique of STEL from a postmodern perspective would seem to be appropriate, particularly considering its foundational principle that there is no universal knowledge, but only that which is developed within conditions of specific cultural and social formations. However, the specification of standards, contexts and practices which represent a pathway FOR ALL to technological and engineering literacy would appear to be contrary to a postmodern approach to education. A case within which to frame this critique could be indigenous technologies, in which diverse learners may construct knowledge from multiple perspectives that are meaningful to them, placing students at the centre of the learning. Many parts of the world are underdeveloped and students live in low technology environments. In these contexts, indigenous technologies may form a major element of the technology curriculum. Could STEL be applicable in such a context? Superficially, some areas of indigenous Technology Education would seem to adequately map against the STEL context areas: cultivation and preservation of food, textiles, mining, medicine, construction and energy. However, at a deeper level, indigenous Technology Education is not just the study of particular content, it is a philosophy of learning, encompassing the person at the centre, the human indistinct from nature and the essential sustainability of all technology. While there are some tensions between this philosophy and STEL, there are also many areas of sympathetic agreement.

174

P. J. Williams

10.6 Conclusion In this chapter, I have critiqued the STEL document for grand unsupported claims of global applicability, which, if present, would indicate an outdated conception of curriculum and standards. However, and intentionally I think, claims for a grand narrative are not there. They have been in the past (e.g. the Jacksons Mill Curriculum), but I think that the profession of technology educators in the USA has matured in their level of understanding of the rest of the world and their place in it. Consequently, the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy have a reasonable level of international applicability, as indicated by the ITEEA International STEM Centres. Invariably when curricula are revised or developed, documents from other countries are consulted, and it is in this context that the international usefulness of the US Standards exists. Given the significant (in terms of funding and breadth of input) developmental process that was followed in devising the US standards, they are a reflection of the thinking by the variety of input groups about what is important in Technology Education for the USA, and so will be an important resource for those countries or states revising their technology curriculum framework. So it would seem that, generally speaking, the ways in which the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy are both promoted and applied are consistent with a postmodern view of the integrity of local cultures and developments, and the absence of an essential and universal truth. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following STEM Centre contacts for their response to the survey used to collect data for this chapter: Petros Katsioloudis, Cyprus; Steven Lee, Taiwan; Kerry Lee, New Zealand; Aki Rasinen, Finland; Marc de Vries, Netherlands; Mart Soobik, Estonia; Miyakawa Hidetoshi, Japan; Apisit Tongchai, Thailand; John Dakers, Scotland; and Gerd Hoepken, Germany.

References Appiah, K. A. (2000). Stereotypes and the shaping of identity. California Law Review, 88(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481272 International Technology and Engineering Association. (2000). Standards for Technological Literacy (STL). International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology education and engineering in STEM education. www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx Reed, P. A., & LaPorte, J. E. (2015). A content analysis of AIAA/ITEA/ITEEA conference special interest sessions: 1978–2014. Journal of Technology Education, 26(3), 38–72. https://doi.org/ 10.21061/jte.v26i3.a.2 Scholte, J. A. (2005). The sources of neoliberal globalization (Vol. 10). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. West Virginia Department of Education.

10 International Applicability of Standards for Technological …

175

P. John Williams is a Professor of Education and the Director of Graduate Research in the School of Education at Curtin University. His current research interests include STEM, mentoring beginning teachers, PCK and electronic assessment of performance. He regularly presents at international and national conferences, consults on Technology Education in a number of countries and is a longstanding member of eight professional associations. He is the series editor of the Springer Contemporary Issues in Technology Education and is on the editorial board of six professional journals. He has authored or contributed to over 250 publications and is elected to the International Technology and Engineering Education Association’s Academy of Fellows for prominence in the profession.

Chapter 11

Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation of Technology and Engineering in Nigeria Michael Terfa Angura

Abstract The chapter examined standards-based programme planning and implementation of technology and engineering in Nigeria. The five sections of the chapter hinge on the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) released in July, 2020 by International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). The basis of technology and engineering was outlined through the National Minimum Standards Specifications for the implementation of Basic Science and Technology Education curriculum in Nigeria, according to the 9-year Universal Basic Education (UBEC in Universal Basic Education Commission: curriculum implementation guidelines for lower and upper basic education, 2012). Relatively, the prescribed guidelines for the implementation of Senior Science and Technical programmes based on the 9-3-4 system of education in Nigerian are captured. The way learners acquire Science, Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skills at this level is X-rayed including the connect between the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology in developing learners’ knowledge and skills in STEM. The strengths and weakness of STEM education in Nigeria are critically scrutinized, with emphasis on how STEM education in Nigeria approaches the key study areas of STEM in an integrated manner through a cluster of subjects at all levels of Education. The chapter focuses on STEM in Nigeria with a view on how learners at the 9-year basic education level, 3-year senior science secondary and 4-year university education sequentially cued in STEM education, including how Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) provide an up-to-date roadmap for teachers, administrators, states and curriculum developers to promote technology and engineering education. The chapter pointed out areas of adjustment or modification on the standards of STEM in Nigeria in line with international best practices, to create awareness for adoption of STEL in Nigeria and Africa at large for sustainable development.

M. T. Angura (B) Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Benue State University, Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_11

177

178

M. T. Angura

Keywords STEM · STEL · Minimum standards · Curriculum implementation · Specifications

11.1 Adopting STEL in Nigeria and Africa at Large The development of a workforce that is relevant and enhances sustainable development in Nigeria and Africa at large calls for modification on the standards of STEM education in the region in line with international best practices, thereby, adopting the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) for a more revolutionary approach. According to Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy released in July 2020 by the International Technological and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA), STEL aims to address the key issues which are global road map for technology and engineering literacy. The goal of STEL is to develop an individual who has a broad, conceptual understanding of technology and its place in society, enabling active participation in the technological world and careful creators and users of technology. This implies that STEM education in Nigeria and Africa at large, in order to cue into this objective, must depart from the mere integration of the four disciplines into a single through a cluster of subjects that connect these areas together and ensure a curricula framework where the rudiments of technology and engineering are developmentally infused into individual curricula of STEM subjects and others right at the basic education level. This will enable the learners to grow up with a better understanding of how to create and control technological and engineering processes: the benefits and the consequences. STEL represents an increasing emphasis on design, especially on technology and engineering design in the pre k-12 curriculum. Therefore, STEM education in Africa and Nigeria in particular should embrace technology and engineering design at the basic education level. By systematically injecting into the content of the subjects at this level, the process of devising meaningful objects in a creative and iterative manner is facilitated. To lay a solid foundation for technology and engineering design in learners as background for learning to solve societal problems which is the sole aim of STEM education globally. In achieving this goal, the teachers must be trained and motivated to not only teach but create activities that feature technology and engineering design and integrate same in every lesson plan of core content to ensure that designing is not a daunting task. Within STEL, there is a societal recognition of the role played by Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in preparing learners for college and career readiness including high skill careers. In spite of this recognition, the role that technology and engineering play, and should play, in the education of preK-12 students is often narrowly defined and misunderstood. Thus, adopting STEL in Nigeria and Africa at large can facilitate the enlightenment of teachers, school administrators, policy-makers, curriculum developers, among others on the role of technology and engineering in STEM education which cannot be compromised especially at the basic education level.

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

179

Based on the eight new core disciplinary standards and 142 associated benchmarks, STEL provides an updated vision of what students should know and be able to do in order to be technological and engineering literate. This implies that going forward the entire education sector in Africa and Nigeria in particular should develop technology and engineering competency-based curricula that prepare young people with the required competences to live sustainable, fulfilled and healthy lives in the rapidly changing world. The type of curricula provides technological and engineering requisite knowledge, skills, attitudes and values associated with the four core STEM disciplines that can enable African students to compete fearlessly with other STEM students globally. STEL is not a curriculum but a foundation upon which educators can build curricular approaches and assessment, design learning environment, connect with the larger educational community and prepare students for their future. Therefore, it important for developing countries like Nigeria to leverage on this foundation provided by STEL to develop curricula models for technology and engineering (T&E) subjects that require teachers to act as planners and facilitators. That can provide real-world experiences to learners in order to enhance deeper understanding of the practical content in T&E disciplines. According to Mohareb (2020), teachers need guidance and awareness on the requirements of applying T&E so that they are ready for such requirements. Thus, the models serve as vital tool to 1. Sharpen the vision and attitudes of teachers towards T&E education so that classroom activities are commensurate with what happens in everyday life, and this requires teachers who focus on blended practical experience rather than knowledge without competence. 2. Change the methods of teaching T&E subjects to transform learners from mere recipients of knowledge to unique producers of knowledge, and focusing on immersing in scientific knowledge, practicing science and research, investigation, creative problem solving and scientific thinking. 3. Ensure that objectives of the lessons in T&E subjects are practically oriented to encourage hands-on activities to enhance technological and engineering literacy. To ascertain the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals in Nigeria and the entire African continent by the year 2030, technology and engineering literacy must be made a useful tool in developing students’ confidence in STEM Education. STEM curriculum development must include a framework that emphasizes experience in practical application, strategies for enhancing logical, critical and creative thinking skills as well as research and investigation skills to solve real-world problems in the twenty-first century.

180

M. T. Angura

11.2 Basic Science and Technology Education Curriculum Implementation in Nigeria Science and Technology Education is the backbone of development in every nation, especially the developing countries. Therefore, laying a solid foundation of technological and engineering literacy is the only assurance of changing the status of third world countries to developed nations in the near future. It is also an important tool that gives learners the skills and knowledge to succeed beyond basic education level. Ideally, teaching scientific and technological principles to learners enhances critical thinking and problem solving which are the mainstays for engineering education. Thus, engineering literacy enables learners to integrate scientific and technological principles to develop products and processes that contribute to economic growth, advances in medical care, agriculture, transportation, enhanced national security systems, ecologically sound resource management and many other beneficial areas (Africa Catalyst, 2014). The technological and engineering skills are important to every aspect of learners’ education and life, from school to career, and must be considered as the hub of curriculum implementation. The implementation of the Basic Science and Technology curriculum in Nigeria is hinged on the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act of 2004 which provides the legal framework for Educational Research and Development Council (NERDC, 2012) and the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) to ensure that: every learner who has gone through 9 years of basic education should have numeracy, manipulation, community and lifelong skills as well as ethical, moral and civic values, so that learners are exposed to mathematical expressions, observation and manipulative skills which indeed are the major merits of Basic Science and Technology programme at this level, to boost technology and engineering education in Nigeria. The UBE Act mandates the UBE commission to prescribe and enforce the National Minimum Standards Specifications for implementation of the curriculum in two segments; 6 years of Lower Basic Education and 3 years of Upper Basic Education. This is because science and technology curriculum implementation is considered in Nigeria as the foundation for the development of technological and engineering skills. In order to achieve this noble objective in Nigeria, the 9-year Basic Science and Technology curriculum (BSTC) in 2012 was realigned and restructured to have four primary and junior secondary school individual subjects, namely Basic Science, Basic Technology, Physical and Health Education and Computer Science/ Information Technology (BSTC revised 2012, in NERDC, 2012). The move for the implementation of the 9-year Basic Education Curriculum was a deliberate attempt by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) to provide quality education for all by year 2030 as part of the United Nations’ (UN) resolutions for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The critical targets of both the present Nigerian governments’ transformation agenda and SDGs have strong indicators of achievement in science and technology which is the basis for engineering literacy. Therefore, the teaching and learning of Basic Science and Technology at the basic education level in Nigerian schools is a right step in the right

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

181

direction (Nwankwo, 2014). According to Igboke (2015), the rationale, objectives and structure of the Basic Science and Technology curriculum are a typical case of a composite or cluster subject in the revised 9-year Basic Education Curriculum (BEC). Nigerian policy-makers and educators recognized the role of science and technology in the achievement of education for all and sustainable development. Therefore, in selecting the curriculum contents, three major issues shaping the development of nations worldwide and influencing the world of knowledge today were identified. These are globalization, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and entrepreneurship education. According to the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC, 2010) as contained in the National Minimum Standards Specifications for basic and free education, Number 115, section 9, sub-section (c) of The Compulsory, Free, Universal Basic Education and Other Related Matters Act, 2004. Otherwise known as the UBE Act of 2004 provided that, the UBE Commission is to “prescribe the minimum standards for basic education throughout Nigeria in line with the National Policy on Education and the directive of the National Council on Education and ensure the effective monitoring of the standards” (UBEC, 2010 in Ada, et al., 2021). According to Nigerian Research and Development Council (NERDC, 2012), a standard is an established norm or requirement that all systems work towards achieving. Thus, the National Minimum Standard Specifications for the implementation of Basic Science and Technology curriculum in Nigeria provide a gauge under which the implementation would be considered effective or otherwise. According to UBEC (2010), these minimum standards are of three types, namely resource standards, process standards and performance standards. Resource Standards: The resource standards specifications clearly stipulate the requirements for human and non-human resources for the implementation of Basic Science and Technology curriculum in Nigeria. The resource Minimum Standards Specifications or bench marks provide the requirements for 9-year basic education (6 years of lower basic education and 3 years of upper basic education) and demand that all primary and secondary schools operating in Nigeria should ensure: 1. Adequate and specified facilities such as classrooms, offices, toilets, laboratories/ workshops, equipment, ICT, playing grounds and power source. 2. Teachers’ minimum teaching qualification at the lower and upper basic education level is the Nigerian Certificate in Education (NCE). 3. Regular in-service training (workshops and seminar) for Basic Science and Technology teachers. 4. Specified instructional resources in each of the four areas of Basic Science and Technology. 5. Specified innovative instructional methods for Basic Science and Technology instruction. 6. Specified assessment criteria and techniques for Basic Science and Technology. 7. Specified practical activities during Basic Science and Technology instruction for skill. 8. Acquisition and application.

182

M. T. Angura

Process Standards: The process standards provide the Nigerian National Minimum Specifications or benchmarks for the teaching and learning of Basic Science and Technology at both lower and upper basic education levels. According to UBEC (2010), the process standards state that all primary and secondary schools operating in Nigeria should maintain: 1. Recommended textbooks and other instructional aids in each of the four branches Basic Science and Technology. 2. Proper and innovative lesson planning by teachers. 3. The use of specified and suitable evaluation tool for each lesson or practical session. 4. The use of specified school records. 5. Specified school time for lessons and other activities. 6. Conduct practical sessions and engaged learners in projects as specified. 7. Quality assurance through monitoring or supervision of the instructional process. Performance Standards: The performance standards according to UBEC (2010) provide the benchmarks to measure learners academic abilities in theory and skills acquisition at both lower and upper basic education levels in Basic Science and Technology in Nigeria. Thus, the performance standards specified: 1. Learners promotion average of 40% at all levels of basic education. 2. Transitional examination and placement criteria (from lower to upper basic education and from upper basic education to senior secondary). 3. Certificate examinations. According to Atomatofa et al. (2013), both public and private primary schools are lagging behind in the strict enforcement of specified minimum standards for basic education in Nigeria. Similarly, Doggoh (2011) and Ada et al. (2021) stressed that there is a significant effort among states in the enforcement of the Minimum Standards Specifications based on UBE Act (2004). However not up to the desired level to enhance concentrated attainment of scientific and technological knowledge and skills as the basis for engineering literacy at the basic education level. However, it is important to note that enforcing the National Minimum Standards Specifications for the implementation of Basic Science and Technology curriculum in Nigeria and Africa at large is very vital to global aspirations for technological and engineering literacy. In order to achieve the goal of STEL that is to develop learners at the basic education level who have a broad, conceptual understanding of technology and its place in society.

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

183

11.3 Senior Science and Technical Education Curriculum Implementation in Nigeria The implementation of science and technical education curriculum at the senior secondary school level in Nigeria is aimed at providing a permanent connection between the ideas and skills acquired at the basic education in science and technology. In order to lay a more visible and tangible foundation for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. At this level, therefore, STEM subjects are presented in cluster ranging from the regular science subjects such as chemistry, biology, physics and mathematics to the technical and vocational subjects like welding and fabrication, carpentry, building, refrigerator, etc. (Umar, 2019). Technology undoubtedly makes the learning process more interactive and therefore more interesting and memorable. Science, technology and innovation each represents a successively larger category of activities which are highly interdependent but distinct. The current National Policy on Education (2013) in Nigeria reiterates its focus to the educational system of the country towards the needs for the realization of industrialized nation through technical and vocational education (TVE). Ugo and Akpoghol (2016) assert that the crucial role of industrializing Nigeria is vested upon sound TVE programme in the country in order to realize the needed change of orientation in the entire educational system so as to give more attention and focus to science, vocational and technical education that prepares students with knowledge and skills in engineering education so as to be self-reliant and become useful to the society. The prescribed standards for the implementation of senior science and technical (technology) curriculum are based on the 9-3-4 system of education in Nigeria. According to the Federal Ministry of Education curriculum implementation guidelines on the National Policy for Science and Technical Education (2019), it revealed government commitment for Science and Technical Education as well as Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. To guarantee the link between the 9 years of basic education in science and technology and the 3 years of senior science and technical education. So that learners through practical activities have the opportunity to demonstrate and perfect the skills acquired at the basic education level. Thus, according to the guidelines for the implementation of Science and Technical Education curriculum (2019), the Nigerian government should ensure that: 1. Science and technical institutions and departments are manned by Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) professionals. 2. Relevant agencies shall carry out periodic review and upgrading of technical and vocational education (TVE) curricula with a view of making it more demand driven. 3. TVE teachers/instructors shall be sponsored to undergo mandatory industrial work experience in their relevant areas of specialization to upgrade their practical skills and competences for effective delivery.

184

M. T. Angura

4. The first rated candidates shall be encouraged to enroll in TVE programmes through incentives such as scholarships, grants and loans to ensure retention, completion and practice of TVE. 5. Government in collaboration with private sector, development partners and other stakeholders shall be responsible for the provision of required infrastructures, tools and equipment for the teaching and learning of science technical and vocational trades. 6. Government through relevant agencies shall carry out public awareness campaigns in order to popularize inherent benefits in TVE. 7. Government shall set up framework that will drive public–private partnership (PPP) using the existing master plan in the establishment of model TVE institutions and upgrading the existing ones to operate optimally. Based on the guidelines, the specifications for the implementation of the science and technical education curriculum have provisions for learners to acquire knowledge and skills in science and technology for 3 years at the senior secondary level as contained in the 9-3-4 system of education in Nigeria. This shows that learners studying at the senior secondary in science and technical education must have passed through the mandatory 9 years of basic education and must have acquired knowledge and skills in basic science and technology. The senior secondary science and technical education curriculum in Nigeria is designed first of all to prepare learners that can proceed for 4-year career courses in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) at higher institution. To make up the 9-3-4 system that is 9 years of basic education, 3 years of senior secondary science and technical education and 4 years of university education. STEM education at the senior secondary level in Nigeria comes in a cluster of subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, woodwork and electricity to prepare learners with the required knowledge and skills for STEM career courses at the tertiary institutions. STEM education at this level is designed to educate learners in specific disciplines that are interwoven and interconnected in ideas and skills, which directly or indirectly has already solved many problems in health care, agriculture, transportation, building, cooking, water, telecommunication, etc. (Olorundare, 2010). According to Fomunyam (2019), the curriculum encompasses vocational and training to learners as technical and vocational education (TVE) in specific areas such as electrical, mechanical, building, welding and fabrication, among others. This is a deliberate policy by the Nigerian government that had produced many technicians and skilled citizens that are self-reliant and at the same time supplied the needed manpower to the economy throughout the country. The Federal Ministry of Science and Technology in Nigeria has played a significant role in developing learners’ knowledge and skills in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. By ensuring that, at each level of the science and technical curriculum implementation, learners acquire the required knowledge and skills. This is made possible through the Annual Science, Technology and Innovation Expo organized for learners at all levels of education in Nigeria to showcase local inventions and innovations. The national expo comes in three phases; the first phase featured

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

185

learners at 9-year basic education, the second phase is for learners at senior secondary in science and technical education, while the third phase featured learners in universities and other higher institutions in the country. At each phase, learners are given the opportunity to present inventions and innovations in key areas such as agriculture, transportation, telecommunication and construction. This has encouraged and developed technological and engineering competence among Nigerian citizens in many key sectors of the economy, which are striving for sustainability.

11.4 Strengths and Weakness of STEM in Nigeria Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education in Nigeria is an integrated approach to teaching and learning where learners are cued into the required scientific ideas, technological applications, engineering processes and mathematical expressions right at the basic education level. Although STEM education started in Nigeria long ago and has produced manpower in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in all the sectors of the economy in the country, it became clearer with the coming of the 9-3-4 system of education where major STEM subjects such as science, technology, physical and health education and information and communication technology were merged as one subject called basic science and technology (BST). The BST curriculum is designed and blended as an interdisciplinary subject which is a strategic policy of the Nigerian government to present a better and sound STEM education to learners at the 9 years of basic education as the foundation for technology and engineering literacy. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) as an interdisciplinary and applied approach in Nigeria integrates the knowledge and skills acquired from the specific disciplines into a cohesive learning paradigm based on real-world applications. It gives a blended learning which combines conventional classroom teaching with multimedia instructional strategies to facilitate hands-on activities so that learners develop different learning styles as well as problem-solving abilities. This has translated technologically to the difference made in Nigeria products in all the sectors of human endeavour. According to Olorundare (2010), the inclusion of engineering into STEM education in Nigeria can be justified by the mere fact that young children tend to be engineers first, building, making and doing projects long before they can explore scientific principles that allow their buildings to stand or “canals” between puddles to carry water. The role of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in bringing about national development and global competitiveness in Nigeria just like any other country in the world cannot be overemphasized. It is not an overstatement to say that, every facet of the Nigerian society at least from 1960 until today is affected positively in one way or the other especially by education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). It has explained events in nature, helped people to think and reason in a logical manner, solved problems encountered on a day-to-day basis, developed specialized skills

186

M. T. Angura

through proper handling of objects and equipment, developed social skills by establishing friendship while working cooperatively in groups in Nigerian industries/ organizations and helped satisfy curiosity through opportunities in carrying out investigations (TESSA, 2011 and STAN, 2019 in Ismail et al., 2019). STEM education in Nigeria has empowered many citizens over the years to become self-reliant even those who are not able to continue with education beyond basic education or secondary school are earning a living through skills acquired in STEM education as mechanics, electricians, carpenters, builders, painters, etc. It is very true that Nigeria is still among the developing nations of the world, but there is practical evidence in every sector of the economy, to ascertain the positive impact of STEM education which is a clear indicator that the country is on the right track of becoming a developed nation in the near future.

11.4.1 Strength of STEM Education in Nigeria STEM education in Nigeria is the backbone of research in all universities and other higher institutions. It is in fact the source of innovations in education, agriculture, housing, constructions, transportation, health care, security, telecommunication, policy issues, governance, etc. STEM had been a critical instrument used to uplift not only the standard of living but the entire economy of Nigeria. It has become an energizing elixir and necessary substance that create spirit of economic, technological and sustainable development across Nigeria. The provision of good water supply, quality food and healthcare delivery, as well as various materials for construction in industries, roads, and automobiles are by-products of STEM education.

11.4.2 Weaknesses of STEM Education in Nigeria The major weakness of STEM education in Nigeria is underfunding of the education sector which has resulted to overcrowded classrooms, lack of laboratories/workshops in some schools, lack of equipment and other necessary instructional aids, poor salaries and allowances for STEM teachers in Nigeria, etc. According to Aina (2022), STEM education offers lots of practical activities to give learners the opportunity to convert ideas into solving real-world problems. However, it is very disturbing that many schools in Nigeria lack the basic facilities to enable learners engage in practical activities which are the major impediments of STEM education in the country. Okoke and Chinwe (2006) emphasized that all learning in STEM must start and end in the laboratory. The laboratory is essential, as it is a place where problems are explored, and solutions are proffered, but government and other school owners in Nigeria have failed to provide adequate and well equip laboratories, so that STEM education can strive to its peak in the country. The aim of education in the current dispensation of global technology is to ensure that every country cues into

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

187

the world of technological advancement; however, most public schools in Nigeria are deficient in this regard. Most public schools in Nigeria have not upgraded to the use of digital multimedia facilities, and this is a hindrance to effective STEM education for sustainable development.

11.5 STEM Education in Nigeria and Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) The comparison of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in Nigeria and Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) presents the basis for STEM education in Nigeria over the years in relation to the present STEL by International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA, 2020). According to the National Association of Technology Teachers in Nigeria and Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN, 2019 in Ismail et al., 2019), STEM education at its core: 1. Integrates all the four disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) together into a single through cross-disciplinary programme which originates from a cluster of science and technology subjects right at the 9 years of basic education and 3 years of senior science secondary or technical education in Nigeria. 2. Uses practical-oriented instructional methods that make STEM an allencompassing field of study. 3. Ensures critical and logical thinking processes as well as skill acquisition. 4. Translates into career courses of study at the minimum of 4-years tertiary or university education in Nigeria. 5. Translates to problem solving in all the sectors of the Nigerian economy. The standards for implementing STEM education in Nigeria are based on the fundamentals of integration and interdisciplinary approach in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. To enable learners acquire knowledge and skills inform of problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, curiosity, decision-making, and entrepreneurship by linking the four STEM disciplines together through practical activities. At the 9 years of basic education, STEM learners carried out more of object identification as well as elementary projects to enhance the development of the required STEM skills. The 3 years of senior science or technical secondary school in Nigeria presents a follow-up of the knowledge and skills acquired at the basic education level, where learners are exposed to more advance STEM subjects still in a cluster however with interconnected knowledge and skills to facilitate higher practical activities and projects. The 4 years or more of tertiary or university education in Nigeria cued qualified learners into the different STEM career courses of study to perfect the knowledge and skills acquired at the previous levels and graduate as professionals in the various sectors of the economy. All the STEM career courses of study at this level are

188

M. T. Angura

accredited by the relevant authorities like National Universities Commission (NUC), National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) for monotechnics and polytechnics, as well as National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE). Thereafter, the STEM graduates are assessed and licensed to practice in the areas of specialization according global standards by specific professional bodies such as Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria (TRCN), Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (KOREN), Animal Science Association of Nigeria (ASAN), Horticultural Society of Nigeria (HSN), Information Technology Association of Nigeria (ITAN), Computer Professionals Registration Council of Nigeria (CPRCN), Mathematical Association of Nigeria (MAN), among others. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) based on the stated features as well as the core disciplinary standards provides a more focus and stimulating approach to technology and engineering education compared to the present STEM education in Nigeria. STEL emphasizes common set of experiences as foundations for technology and engineering education which continues to develop and expand across curricula boundaries. This is more current and innovative than the STEM education in Nigeria that is presently based on integration and interconnectivity of knowledge and skills in the four disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. The core disciplinary standards of STEL provide key areas to be embedded in individual subject curricula right at basic education level, which is a major breakthrough to be adopted globally and particularly by STEM education in Nigeria and Africa in general as up-to-date roadmap for teachers, administrators, states and curriculum developers to promote technology and engineering education.

References Ada, N. A., Odoh, C. O., & Angura, M. T. (2021). Enforcement of the national minimum standards specifications for implementation of the 3-Year upper basic science and technology curriculum in north central Nigeria. VillageMath Educational Review (VER), 2(1), 1–13. https://ngsme.vil lagemath.net/journals/ver/v2i1/ada-odoh-angura Africa Catalyst. (2014). Africa catalyst. Building engineering capacity to underpin Human and Economic Development in Africa. Concept note. http://africacatalyst.org Aina, J. K. (2022). STEM education in Nigeria: Development and challenges. Print ISBN: 978-935547-531-2, eBookISBN: 978-93-5547-536-7. www.researchgatepublication.online Atomatofa, R. O., Avbenagha, E, A., & Ewesor, S. E. (2013). A survey of science teachers’ awareness of new basic education curriculum in Nigeria. International Journal of Social Science. & Education, 4(2), 22–30. Doggoh, T. B. (2011). Assessment of the implementation of Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme in the North Central Geo-Political Zone of Nigeria [Unpublished Ph.D Thesis]. Amadu Bello University Zaria Nigeria. Federal Republic of Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Education (FME). (2019). National Policy on Science and Technical Education. Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2019). Federal ministry of science and technology. Office of the Head of Service Block D, 4th–7th Floor, Federal Secretariat Complex (Phase II), Shehu Shagari Way www.scienceandtech.gov.ng

11 Standards-Based Programme Planning and Implementation …

189

Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2013). National Policy on Education (6th ed.). https://education. gov.ng Fomunyam, K. G. (2019). Teaching stem education in Nigeria: Challenges and recommendations. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), 10(12), 85–93. https://education.gov.ng/national-policy-on-science-and-technology-education/#1 Igboke, C. O. (2015). Recent curriculum reforms at the basic education level in Nigeria aimed at catching them young to create change. American Journal of Educational Research, 1, 31–37. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https:// www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx Ismail, A., Sani, M. Y., & Abdulrahaman, A. (2019). Science teachers’ competency and knowledge implementing integrated STEM curriculum, 60th annual conference proceedings, STAN (pp. 37– 45). Mohareb A. A. (2020). Requirements for application of the STEM approach as perceived by science, math and computer teachers and their attitudes towards it. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(9), em1879ISSN: 1305-8223 https://www.researchgate. net/publication/342871084_ NERDC. (2012). Nigerian educational research and development council, UBE edition: National Minimum standards Document. Abuja NERDC. Nwankwo, O. (2014). Impact of corruption on economic growth in Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences., 5(8), 87–111. Okoke U. A., & Chinwe, E. N. (2006). Analysis of human resource for STM instruction in Awka educational zone, Anamabra State. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Conference of STAN (pp. 58–61). Olorundare, A. S. (2010). Where is the STEM? Missing context in science, technology, engineering and mathematics instructions. A paper presented at the 15th Kwara State conference of the science teachers association of Nigeria, Ilorin. Oni, S. (2012). Revitalizing Nigerian education in digital age. Trafford Publishing. Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA) .(2011). Manual for the re-training of teachers: Basic science and technology, Abuja. Universal Basic Education Commission. UBE. (2004). Universal Basic Education Act 115, 26th May, 2004 for compulsory, free Universal Basic Education: National minimum standards specification document. NERDC UBEC. (2010). Universal basic education commission; advocacy manual for the national minimum standards enforcement. UBEC. www.ubec.gov.ng UBEC. (2012). Universal Basic Education Commission: curriculum implementation guidelines for lower and upper basic education. UBEC. www.ubec.gov.ng Ugo, E. A., & Akpoghol, T. V. (2016). Improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs in secondary school in Benue State Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts and Social Science., 3(3), 6–16. Umar, Y. (2019). STEM education as a catalyst for national development: Problems and prospects in Nigeria. Learning Science and Mathematics., 14, 48–59.

Michael Terfa Angura Ph.D. is a doctor of Science Education in the Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Benue State University Makurdi, Nigeria. His area of specialization is integrated science. He has experienced teaching at all levels of education. He is a scholar with many publications in both local and international journals. His research interest includes standards and specifications for science and technology curriculum implementation among others. He is 49 years old, a Christian (Catholic by faith) and happily married with children. His hobbies are reading, meeting new friends, dancing and watching innovative movies.

Chapter 12

The Impact of International Technology Education Standards on the Development of a National Curriculum: A Case Study in Korea Euisuk Sung, Yuhuyn Choi, Ji Suk Kim, Eunsang Lee, and Yunjin Lim

Abstract South Korea has mandated technology education as a general education subject since 1954. However, recent educational trends, such as the emergence of computer education; artificial intelligence; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM); and K-12 engineering education, call for considerable change in Korean technology education. The authors translated and published Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) in Korean to introduce the new standards to Korean educators in response to these challenges. This case study will review the history of Korean technology education from its inception in the 1960s and discuss the potential impacts of STEL on the Korean technology education curriculum. Additionally, this case study will illustrate the process of publishing STEL in Korean, including the team-building process, challenges in translating the text, and peer review for quality control. Lastly, the authors will discuss the implications, visions, and challenges of Korean technology education with STEL translation.

E. Sung New York City College of Technology, Brooklyn, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] Y. Choi Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea e-mail: [email protected] J. S. Kim Gongju National University of Education, Gongju-Si, South Korea e-mail: [email protected] E. Lee Kong National University, Gongju-Si, South Korea e-mail: [email protected] Y. Lim (B) Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation, Jincheon-gun, South Korea e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_12

191

192

E. Sung et al.

Keywords Korean technology education · STEL · Translation

12.1 Introduction: The Need for New Perspectives in Technology Education South Korea is perhaps one of the few countries globally implementing technology education as a compulsory subject from fifth to tenth grades for all students regardless of gender or location. Historically, in Western Asian culture, including China, Japan, and South Korea, technology was considered the work of the lower classes, while the upper classes pursued liberal arts or science. This ideological influence is widespread throughout society and is still ongoing. Interestingly, South Korea developed rapidly as a technology-based industrialized nation after going through the Korean War in the 1950s. Since 1954, technology education has been offered as a compulsory subject in schools, but the public’s attention to technology education was relatively low. In the early 2010s, the Ministry of Education of South Korea adopted Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) education by adding A (the arts) to STEM education. Still, the role of technology in STEAM education was often limited to providing instructional tools or technical support for mathematics and science, although many technology educators envisioned a broader role for the subject. Technology educators in South Korea have been trying to establish the role of technology in STEM by promoting making and doing, problem-solving, advanced technologies, and the integrative nature of the subject. However, many people only view technology as a product of science or engineering, and the perception of technology education remains ill-informed and even negative. The history of technology education in South Korea has unfolded into two strands: elementary schools and secondary schools. To understand this history, it is necessary to understand the outline of the Korean curriculum system. South Korea’s central government plans and operates school curricula from grades 1–12. In other words, the Korean central government has control of the entire school curriculum; therefore, schools are expected to follow the national curriculum, which specifies particular school subjects, numbers of credit hours, contents, textbooks, and assessments. Table 12.1 shows the Korean school system with the grade levels and ages.

12.2 Technology Education in Korean Elementary Schools Over the past 70 years, the Korean national curriculum has been revised ten times with seven-to-ten-year terms, and in 2022, the 11th curriculum revision was published. Each of these curricula has a name. The names were given in numerical order, such as first curriculum, second curriculum, third curriculum, and so on. However, after

12 The Impact of International Technology Education Standards … Table 12.1 Educational system in South Korea 19+ 13+ Universities and 4-year Colleges

2-year Community College

18 17 16

12 11 10

15 14 13

9 8 7

Junior High School / Middle School

12 11 10 9 8 7

6 5 4 3 2 1

Elementary School

6

K

Kindergarten

3-5 PK Age Grade

General Senior High School

193

Vocational Senior High School

Pre-School School Types

the seventh curriculum, as the curriculum revision system changed from full-scale revision to partial revision, the names of the curricula start with the year of revision, such as the 2007 Curriculum, 2009 Curriculum, and 2015 Curriculum. The Korean education system consists of 6 years of elementary school, 3 years of middle school, and 3 years of high school. Technology education in elementary schools has been implemented in grades 4–6 under the name of Practical Arts. In Korea, Practical Arts was introduced in the first national curriculum in 1954 and included ten content areas. The subject’s focus was integrating industry-related contents such as clothing, food cultivation, animal breeding, craft, and occupation with various life situations. The second national curriculum was introduced in 1963, where the content areas of Practical Arts were reduced to seven, including cultivation, animal breeding, manufacturing, and management. The third national curriculum was released in 1973, in which Practical Arts had nine subject areas, including cultivation, animal breeding, design and craft, machinery and equipment operation, housing, and environmental hygiene. According to the third curriculum document, Practical Arts emphasized creativity, efficiency, and hands-on craft. The fourth national curriculum in 1981 attempted to integrate the content areas of Practical Arts into four major categories, with an emphasis on life functioning skills. The fifth national curriculum was released in 1987 and had the same content area as the fourth curriculum but added computer education for the first time. In the sixth national curriculum, released in 1992, the content areas of Practical Arts were reorganized into using, making, managing, and nurturing. The sixth curriculum stressed activity-based hands-on skills and placed Practical Arts as a

194

E. Sung et al.

subject starting in the third grade. In the seventh national curriculum, in 1997, Practical Arts comprised three content areas aligned with secondary technology education and placed in fifth and sixth grades. In the 2007 curriculum modification, the content of Practical Arts was divided into family and consumer science and technology. The contents in the technology part presented wood products, plants, animals, electricity and electronics, and information technology. In 2009, there was a minor revision where the technology area adopted robotics into the content. The technology curriculum emphasized technological literacy and soft skills such as creativity and problem-solving. The 2015 national curriculum, which is currently used in elementary schools, is similar to the previous curriculum, but technology is divided into two subfields: technological systems and technological applications. There are also two new content areas, transportation and computer software. The history of South Korean technology education at the elementary level shows that it has emphasized woodworking, animal cultivation, and craft. The focus of Practical Arts was initially teaching basic knowledge and skills for practical application, but recently it has been more focused on technological literacy and creativity and problem-solving. The contents of Practical Arts in recent revisions include inventions, robotics, transportation, computer software, and artificial intelligence.

12.3 Technology Education in Korean Secondary Schools Technology education was first introduced in secondary schools in 1971 with the second national curriculum to be delivered at the middle school level. Although male and female students took the same subject, Technology, they learned different content, such as woodworking for males and clothing and cooking for females. Implementing technology education in the second national curriculum caused a lot of practical issues, such as insufficient numbers of certified technology teachers and a lack of laboratory facilities. The third national curriculum released in 1973 offered technology education exclusively to male students. The focus of content was industry and life-related technologies. In 1981, the fourth national curriculum was introduced, where technology education had two new names, Life Technology for middle school and Industrial Technology for high school. As in the previous curriculum, only male students could take technology classes. The subject name for middle school technology education in the fifth national curriculum was changed to Industrial Technology. The sixth national curriculum, released in 1992, changed the name to Technology and Industry for middle school and Technology for high school. Since this curriculum modification, male and female students started taking the same subjects as compulsory in middle and high schools. In 1997, there was a drastic change in Korean technology education. The Korean government combined technology and family and consumer science into one subject named Technology and Home Economics for middle and high schools. This change caused serious problems implementing technology education because it allowed

12 The Impact of International Technology Education Standards …

195

family and consumer science teachers to teach technology education content without appropriate training. Although technology textbooks separated the content areas into Technology and Home Economics, some schools forced technology or family consumer science teachers to teach the two areas at the school’s administrative convenience. In the 2009 curriculum revision, high school Technology and Home Economics became an elective subject. The emphases of the high school technology education curriculum were integration and problem-solving. In the 2015 national curriculum revision, technology education adopted sustainable development, safety, and industrial standards as its content. In 2022, a new curriculum modification was released. One of the most significant changes in the 2022 national curriculum was adopting a credit-based high school curriculum to provide students with various learning opportunities based on their interests and career goals. Before the 2022 curriculum, students had not been given the opportunity to choose courses but were instead required to follow the school’s curriculum set. The 2022 curriculum changes introduced several elective courses at the high school level. Table 12.1 lists the history of the Korean technology education curriculum from the 1950s to the present. The authors also listed major events in the USA to connect them to the changes in Korea’s curriculum. As Table 12.2 illustrates, the Korean technology curriculum was focused on the industry until the 1980s and shifted to technology to promote technological literacy in the 2000s. The latest curriculum modification includes engineering and intellectual property, as STEL focuses on engineering and design.

12.4 Translating STEL into Korean Standards for Technological Literacy (STL), released in 2000, has been translated into many languages, including Finnish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Estonian, Greek, and German, but not Korean (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007). Researchers and educators in Korea lamented that standardized documents were not translated into Korean. They insisted that the lack of Korean translations prevented teachers and the public from clearly understanding the standards. As soon as STEL was released in 2020, five Korean technology educators started translating STEL into Korean. The translation team’s first impression of STEL was that the contexts were more diverse than that of STL and that STEL placed more emphasis on practices beyond knowledge. The team had several meetings to discuss strategies and plans for the translation. The team meeting identified several critical questions that needed to be answered to translate STEL into Korean: How was STEL developed? What are the key ideas of STEL? What are the implications for engineering in the standards? How do we understand the graphical illustration of the framework (the hexagon model)? These questions helped the translation team to plan its work.

196

E. Sung et al.

Table 12.2 History of Korean Technology Education with US major changes Korean Curricular Revision (year released)

Elementary school

Middle school

High school

Major changes

First (1954) Practical Arts

Not yet introduced

Only for elementary schools

Second (1963)

Technology

Technology

Introduced in middle and high schools

Third (1973)

Technology

Technology

Fourth (1981)

Life Technology

Industrial Technology

Fifth (1987)

Industrial Technology

Industrial Technology

Sixth (1992)

Technology Technology and Industry

Offered to both male and female students in middle schools

Seventh (1997)

Technology and Home Economics

Technology and Home Economics

Combined Technology and Home and Economics

2007 Curriculum

Technology and Home Economics

Technology and Home Economics

Emphasized computer and information technology

2009 Curriculum

Technology and Home Economics

Technology and Home Economics

Became elective in high school

2015 Curriculum

Technology and Home Economics

Technology and Home Economics

Introduced sustainable development

2022 Curriculum

Technology and Home Economics

(Elective) Technology and Home Economics/ Robotics/ Engineering Design/ Intellectual Property

Adopted a credit-based system in high school. Introduced engineering in high school

US technology education

Industrial Arts Curriculum Project (Lux & Offered only to Ray, 1966) males in middle and high schools Jackson’s Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory (Snyder & Hales, 1981)

Technology for All Project (ITEA, 1996) Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000)

Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020)

12 The Impact of International Technology Education Standards …

197

The translation of STEL into Korean took about three months. We assigned each chapter to two translators, one lead translator, and one reviewer, according to interests and expertise. At first, each translator translated one chapter and then cross-reviewed it to find issues that could arise during the translation. The first issue we identified was vocabulary. Several terms could be interpreted differently depending on the context. In South Korea, it was acknowledged that the word “context” was vague because the contents of the Korean technology curriculum are determined at the national level, and the primary role of teachers is to deliver them according to the textbook based on the national curriculum. Additionally, Korean technology educators used to interpret “trouble-shooting” as fixing a broken machine or device. However, given the perception that technology education is no longer about fixing machines or appliances, we acknowledged that this term needed a new interpretation. So, we translated “troubleshooting” as a treatment for problem-solving. Similar issues were encountered with “trade-off,” “the built environment,” “attention to ethics,” and “literacy,” which were resolved through team meetings attended by the authors. Another issue was the structural differences between the two languages. In English, the singular and plural are specified in a sentence, and the pronoun changes accordingly. However, in Korean, the plural form is often omitted depending on sentence structure, mainly when an object follows the verb. Additionally, because the document being translated involved standards, we tried to preserve the original text as much as possible. However, there were many instances where direct translations into Korean did not keep the intended meaning, so we translated each sentence by interpreting, understanding, and rewriting it in Korean. After completing the first draft of the translation, we invited 13 technology education experts and asked peer reviewers to improve the quality of the translations. The 13 technology education experts included three preservice elementary technology teacher education professors, nine preservice secondary technology teacher education professors, and one high school technology teacher. This advisory group reviewed our translations and provided feedback. After several rounds of reviews and revisions, the Korean version of STEL was released in March 2021. The Korean STEL used the same cover design to give a look similar to the original (English language) STEL. The publication was selected as one of the national academic book series in the engineering literacy category, so the Korean government funded the distribution of more than 500 copies to public libraries and K-12 schools.

12.5 The Impact of STEL on the 2022 Korean National Curriculum The translation of STEL into Korean had direct impacts on Korean technology education when the latest 2022 national curriculum was being developed. Since the 1990s, the Korean technology education curriculum has continued its focus on five main

198

E. Sung et al.

areas that have included manufacturing, construction, transportation, information and communication, and biotechnology, under the strong influence of Jackson’s Mill Curriculum Theory (Snyder & Hales, 1981) and Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007). However, the new 2022 curriculum at the middle school level presents technology and society, technological problem-solving, invention, materials and manufacturing, structures and construction, biotechnology and medical technology, energy and transportation, robots and automation, artificial intelligence, and information and communication. Material processing, robotics, automation, artificial intelligence, and medical technology are commonly included in the new Korean curriculum and STEL contexts. Second, the 2022 Korean national curriculum framework stressed technological problem-solving in the cognitive and psychomotor domains. This approach may reflect STEL, which emphasizes making and doing to develop technological literacy in various contexts rather than obtaining knowledge merely through studying about technology. Third, several common areas exist between the 2022 Korean Technology Education curriculum and the Practices in STEL. The new 2022 Korean technology education curriculum highlights the processes and skills of technological activities as STEL presented those areas in the practice standards, including systems thinking, creativity, making and doing, critical thinking, optimism, collaboration, communication, and ethical consideration, which are similarly highlighting the “doing” feature of technology education. Finally, Korean technology education at the high school level transformed into an engineering-centered curriculum. The high school technology education curriculum consists of introductory engineering and interdisciplinary engineering. The high school engineering curriculum contains the history and future of engineering; the engineering design process; the multidisciplinary nature of engineering; integration with mathematics, science, technology, and engineering practices such as creativity, teamwork, communication, society, economy, and ethics; and engineering and careers. The content of the high school technology education curriculum comprises advanced computer-based technologies such as digital design, automation, networking, artificial intelligence, smart cities, advanced biotechnology, Internet of Things, intelligent transportation, and space technology.

12.6 Conclusion Since the 1950s, South Korea has maintained strong technology education curricula while experiencing drastic industrial developments. This case study showed that the Korean technology education curriculum has developed in a unique way according to the national education system and culture. In particular, because South Korea’s economic success significantly relies on the development of industrial technologies such as steel, automobiles, manufacturing, and semiconductors, technology education is essential. Therefore, South Korea has operated technology education as a

12 The Impact of International Technology Education Standards …

199

compulsory subject throughout grades 4–10. However, at the same time, because of their Eastern culture and Confucian traditions, Koreans have a culture that tends to respect the humanities while distrusting technology. The perception of technology education is still that it is a subject that supports lower-class or menial jobs. South Korea has an invisible social structure based on economic power, with occupations like craftsmen at the lowest level and scientists at the highest level. In addition, with rapid industrial development, science and engineering are recognized as advanced studies, while technology is regarded as lagging behind them. In order to overcome those negative connotations of technology, Korean educators and researchers passionately endorsed STEL’s engineering design and the practices housed in the technology education standards. This reaction was demonstrated at the 2022 curriculum modification where engineering design as a high school subject was adopted and computerrelated content such as automation, robotics, information, and communication was emphasized. Our case study witnessed that although the Korean technology education curriculum does not exactly match the educational flow of the USA, as given in Table 12.2, its emphases have been consistent with global trends, in which industrial arts shifted to engineering between the 1950s and the present.

References International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and Engineering literacy: Defining the role of technology and engineering in STEM education. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000/2002/ 2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association. Lux, D. G., & Ray, W. E. (1966). A rationale and structure for industrial arts subject matter. A Joint Project of the Ohio State University and the University of Illinois. Snyder, J. F., & Hales, J. A. (Eds.). (1981). Jackson’s Mill industrial arts curriculum theory. Symposium conducted at the Jackson’s Mill Conference Center in Weston, WV under the auspices of the American Industrial Arts Association, and the American Technical Society. American Industrial Arts Association.

Euisuk Sung is an assistant professor of Career and Technology Teacher Education at New York City College of Technology. He is a district vice president of the New York Technology and Engineering Educators Association in the city metro area. His research interest includes the maker movement, computational thinking, design thinking, and all issues in career and technology education. He can be reached at [email protected]. Yuhuyn Choi is a professor of Technology Education at Chungnam National University (CNU) in South Korea. He is a dean of the College of Education at CNU. He completed his Ph.D. degree

200

E. Sung et al.

in technology education at Seoul National University. His research interest includes problemsolving, design thinking, STEM, and all issues in technology education. He can be reached at [email protected]. Ji Suk Kim is a professor of Practical Arts Education at the Gongju National University of Education in South Korea. She received her Ph.D. degree in Industrial Education and Technology from Iowa State University. Her research interests include invention education, design thinking, and all issues in technology education. She can be reached at [email protected]. Eunsang Lee is an associate professor at the Department of Home Economics and Technology Education at the Kongju National University. He received a doctorate degree in Technology Education form Chungnam National University. His research interests include invention education and low-cost microcontrollers. He can be reached at [email protected]. Yunjin Lim is an associate research fellow of the Department of Subject Matter Studies at the Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. He received his Ph.D. degree in technology education at Chungnam National University. His research interests include curriculum, evaluation, textbooks, teaching and learning, and all issues in technology and engineering education. He can be reached at [email protected].

Chapter 13

The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM Education in Taiwan: A Case Study Chih-Jung Ku and Kuen-Yi Lin

Abstract The first step in integrating standards-based science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) into technology education in Taiwan is understanding standards-based technological curricula. The most-referenced technology curricula are those developed in the USA, which provides technology and engineering education, and in the UK, which provides design and technology education. Hence, the technology education curriculum of the USA has played an essential role as a reference for the development of technology education in Taiwan. Curriculum guidelines for Taiwan’s technology education programs, released in 2019, had similarities with the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education (STEL), released by the ITEEA in 2020. This chapter on standards-based STEM education in Taiwan covers four key areas: (1) standards-based technology and STEM education curriculum development, (2) the impact of STEL on the development of Taiwan’s technology education, (3) the implementation of standards-based STEM teaching in Taiwan, and (4) opportunities and challenges for standards-based STEM education in Taiwan. Keywords Standards-based STEM education · Technology education · STEM activity · Taiwan

13.1 Standards-Based Curriculum Development in Taiwan The Taiwanese government has prioritized science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education as a result of the lack of STEM experts, which has emerged as a problem in recent years. Regarding STEM education in Taiwan’s mandatory education, it is usually connected with technology education. Therefore, the main objective of this chapter is to discuss the integration of standards-based C.-J. Ku · K.-Y. Lin (B) Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development and Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_13

201

202

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

STEM into technology education. Taiwan’s current schooling structure consists of a 6–3-3–4 educational system, i.e., 6 years of elementary school, 3 years of junior high school, 3 years of upper secondary school, and 4 years of higher education (Table 13.1). It is compulsory for children in Taiwan to acquire a minimum of 12 years of basic education during elementary, junior high, and upper secondary educational stages. Standards-based STEM education generally starts in upper secondary school. The standards-based curriculum involves setting specific goals for students to accomplish. The curriculum should be developed based on specific standards, assess students’ comprehension of concepts and principles, provide lessons and activities pertaining to “big ideas,” and cultivate technological literacy (Shumway & Berrett, 2004). The International Technology Educational Association (ITEA) (2003) proposed additional steps for improving standards-based technology curricula: curriculum planning, development, revision, implementation, and evaluation. The previous version of the technology curriculum in Taiwan was based on competence indicators and benchmarks for students in different grades. However, due to a lack of consistent criteria, competence indicators and benchmarks were ambiguous, which made practical application of the curriculum difficult for teachers. STEL is a standards-based curriculum developed in the USA. The technology curriculum in Taiwan was revised in 2018 through a similar process to that used in the USA, with Table 13.1 Taiwan’s educational system Educational stage 12-year basic education

Grade Elementary school

Junior high school

Upper secondary school

Elective education

Source Ku and Lin (2020)

Higher education

Age

Grade 1

6

Grade 2

7

Grade 3

8

Grade 4

9

Grade 5

10

Grade 6

11

Grade 7

12

Grade 8

13

Grade 9

14

Grade 10

15

Grade 11

16

Grade 12

17

Freshman

18

Sophomore

19

Junior

20

Senior

21

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

203

standards and benchmarks being generated for students in different grades. The most recent standards-based technology curriculum guidelines help teachers understand and implement the curriculum. Integrating STEM into technology education helps students understand the relationships among disciplines and develop interdisciplinary skills. In the 12-year basic technology curriculum, which is the latest version for technology education in Taiwan, the goals are to ensure understanding of the relationship between technology and science in the junior high school educational stage through creative design activities, and of the relationship between technology and engineering in upper secondary school students, through engineering design and STEM activities. The following section discusses reforms of the standards-based technology curriculum in Taiwan and compares standards-based technology education between the USA and Taiwan.

13.2 The Reformation of Technology Curriculum in Taiwan Technology education in the USA has been a primary reference point for the subject in Taiwan. The evolution of technology education in Taiwan generally follows US trends and has transitioned from manual training, manual arts, and industrial arts to technological literacy education. Furthermore, documents like Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) (ITEA, 1996), the Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007), Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy (AETL) (ITEA, 2003), and STEL (ITEEA, 2020) have played significant roles in reforming the technology education curriculum in Taiwan. The technology education provided in Taiwan in the period 2003–2018 combined natural science and living technology modules for students in grades 1–9. It involved four topics: energy and power technology, transportation technology, manufacturing technology, and construction technology, and primarily focused on the nature and development of technology and the relationship between technology and society. It also encouraged students to design technological products through critical thinking and problem-solving. The STL categories of “The Nature of Technology,” “Technology and Society,” “Design,” “Abilities for a Technological World,” and “The Designed World” served as the primary reference when developing the technology curriculum of Taiwan taught in 2003–2018. As alluded to above, Taiwan’s previous technology curriculum followed the US one, which combined living and information technology components. However, the latest curriculum guidelines are more in accordance with those in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, and consider living technology (design and technology) and information technology as two separate subjects. The ideas of a standards-based technology curriculum impacted the developing subjects for Taiwan’s living technology curriculum, which the following discussion focuses on. The most recent technology curriculum guidelines, released in 2018, focus on promoting technological literacy in students by enabling them to solve daily life problems through the “do, use, and think”

204

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

approach (Ministry of Education, 2018). The curriculum was reformed with consideration of students’ learning experiences, needs, and interests, with an emphasis on design thinking, which is in fact the core component of the latest curriculum. Design thinking in Taiwan’s technology curriculum guidelines, which is influenced by the USA’s standards proposed by ITEEA and the UK’s National Curriculum for Design and Technology, refers to students’ practical abilities with respect to technological products, and their design and critical thinking skills. Engineering design and STEM are emphasized in upper secondary schools, encouraging students to integrate their knowledge and abilities of different disciplines. As mentioned above, Taiwan’s technology education has long been influenced by trends in the USA as well as documents published by the ITEEA. In the next section, we focus on discussing the impacts of STEL on the development and implementation of technology curriculums in Taiwan.

13.2.1 Implementation of STEL Within Taiwan’s Current Technology Education This section compares the philosophy of technology education between the USA (using the TfAAP document) and Taiwan (using the 12-year basic technology curriculum guidelines), followed by a discussion of the similarities and differences between the USA’s and Taiwan’s technology education status. (1) Philosophy of technology education The TfAAP document, which ITEA (changed to ITEEA in 2010) published in 1996, mainly provided a philosophical structure for technology education in the USA, represented by a triangle comprising Processes, Knowledge, and Context (Fig. 13.1). Processes refers to actions, such as designing, creating, or producing technological systems. Knowledge refers to the technological knowledge required to develop or apply technological processes. Context relates to the technological systems often used to solve practical problems. These three dimensions represent a foundation for learning about technology; the STL, AETL, and STEL documents were all based on these principles and are thus well aligned. Taiwan’s technology education focuses on cultivating students’ abilities to solve problems through the application of technology and engineering knowledge, i.e., by “doing, using, and thinking.” Do represents hands-on skills; Use represents the ability to use technology products and tools; and Think refers to analytical, design, and critical thinking abilities. Students must design and make products and apply integrated knowledge to demonstrate their core competencies. The learning goals are shown in Fig. 13.2. At the elementary school level, technology education in classrooms focuses on the daily life applications of technology. Students are expected to understand and apply technology in their daily lives. Activities are designed to cultivate students’ practical abilities and everyday use of technology. Technology education is now compulsory at the secondary school level. Teachers use creative

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

205

Fig. 13.1 Structure for studying technology in the USA (ITEA, 1996)

design activities to improve junior high school students’ design and engineering abilities and analytical thinking, and teach them how to apply technology appropriately. The upper secondary school curriculum is influenced by technology and engineering education in the USA and integrates STEM; students undertake engineering design projects and are expected to use technology skillfully and develop their thinking abilities. In summary, the rationale and structure for US technology education consists of the three dimensions: knowledge, processes, and context, while Taiwan’ technology education is based on “doing, using, and thinking.” STEL has served as an important reference for the development of technology curriculum guidelines at the upper secondary level in Taiwan, by highlighting worldwide trends in STEM education and engineering literacy. STEL precipitated a trend toward cultivating students’ engineering design abilities, thinking skills, and integrative knowledge, which has inspired Taiwan’s technology education. (2) Learning focus on technology education STEL is the most recent document to define standards for technology and engineering education in the USA, in terms of core competencies, practices, and contexts. Three rotatable octagons can be used to represent the structure of STEL (Fig. 13.3). “Core

206

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

Fig. 13.2 Structure for studying technology in Taiwan (Ku & Lin, 2020)

standards” include eight categories relating to technology and engineering knowledge. “Practices” cover eight practical skills students need to acquire to apply the core standards. Finally, “Contexts” represent classroom scenarios in which the core standards and practices are applied to solve problems. As for Taiwan’s 12-year basic technology curriculum, Fig. 13.4 illustrates the four dimensions of learning focus: knowledge, skills, capacities, and affection, highlighting technological knowledge, hands-on skills, and interest in technologyrelevant fields. To specify the aforementioned focus, the “Learning contents” section in the curriculum guidelines was generated to provide detailed information that helps teachers and educators design technology-related activities appropriate for the learning level of their students. Four themes are included: the nature of technology, design and production, application of technology, and technology and society. Nature of technology focuses on the evolution of technology and technological systems, and the relationships among science, technology, mathematics, and engineering. Creative thinking, the engineering design process, material processing, and tool operation are the focus of the Design and production theme. Topics for the Application of technology include mechanistic and structural applications, energy and power applications, and electrical and control applications; these aim to help students learn about technology products and the emerging applications thereof. Finally, the influence of engineering technology (and associated issues) is covered by the Technology and society theme. Apart from that, engineering design as well as integration and application of STEM are emphasized at the upper secondary level, which requires students to undertake engineering projects and apply acquired knowledge and skills when solving problems. Through this process, students are able to learn to think and act like engineers, and their interest in engineering as a career may be enhanced. To summarize the ideas of learning focus on technology education, it is noticeable that multiple elements are similar between the USA and Taiwan, in particular since STEL strongly influenced Taiwan’s technology curriculum guidelines. In addition to the themes in mandated courses discussed above, projects related to

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

207

Fig. 13.3 Three organizers for teaching technology and engineering in the USA (ITEEA, 2020)

engineering design, robotics, and applied technology are available in the “enrichment and expanded elective courses,” in which upper secondary school students can select courses according to their interests. The primary goals of the “enrichment and expanded elective courses” are to provide students in the upper secondary educational stage with more opportunities to grasp engineering concepts, engage in “thinking, doing and making,” and enhance their understanding of engineering fields before entering higher education.

13.2.2 Examples in Implementing Technology Curriculum Guidelines In order to provide more concepts that may allow readers to better understand technology education in Taiwan, the following are two examples of teaching applications.

208

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

Fig. 13.4 Dimensions for teaching technology education in Taiwan (Ministry of Education, 2020)

(1) Bridge design project The bridge design project is one of the most popular engineering-based projects in both Taiwan and the USA. The project presented below was designed for Taiwanese upper secondary school students who were asked to rebuild a bridge broken in 2019 in Yilan county. This project is intended as a group project, meaning that students work as a team to discuss their plans to solve problems. At the beginning of the project, students collected information about the broken bridge (news, articles, or videos) and discussed the conditions of a well-designed structure for the purpose of building their bridges. During the procedure, students could apply the engineering design process to formulate a sound design and then implement it to build a bridge that met the limits given by teachers. The boundaries were conditions that engineers may encounter in a practical situation—for example, material length, width, height, weight, and adhesives. To provide students an experience of working through the engineering design process and give them instructions on designing a well-structured bridge, some crucial steps were arranged in the project (Figs. 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, and 13.10). First, students used West Point Bridge Designer software to design, model, and test their bridges and specify the material amounts according to budgetary limitations in a similar manner to actual engineers. Then, they drew engineering diagrams of their structures based on analytical results generated from the software in the prior step to aid discussion with other group members. Finally, a bridge load test was

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

209

performed as the final part of the project to examine the stability of their bridges. Additionally, each group needed to finish a portfolio to present detailed steps of their design processes and to clarify the structural problems which may cause their bridge instability. Through the bridge design project, students in upper secondary school level were expected to understand: (1) the structural engineering design process; (2) features, advantages, and disadvantages of different bridge structures; (3) mechanical concepts and principles of structural design; and (4) the application and importance of software for engineering design. (2) Model car project The model car project is another well-known project in Taiwan for grade 9 students to learn electrical and control applications of technological products. Students are required to design and make model cars by applying emerging technologies during the design process. The main learning aspects of the project are concepts of electronics and control, the design process, and the use of software for analyzing designs. Students are required to apply electrical and control principles, simulate and study car movements using car design software, present their car designs as engineering diagrams, and construct a car through the application of emerging technologies. The designed cars are evaluated through various “challenges.” For example, the National Technology Competition, an annual nation-wide competition, used the

Fig. 13.5 Use of the software to model and test structures

210

Fig. 13.6 Use of software to confirm material quantity and budgets

Fig. 13.7 Engineering diagrams drawing

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

Fig. 13.8 Design of the bridge structures

Fig. 13.9 Load testing of a bridge

211

212

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

Fig. 13.10 Structure analysis and optimization

model car design as part of the tasks in 2021. Students who participated as contestants were required to design cars to carry objects of various shapes and lift them onto a platform (Fig. 13.11). After participating in the model car project, students are expected to be able to: (1) understand the relationship between technology and engineering, (2) understand the design process for technology products, (3) understand the concepts and principles of electronics and control, and (4) apply emerging technologies to design and construct products. Based on the above, it is clear that technology education in Taiwan has many similarities with technology education in the USA and the STEL, including the setting of learning contexts or themes, and focus on cultivating skills, abilities, and knowledge. In addition to the activities introduced in the previous paragraphs, other well-designed activities include a green energy house project (focusing on energy application), an aerodynamic ship project (focusing on power application), and a catapult project (focusing on mechanistic aspects) developed by the Maker Education and Technology Centers, which assist educators in teaching technology and engineering.

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

213

Fig. 13.11 Control cars designed by contestants

13.3 Future Opportunities and Challenges Technology education in Taiwan has been heavily influenced by the technology education provided in other countries, particularly the USA and the UK. Before the curriculum on Taiwan was revised, several international experts with expertise in technology and engineering education fields were invited to give their views to ensure that Taiwan’s technology curriculum guidelines are robust. Also, because people usually pay more attention to subjects like science, mathematics, Chinese, English, and social studies instead of technology or arts education due to the examination system, the time allocated for technology education decreased when it was planned as part of science education in the previous curriculum guidelines. Therefore, technology education has been independent from the science education domain since 2019, representing a milestone in the development of Taiwan’s technology education. The reform of the standards-based technology curriculum has played an important role in improving standards-based STEM education in Taiwan. Some important ideas and practices are summarized below: (1) Great attention has been paid to STEM in terms of the K-12 education provided in Taiwan. Although STEM education is mandatory only for the upper secondary school educational stage, non-formal STEM-related education, such

214

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

as STEM camps, competitions, and exhibitions, provides opportunities for alllevel students to participate in STEM learning. Formal and non-formal STEM education activities allow students to improve their ability to integrate knowledge and skills from different disciplines, as well as their twenty-first-century skills, and enhance their interest in engineering-related fields before starting higher education. (2) Improving the capabilities of teachers enhances their intentions to teach STEM (Lin & Williams, 2016; Yu et al., 2021). Furthermore, Ku et al. (2020) emphasized that information communication technology, 3D printing, and laser engraving promote innovative design and problem-solving among students. Therefore, preparing teachers to be well-educated in integrating knowledge and skills to teach STEM is an urgent issue, especially since technology teachers in mandatory education principally deliver standards-based STEM education in Taiwan. Ku and Lin (2022) pointed out that several STEM teacher professional development programs and courses have been designed in recent years to cultivate teachers’ teaching abilities in STEM teaching. Apart from that, the Maker Education and Technology Centers and teacher training institutions also provide workshops and short-term training courses for teachers to improve their ability to integrate STEM into technology teaching. (3) Regarding the standards-based STEM education provided for upper secondary school students in Taiwan, teachers lacking experience in STEM education might find it challenging to design well-structured activities. Attending training courses and workshops can be helpful in this respect. However, teachers may still have doubts regarding their ability to effectively plan STEM activities. Therefore, an instructional design model bridging the gap between theory and practice is important for STEM education (Anderson & Goodson, 1980; Smith & Ragan, 2004). Ku et al. (in press) reviewed existing STEM models and frameworks, summarized the features of STEM education, and proposed an integrated STEM design model with six lesson planning stages and a precise list of tasks for each stage. The stages include preparation, analysis, design, planning, implementation, and evaluation, and involve creating a team of teachers, analyzing student and school characteristics (and designing teaching materials accordingly), planning practical tasks involving reflection, and engaging in continuous assessment and evaluation. The goal of the model is to provide detailed guidance for teachers with less confidence and experience in planning interdisciplinary activities. In this manner, teachers’ willingness and intentions to provide STEM education could be improved. (4) The best way to assess students’ STEM learning performance remains a subject of debate. Kelley and Knowles (2016) and Ku et al. (in press) pointed out the importance of students’ life experiences for integrating interdisciplinary knowledge and abilities and solving problems encountered in daily life. To address the lack of appropriate tools for assessing students’ STEM learning, Lin et al. (2022) developed an online context-based assessment to examine students’ STEM competencies, including contextualization, analogical reasoning, quantitative thinking, and reflective ability. The assessment involves three contexts:

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

215

(1) proposing a strategy to solve highway traffic congestion in north Taiwan; (2) constructing a reservoir to address water conservation issues; and (3) redesigning a bridge that collapsed in 2019 in Yilan county to allow transportation between ports to be resumed. Students must analyze information from multiple viewpoints and apply modeling software to test their ideas and finally propose a solution to the target context. The assessment results for five core STEM competencies provide a reference for teachers to understand students’ learning results and allow them to adjust their teaching plans accordingly. Also, students can reflect on their learning by reviewing the assessment results. Although the usefulness of the online assessment is still under review, it evaluates students’ STEM learning performance beyond mere knowledge retention and takes account of their life experiences. (5) Researchers have indicated that digital devices can also facilitate STEM teaching (Gao et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). One of the examples is using an eplatform to assist learning. Taiwan’s Ministry of Education created an adaptive online learning platform to provide students with digital resources. The system was designed using artificial intelligence, which identifies students’ requirements and recommends courses or provides various types of material, such as texts, diagrams, or videos, based on the analysis results. Digital devices such as computers, mobile devices, projectors, and smartboard are commonly used to improve the quality of STEM teaching in classrooms by making these resources accessible for students. The reform of technology curriculum guidelines in Taiwan has led to benefits in technology and STEM education. The allocated time for living technology at the secondary school level has been increased from no specific time regulation to a mandated 90–100 min each week, and teachers are now able to implement multiple technologies and engineering activities into their teaching. Besides, engineering design is emphasized in the latest curriculum to improve students’ design thinking and encourage them to explore related careers. It is foreseeable that many outstanding teaching plans will be designed to enhance students’ technological literacy and prepare their doing, using, and thinking skills when encountering daily life problems; however, some challenges still remain. (1) Generally speaking, Taiwan’s technology education mainly focuses on learning content and is not informed by an explicit philosophical structure. The curriculum guidelines development process is constrained by the core competency in the General Guidelines, provided by the National Academy for Education Research, could be the possible reason for this lack. Because a philosophical structure shows the episteme of a particular educational field, further reforms will be required. (2) Buildings, highways, and electronic products are emphasized as technological systems in the USA to help students learn technology concepts. The technology curriculum in Taiwan focuses on themes such as mechanistic and structural, energy and power, and electrical and control in the design process, which was mainly inspired by that of the design and technology curriculum in the

216

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

UK. At this point, teachers sometimes emphasize a lot of knowledge, but present fewer concepts of technological systems in classes, which could lead to students lacking sufficient understanding of technological systems when solving problems. The technology curriculum in Taiwan is only mandated for students in grades 7– 12. For K-6 students, the technology education syllabus is issued by local education authorities. The gap between the technology curriculum guidelines and these syllabuses must be addressed, as well as differences among cities. Moreover, unlike Taiwan, students in other countries receive technology education from kindergarten, and thus may be more advanced. Engineering design and STEM education are only provided for students in grades 10–12 in Taiwan, and students rarely receive engineering education before entering upper secondary schools. Due to a lack of engineering talents, education that helps students grasp engineering design concepts and provides them with opportunities to explore related careers is needed. Upper secondary school students in Taiwan spend a lot of time preparing for entrance examinations and thus have less opportunity to explore engineering. Therefore, teaching engineering education a younger age should be considered so that student can spend more time experiencing learning. The technology teaching for secondary school students is in accordance with the technology curriculum guidelines, but teachers require sufficient time to prepare and adjust their activities. In addition, there is a gap between curriculum design and implementation since the current reforms differed significantly from the previous ones. Teachers might lower their intention to cooperate with the new curriculum if they find it challenging to follow; accordingly, policies must be made to further improve teachers’ professional development. Some actions have been taken to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills. For example, 100 new Maker Education and Technology Centers were established around Taiwan to assist teachers by hosting workshops and lectures. In addition, teachers’ training programs are provided during summer and winter vacations to enhance their teaching skills. Finally, problems associated with the overuse of emerging technologies, such as 3D printers and laser cutters, must be addressed. Using emerging technologies could benefit students’ learning process since we can easily produce a mock-up or a prototype with the devices, and students can see if their design ideas function as expected. A great number of open resources can be found online that can provide students with good examples; however, it may limit students’ creativity or cause some plagiarism issues if they do not pay attention to applying those resources accurately. Technology education is supposed to develop students’ problem-solving skills, and we should be careful when using emerging technologies in classrooms to avoid turning the lesson into teaching students to use them and ignoring the nature of technology education. Apart from that, urban– rural gap is another issue when it comes to integrating emerging technologies into classrooms, because rural schools usually have less supports comparing to urban schools, and this issue could affect students’ learning equity. Namely, the

13 The Application of International Models for Standards-Based STEM …

217

excessive application of emerging technologies in “making and doing” activities needs to be discussed. In conclusion, efforts have been made to improve standards-based STEM education in Taiwan. However, further improvements in STEM and engineering teaching are needed. First, systematic curriculum documents should be formulated by experts, along with a philosophical structure for technology and STEM education in Taiwan, to support both students and teachers. Second, whether standards-based STEM education should be compulsory for K-6 students needs to be further discussed. Finally, to help students understand the concepts and principles of technology and engineering, the concept of technological systems needs to be integrated into technology and engineering education.

References Anderson, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904348 Gao, F., Li, L., & Sun, Y. (2020). A systematic review of mobile game-based learning in STEM education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1791–1827. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11423-020-09787-0 International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. Author. https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx International Technology Educational Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Author. International Technology Educational Association (ITEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Author. International Technology Educational Association (ITEA). (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Author. Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594016-0046-z Ku, C. J., & Lin, K. Y. (2020). Technology teacher education in Taiwan. In L. S. Lee & Y. F. Lee (Eds.), International technology teacher education in the Asia-pacific region (pp. 263–308). Wu-Nam Book Inc. Ku, C. J., & Lin, K. Y. (2022). Status and trends of STEM education in Taiwan. In Y. F. Lee & L. S. Lee (Eds.), Status and trends of STEM education in highly competitive countries: Country reports and international comparison (pp. 361–402). Wu-Nam Book Inc. Ku, C. J., Loh, W. L. L., Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2020). Development of an instrument for exploring preservice technology teachers’ maker-based technological pedagogical content knowledge. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.13039 Ku, C. J., Lin, K. Y., Kwon, H., & Kelley, T. R. (in press). Development of the six-stage integrated STEM instructional design model: International perspectives [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University.

218

C.-J. Ku and K.-Y. Lin

Lin, K. Y., & Williams, P. J. (2016). Taiwanese preservice teachers’ science, technology, engineering, and mathematics teaching intention. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1021–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9645-2 Lin, K. Y., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., Yang, K. L., Yeh, Y. F., Liu, T. C., & Chen, P. H. (2022). The context-based STEM competency online assessment. [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University. Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines for the 12-year basic education elementary school, junior high School, and upper secondary school: The domain of technology. https://www.curriculum1-12.nknu.edu.tw/_files/ugd/b38f85_fdd30b38bff5419084fe2 0dfd4d5612e.pdf?index=true Ministry of Education. (2020). Curriculum & instruction resources network: The PowerPoint of promoting technology curriculum guidelines. https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebContent/index.aspx? sid=1172&mid=9289 Shumway, S., & Berrett, J. (2004). Standards-based curriculum development for pre-service and in-service: A “partnering” approach using modified backwards design. The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 26–29. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. John Wiley & Sons. Wang, L. H., Chen, B., Hwang, G. J., Guan, J. Q., & Wang, Y. Q. (2022). Effects of digital game-based STEM education on students’ learning achievement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00344-0 Yu, K. C., Wu, P. H., Lin, K. Y., Fan, S. C., Tzeng, S. Y., & Ku, C. J. (2021). Behavioral intentions of technology teachers to implement an engineering-focused curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00305-z

Chih-Jung Ku is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, College of Technology and Engineering, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. She graduated from National Taiwan Normal University with a bachelor’s degree in Engineering in 2015 and a master’s degree in Education in 2020. She got her teaching certificate in 2015, and was a secondary technology education teacher for 5 years in two cities: Taichung and Taipei. Her research interests mainly focus on technology and engineering education, teacher education, and integrative STEM education. She is currently a visiting scholar in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University. Kuen-Yi Lin is a Distinguished Professor of Technology Education in the Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development and International Doctoral Program in Integrative STEM Education at the National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan. Dr. Lin has received the following academic awards: Distinguished Technology and Engineering Professional from the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA, USA), Gerhard Salinger Award for Enhancing STEM Education (ITEEA, USA), Research Award (The Educational Academic Group of the Republic of China, Taiwan), and so on. His primary research interests involve technology and engineering education, STEM education, and K-12 technology and engineering teacher education.

Chapter 14

Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish Junior Cycle Technology Education Jeffrey Buckley, Niall Seery, Donal Canty, and Rónán Dunbar

Abstract The variable interpretations and practices associated with technology education internationally frame the challenge in collectively defining and valuing technological performance. With this perspective, the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL: ITEEA in Standards for technological and engineering literacy: defining the role of technology and engineering in STEM education 2020) are a useful framework to consider the treatment, emphasis, and standards of national technological curricula. Lower-secondary education in Ireland—known as the Junior Cycle—is progressing through a significant reform with several changes that bring to the fore the need to establish and maintain standards. Formal formative assessment, teacher assessment, common level studies, and increased teacher autonomy are all welcome reforms, but frame a complex challenge when it comes to the definition of standards. This chapter looks broadly at the implications of the Junior Cycle reform on the role and contribution of the technology subjects in Ireland. The new specifications, statements of learning, strands, and elements are considered through the lens of the STEL, with a focus on the implications for learning and assessment. Comparisons between the Junior Cycle framework and STEL highlight the importance of context in the development of technological practices. Qualifying the future direction requires a clear understanding of the importance of context and the shared professional construct of capability and literacy in terms of supporting teachers in defining and maintaining standards. J. Buckley (B) · N. Seery · R. Dunbar Department of Technology Education, Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest, Athlone Campus, Westmeath, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] N. Seery e-mail: [email protected] R. Dunbar e-mail: [email protected] D. Canty School of Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_14

219

220

J. Buckley et al.

Keywords Technology education · Educational standards · Education in Ireland · Secondary education · Technological literacy

14.1 Introduction: Technology Education in Ireland To understand the current provision of technology education in Ireland, its underpinning philosophy, and thus the implementation and interpretation of standards, it is pertinent to understand its structure and historical roots. Secondary-level education in Ireland is primarily split between two programmes of study; Junior Cycle (lowersecondary level: student ages ≈ 12–15) and Senior Cycle (upper-secondary level: student ages ≈ 16–18). There is also an optional “Transition Year” which acts as a bridge between the two cycles. As schools have individual autonomy to design their own curriculum within broad national guidelines, it is not discussed in this chapter. While there can be differences in subject offerings between schools, both programmes offer a comprehensive range of subjects that can be studied at different levels across the humanities, arts, social studies, languages, natural sciences, mathematics, and technologies. Like many other international contexts, technology education in Ireland has evolved from its earliest conception of technical education as a response to labour market needs of the industrial era (cf. Buckley, 2023). The 1989 introduction of the Junior Cycle set forth a more general education that focussed on a student-centred approach. The Junior Cycle supported students engaging in a breadth of subjects, typically 11–13, to provide a broad and balanced set of experiences. At the end of the three-year cycle, a student was awarded the Junior Certificate based on the successful completion of national examinations and coursework prescribed and marked by the State Examinations Commission. In general, this approach was challenged by the focus on terminal assessment with experiences of the programme highlighting the emphasis on lower-order knowledge acquisition and the focus on assessment performance. The imbalance between assessment performance and standard setting unintentionally outweighed the core objective of personal development. Prior to the Junior Cycle, technical education was delivered through the three subjects of Metalwork, Woodwork, and Mechanical Drawing. The Junior Cycle introduced four technology subjects with students able to select one or more for their Junior Certificate based on their choice and school provision . The new subject Metalwork remained tightly linked to its predecessor including by name. The second and third new subjects, Materials Technology (Wood) and Technical Graphics, replaced Woodwork and Mechanical Drawing, respectively, and were repositioned to embrace more general educational tasks and activities. A fourth subject called Technology was a new introduction and emphasis was placed on emerging technologies, their societal impact and influence, and design. This new suite of technology subjects marked the beginning of a transitional phase of development in the discipline area. These subjects maintained a vocational element to schooling that was like their technical education predecessors; however, the function

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

221

and purpose of technology education began to emerge as having a significant amount to offer to general education goals. Importantly, the introduction of the Junior Cycle and the reframing of the technology subjects saw a shift from the primarily vocational focussed technical education towards a more general technology education provision (Seery et al., 2011). The reform of the lower-secondary technology subjects was then followed by a shift towards a more contemporary focus in the subjects at upper-secondary level. In 2006, four new technology syllabi were developed for subjects called Design and Communication Graphics (commonly referred to as DCG) replacing Technical Drawing, Technology as a new subject and follow on from the Junior Certificate subject that was introduced over 15 years earlier, Architectural Technology to replace Construction Studies, and Engineering Technology to replace Engineering. These new subjects were set to reform the previous suite of upper-secondary-level technology subjects which were introduced in the 1980s. However, only Design and Communication Graphics and Technology were introduced in 2007. While syllabi were drafted, Architectural Technology and Engineering Technology were not introduced. This was likely due to the economic downturn of the country during this time (NCCA, 2017) with Ireland entering an economic recession in 2008. As such, currently, upper-secondary-level technology education in Ireland consists of a suite of four subjects including Construction Studies, Engineering, Design and Communication Graphics, and Technology. At this point it is worth clarifying that there are subjects with the term “technology” in their name in both programmes, but all subjects described thus far in each programme are typically referred to as the “technologies” or “technology subjects” as a collective. As such, it is important to note that technology education in Ireland does not just mean the individual subjects called Technology, but the two collective groups of four technology subjects. While specific contexts determine the remit of knowledge and nature of activity in each of the subjects, they all share a common goal in the development of technological capability. There is also a common commitment to engaging students in problem solving, designing, and realising innovative and creative outputs. While Junior Cycle subjects support foundational skill and knowledge development, Senior Cycle subjects tend to engage with advanced concepts and complex multi-dimensional challenges. Design and Communication Graphics saw possibly the biggest shift in philosophy and practice from its predecessor. The emphasis on parametric computeraided design (CAD) as a core area of study was novel and the States commitment to providing one-to-one provision of software licenses and hardware signalled a clear intent to move to a more contemporary conception of graphical capability and reinforced its position as a technology subject that was focussed on conceptual design through the lens of function, material selection, and manufacturability. Building on the technical merit of the subject, Design and Communication Graphics embraces design and design communication as fundamental to being technologically capable. Responding to a standardised design brief students produce a design portfolio that demonstrates their interpretation of the brief, design specification, design synthesis, or novel solutions that are mediated and represented by advanced graphical skills and

222

J. Buckley et al.

knowledge. This design and realisation approach is consistent across all technological subjects. While Design and Communication Graphics presents a design-withoutmake solution (though it could be considered as design with a view towards make), Engineering, Technology, and Construction Studies all see students producing physical artefacts together with supporting portfolios that present the journey of design decisions and resulting (re)solutions. This context of Senior Cycle as it is currently offered is important as the focus of this chapter will instead be bounded by the context of the Junior Cycle technology subjects. This is because since 2015 the Junior Cycle has been undergoing another significant reform but is now in an early phase of national implementation, whereas Senior Cycle education in Ireland is currently in a process of entering a new reform which will likely see further evolution of the technological subjects.

14.2 A New Framework for Technology Education The continued evolution of the technology subjects is apparent in the most recent reform of the “new” Junior Cycle (a process which formally began in 2015) which has seen a significant shift in the written curriculum from “syllabi” to “specifications”. This marks a shift in the written curriculum from a behaviourist to cognitivist perspective on learning and an agenda to be more student-centred at lower-secondary level. As the implementation of the new technology education curricula is so recent (beginning September 2019), the extent this change in the written curriculum will influence pedagogy and assessment remains to be seen. This reform has brought with it a series of new concepts including key skills and statements of learning that are achieved through the study of a combination of subjects and strands and elements that serve to organise learning within subjects. This approach provides a useful framework to ensure a comprehensive holistic education for the students while also ensuring that context and situational learning is at the core of the learner experience. There are also apparent links between these new specifications and the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) structure that links context, practice, and standards (ITEEA & CTETE, 2020). Like the STEL, the context for technology education activities is defined, although in the Irish system at a subject level. The subject identity, definition, and treatment mediate the nature of practice and provide an action orientated and applied learning environment to focus on technological standards. As a result, where the STEL guidelines are presented as a collective, elements of them feature across the distinct Irish technology subjects. For example, the STEL guidelines present the context of “energy and power” with “Energy and Control” being a strand of the Irish Applied Technology subject. Similarly, “Material Conservation and Processing” is a STEL context, and “Principals and Practices” or “Processes and Principals” are strands of the Irish Engineering, Applied Technology, and Wood Technology subjects. More specific to the STEL standards, each of the 8 standards features across the Irish technology subjects. For example, the “Impacts of Technology” and “Influence of Society of Technological Development”

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

223

standards resemble the Applied Technology strand of “Technology and Society”. Design features in each of the Irish technology subjects as previously discussed, and this is referenced across the various aspects of the curricular documents, aligning with the STEL standard of “Design in Technology and Engineering Education”. As a final example, the STEL standard of “Core Concepts of Technology and Engineering” and permeating overlaps with each of the Irish technology subjects as with each subject; however, by creating four discrete technology subjects, the organising of the core concepts is distributed by definition and context. The establishment of the reformed Junior Cycle was to shift lower-secondarylevel education towards being more learner-centric with greater focus on the holistic development of young people (Department of Education & Skills, 2015). In contrast, while the Senior Cycle is still concerned with the development of the learner, its assessment—the Leaving Certificate—has functionally evolved to be the primary mechanism by which learners matriculate into tertiary-level education and as such has a more apparent performative dimension. This is on-going debate about the appropriateness and validity of the Learning Certificate. Among other reasons, opponents argue that it promotes rote learning, induces considerable stress, and is at odds with the learner-centric approach of the current Junior Cycle. In contrast, proponents argue that such declarative knowledge is important, stress would be induced irrespective of format due to it being the primary system of student entry to third-level education, and that it is fair (in terms of it being a standardised examination—not that students have equal opportunities in the years leading up to it). There are clear standards of performance in the Leaving Certificate, and these are very visible through openly available resources (examination papers, project briefs, and marking schemes—available at https://www.examinations.ie), but as this is likely to be reformed, at least in part, in the coming years, we will continue to focus on the new Junior Cycle. To focus initially on the purpose of the Junior Cycle, specifically it is governed by eight principles including: • • • • • • • •

Learning to learn Choice and flexibility Quality Creativity and innovation Engagement and participation Continuity and development Inclusive education Wellbeing.

The reform of the Junior Cycle (Department of Education & Skills, 2015) brought with it several significant changes in the approach to lower-secondary education. The Junior Cycle framework is intended to be more student-centred with an emphasis on key skills and the holistic development of the individual. Much consideration and scope is given to facilitating this by including a set of key skills that include: • Being literate • Communicating

224

• • • • • •

J. Buckley et al.

Working with others Being creative Being numerate Managing information and thinking Staying well Managing myself.

These skills are distilled through 24 Statements of Learning (SOL: Department of Education & Skills, 2015) to support teachers in developing these skills across all subject domains. This approach facilitates the implementation of the Junior Cycle framework where Statements of Learning are central to the objectives of the subject and its role in developing the holistic student. While Statements of Learning govern the focus of all subjects across the Junior Cycle, the suite of technology subjects link specifically to the following: • SOL 15: The student recognises the potential uses of mathematical knowledge, skills, and understanding in all areas of learning. • SOL 19: The student values the role and contribution of science and technology to society, and their personal, social, and global importance. • SOL 20: The student uses appropriate technologies in meeting a design challenge. • SOL 21: The student applies practical skills as she/he develops models and products using a variety of materials and technologies. • SOL 23: The student brings an idea from conception to realisation. • SOL 24: The student uses technology and digital media tools to learn, work, and think collaboratively and creatively in a responsible and ethical manner. (NCCA, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019, p. 6—emphasis added).

14.3 Contemporary Technology Education in Ireland One of the significant challenges within technology education is the breadth of activity, nature of knowledge and ways of knowing, and the significance of application and use cases. The STEL framework is effective in presenting the parameters of context, practices, and standards as interrelated elements that can be used to design, develop, and implement curricula intent. Within the Junior Cycle, the definition of subjects with bounded contexts is similar in definition to the STEL framework but has variance in approach. While the contexts are the starting point for designing and delivering the agenda of specific technological activities, the curricular intent is narrower in scope than that presented in the STEL guidelines as it is divided across the suite of four technology subjects. The approach to the treatment of context in Junior Cycle technology education is to create discrete subject offerings. However, the names of the subjects have been revised to better represent their evolution and current conception. Metalwork is now Engineering, Technology is renamed to Applied Technology, Graphics has dropped

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

225

Fig. 14.1 Junior Cycle technology subjects situated within the relevant statements of learning and key skills

“Technical” from its title, and the subtle name change in Materials Technology (Wood) to Wood Technology supports broader conceptions of the subject identities. All specifications aim “to strike a balance between exploring the breadth of possibilities the study of the subject presents and providing opportunities for in-depth experiences of particular areas as appropriate” (NCCA, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2019) bringing to the fore key aspects of the reform for technology education, increased teacher autonomy and flexibility, more emphasis on the curiosity and creativity of the student, explicit inclusion of design-based activities, and a change in the approach to assessment practices. Figure 14.1 represents a macro-level view, mapping the suite of subjects to the Junior Cycle framework.

14.4 Centrality of the Teacher and Learner Although there were several changes to this new Junior Cycle Framework, four are significant in the context of standards. 1. Teachers now assess their own students for formative evaluation. 2. Classroom-based Assessments were introduced as a formal assessment process.

226

J. Buckley et al.

3. Students all now study at a common level. 4. There is increased teacher autonomy to define treatment of specific topics. Traditionally, assessment in lower-secondary school was the purview of the State Examinations Commission, predominantly with a focus on summative measures. With the emphasis on the holistic development of the student, the Junior Cycle reform has included both teacher and State Examinations Commission assessment of student performance for the award of a Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA). Prior to the Junior Cycle reform, teachers have not assessed their own students for a national award, therefore this is a significant change in practice, and much consideration has been given to the development of assessment literacy and the definition of standards. The second significant change is the introduction of critical milestones in the students’ development, and these take the form of Classroom-based Assessments. Classroom-based Assessments are formative in nature and designed to support the individual in developing the key skills together with the subject competencies and capabilities. Classroom-based Assessments are conducted at critical developmental milestones and are an opportunity to provide formative feedback to the student, while also capturing a normative reference of the students’ current stage of development. Thirdly, subjects are now offered at a “common” level, and the delineation of ordinary and higher standards is removed. Traditionally, students could opt to study a subject at different levels according to their ability, ultimately taking different examinations with a clear distinction between higher and lower grades. Often in practice, these resulted in students producing different projects and doing different theory topics in the same class group. Usually, the level separations emerged in year 2 of the programme, with an explicit focus on preparing for the year 3 terminal assessments. Fourthly, and best considered with the reframing of the subjects, the increased autonomy of teachers to develop contextual treatments and application cases is a significant shift in the way the subject specifications are articulated. The explicit inclusion of design is a critical dimension to the changing nature and emphasis of the technological subjects, especially when considered from the perspective of developing key skills. The new and emerging challenge is how to assess technological goals that support a broad conception of capability and literacy at a common level. This is further complicated by encouraging teachers to embrace the freedom to navigate breadth and depth across relevant topics, while supporting the creative and designer’s endeavours of the individual. This sets a complex context for the determination of standards in technology education. There is a long tradition of effective use of standard setting and standard maintenance in Ireland, with the development of associated concepts such as features of quality. Features of quality are the guide for the developmental and formative assessment phase of the subjects, that help keep focus on the skills and attributes that students need to develop. This guide helps teachers and students maintain a focus on demonstrating their capability through the assessment architecture that is recorded through the Classroom-based Assessments and works towards the project brief and terminal exam. Supporting technology teachers to make appropriate determinations

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

227

on evidence that emerges from performance in technological education is guided by the following Features of Quality: • • • •

Research and analysis Knowledge and skills Reflection and evaluation Communication.

While each technology subject context mediates activity with a particular focus (e.g. Applied Technology will include mechatronics, while Wood Technology will have a greater focus on sustainability), evidence of the features of quality guides the activity, feedback, and direction of learning across all technology subjects for the Classroombased Assessments. While the standards of the project and examination are governed by the State Examinations Commissions, the basis for teacher judgement is formatively assessed to support student development on route to summative performance measures. Therefore, the function of the Classroom-based Assessments is formative and the feedback from the teacher more critically aligns with the summative indicators of standards. Learning and assessment activities that are designed and formatively assessed by the teacher and summatively assessed by the State Examinations Commission must align with the goals of technology education. Specific subject goals are presented within each subjects’ specifications; however, though a grounded theory methodology, Doyle (2020) presented a broader model of such goals which include the goals of: • Demonstrate knowledge and skills for application • Think in a technological way • Act in a technological way. Figure 14.2 illustrates the features of quality around and conceptions of the goals of technological education as presented by Doyle (2020). Importantly, Doyle’s work was not confined to technology education in Ireland, but is considered useful in this specific example nonetheless. Figure 14.2 therefore also presents abbreviated representations of the strands and elements of the Irish Junior Cycle technology subjects to provide context.

14.5 Implementation of Standards Through Assessment The Junior Cycle framework requires teachers to assess their own students’ work with a significant formative agenda. The implication of this being that the way standards are applied and interpreted needs particular support to focus on assessment weightings as an illustration of emphasis placed on different areas of learning across the subjects. This section will speak to the differences between the written, enacted, and assessment curriculum, building on how the written curriculum was framed previously.

228

J. Buckley et al.

Fig. 14.2 Features of quality mapped around Doyle’s (2020) theorised goals of technology education and the strands and elements (abbreviated) within the Junior Cycle technology subjects

To implement the Junior Cycle technology curricula, a set of specifications for each discrete technology context described above provides a guide for teachers and learners. The specifications outline the role and purpose of the subject and the nature of the assessment instruments to be used. A comprehensive set of learning outcomes provides guidance for teachers in relation to the scope and nature of the activity in the classroom. A key feature of the Junior Cycle reform is the increased teacher autonomy. Teachers have the discretion to select their own activities and project work to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The achievement of the learning outcomes is assessed through three main assessment activities. Performance in these assessments will be communicated through the Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement award. The three elements (Classroom-based Assessments, a project, and an examination) for each subject are presented in Table 14.1 including their weighting in terms of assessment. The introduction of Classroom-based Assessments emphasises the importance of formative assessment in supporting teaching and learning. In each subject, students undertake two Classroom-based Assessments facilitated by their teacher. One

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

229

Table 14.1 Weighting and elements of assessment for the technology subjects Subject

Assessment elements CBA (formative)

Project (summative) (%)

Exam (summative) (%)

Applied Technology

Formative

70

30

Engineering

Formative

70

30

Graphics

Formative

70

30

Wood technology

Formative

30

70

Classroom-based Assessment takes place in second year and a second Classroombased Assessment in third year. Classroom-based Assessments have been implemented to provide students with opportunities to demonstrate their understanding and skills in a way which would not be possible in a formal examination. To support teachers in this assessment task, a set of guidelines for the design and implementation of Classroom-based Assessments within each subject was created. Each Classroom-based Assessment activity has a 3-week period in which to be conducted and must be completed in class under the guidance/collaboration of the teacher and peers. The evidence of learning can be captured over this period using a learning log that can be in a format that best suits the learner or task. Examples of such modes of representation are written reports, video or slide presentations, poster presentations, podcasts, etc. Students are advised to focus on the features of quality set out for each subject and to demonstrate how their work over the 3-week period showcases their ability in each of the features. A particular purpose of the Classroombased Assessments is to facilitate developmental feedback to students during their engagement with the assessment task and at the end of the process. This provides opportunity for the learner and teacher to work on their strengths and weaknesses in preparation for the project and examination elements of the assessment. As indicated earlier in the chapter the Classroom-Based Assessments are evaluated by the class teacher with their overall judgement of the student performance being recorded for their Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement award. As of now, given how recent the introduction of Classroom-based Assessments are to technology education in Ireland, little is known about their actual efficacy on implementation and reactions from stakeholders (secondary-level students, teacher education students, teachers, etc.). However, these questions are the subject of a new research agenda with such insight thus forthcoming (Canty et al., 2021, 2022). Linking the skills that govern the Junior Cycle Framework with the objectives of subject specification makes visible the direction of learning and development. However, features of quality need to be interpreted in relation to standards. Canty et al. (2019) put forward a conceptual framework for progression (Fig. 14.3) synthesising the work of Jay and Johnson (2002) on reflective practice and Tosey, et al. (2011) on triple-looped learning to support teachers in classifying evidence of learning as “descriptive”, “comparative”, or “critical”. The proposed framework merges these

230

J. Buckley et al.

Fig. 14.3 Conceptual framework for progression in Classroom-based Assessments

characteristics of evidence with the standards references of “Exceptional”, “Above expectations”, “In line with expectations”, and “Yet to meet expectations” to support student development and progress. Critically, the model of progression illustrates the development over time with an intuitive expectation that the relative performance of the learner will develop as they progress from Classroom-based Assessment 1 to Classroom-based Assessment 2. This approach ensures an emphasis on formative feedback as a critical feature of the pedagogical underpinning to support the learning moving forward. In addition to the identification of evidence, it also supports the teacher in facilitating the transition from describing, comparing, and critiquing as central actions when engaged in technological and designer’s activity. On completion of the Classroom-based Assessment activity, the teacher has then to evaluate the level of achievement of their individual students in their class group. There are four levels of achievement that the teacher must decide on for each of their students. The descriptors of these levels and associated performance indicators are externally set by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and relate to each feature of quality. Teachers are required to make an “on-balance judgement” in relation to the student achievement. To help teachers with this process, Subject Learning and Assessment Review (SLAR) meetings are conducted to enable teachers to collaboratively reach consistency in their judgments of students’ work against the features of quality. The purpose of the Subject Learning and Assessment Review meetings is for teachers to engage in professional discussion in relation to assessment and to reflect on the quality of their own students’ work prior to making their judgments on their levels of performance. Through this dialogue by the group of teachers (it is recommended that a group of four subject teachers form the Subject Learning and Assessment Review meeting), it is expected that greater consistency of teacher judgement will emerge, better quality of feedback to students will be

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

231

provided, and that greater alignment between teacher judgments and the expected standards will be achieved. The outcome of the Classroom-based Assessment will be communicated to the student in a timely manner such that they can use the feedback to advance their learning. The outcome will also be recorded by the school for later inclusion in the students’ Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement award. The second element of the assessment infrastructure is the project element. This element will be specified and marked externally by the State Examinations Commission. Students engage with the project after the second Classroom-based Assessment is completed in the third year of the Junior Cycle. The brief for the project element is derived by the State Examinations Commission and includes a significant design component that supports the breadth of interpretation supported during the student’s development and aligning with the goals of technology education. The project element requires students to utilise and apply the knowledge and skills developed through the Classroom-based Assessment’s to produce a solution to the design challenge. While we are not in a position to share examples of work completed by students to these design challenges in this chapter as such work is the subject of formal national examination, the design briefs issues for each year are available from the State Examinations Commission website (https://www.examinations.ie). The project is accompanied by a design portfolio that communicates the design journey of the student throughout the design task. The practical and open-ended nature of the project facilitates the demonstration of key general and subject specific skills that cannot be assessed through written examination, further emphasising the formative and development role of the Classroom-based Assessment’s in moving the learner forward in the development of capability and literacy. The final element of assessment is the written examination that takes place at the end of the third year of the Junior Cycle during the summer examinations period. Each subject has a formal timetabled examination that is 90 min in duration and is set and delivered at a national level. The examination is set at a common level for all students taking the individual subject and is marked by the State Examinations Commission. The purpose of the examination is to establish the level of knowledge and understanding of the student within the subject discipline. The grade output for the examination is combined with the project element and recorded for the Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement award.

14.6 Concluding Comments It is well recognised that context is a significant variable in mediating the performance of students in technology education. Research by Kimbell et al. (1991) demonstrated that social, industrial, and environmental contexts elicit different performance from different student demographics. This evidence is significantly important when considering the role of technological education as a general education and the need to prepare active citizens that can fully engage with challenges that include equality, sustainability, security, and climate action.

232

J. Buckley et al.

Supporting the identification, implementation, and maintenance of standards is a contextual activity, and the role of teachers in developing a shared construct of capability is critically important. Allowing students to explore a breadth of activities, challenges, and application cases requires a clear understanding of standards. The Junior Cycle Framework and STEL provide a useful guide to support teachers in navigating the breadth of possibilities that emerge when supporting the idiosyncratic innovation and creative actions of students. Sustaining creative engagement in technology education is predicated on the valid, reliable, and consistent application of standards.

References Buckley, J. (2023). Historical and philosophical origins of technology education. In D. Gill, D. Irving-Bell, M. McLain, & D. Wooff (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of technology education: Perspectives and practice (pp. 14–27). Bloomsbury. Canty, D., Blom, N., Seery, N., Buckley, J., & Dunbar, R. (2022). Investigating student teacher assessment literacy development through an assessment as learning activity. PATT39: PATT on the Edge—Technology, Innovation and Education (pp. 544–561). Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Canty, D., Buckley, J., & Seery, N. (2019). Research paper on features of skills development in technology education. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Canty, D., Seery, N., Buckley, J., & Dunbar, R. (2021). A conceptual framework for the assessment of learning in technology classroom based assessments. Techne Series—Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 28(2), 213–220. Department of Education and Skills. (2015). Framework for Junior Cycle 2015. Department of Education and Skills. Doyle, A. (2020). Consolidating concepts of technology education: From rhetoric towards a potential reality [Doctoral thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology]. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn= urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-272837 ITEEA & CTETE. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: Defining the role of technology and engineering in STEM education (Pre-publication copy). International Technology and Engineering Educators Association and the Council on Technology and Engineering Education. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=175203&v=61c53622 Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, A., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. Schools Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information. NCCA. (2017). Background paper and brief for the review of Junior Cycle technology subjects. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. NCCA. (2018a). Junior Cycle applied technology. Department of Education and Skills. NCCA. (2018b). Junior Cycle engineering. Department of Education and Skills. NCCA. (2018c). Junior Cycle wood technology. Department of Education and Skills. NCCA. (2019). Junior Cycle graphics. Department of Education and Skills. Seery, N., Lynch, R., & Dunbar, R. (2011). A review of the nature, provision and progression of graphical education in Ireland. In E. Norman & N. Seery (Eds.), IDATER online conference: Graphicacy and modelling (pp. 51–68). Design Education Research Group. Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. (2011). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307.

14 Features of Quality and Assessment Standards in Newly Reformed Irish …

233

Jeffrey Buckley received his Ph.D. from KTH Royal Institute of Technology and is a lecturer in the Department of Technology Education at the Technological University of the Shannon: Midlands Midwest. He is currently the associate editor for the International Journal of Technology and Design Education. His main research interests relate to the role of spatial ability in learning in technology and engineering education, the use of Adaptive Comparative Judgement for educational assessment, and the credibility of technology education research. Niall Seery (B.Tech. (Ed), Ph.D.) is currently the chair of Technological Education at TUS, having served as the director of the Technological University Project and the vice president of Academic Affairs and Registrar before taking the role. He in a qualified teacher with a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. Niall spent 15 years as an academic in Teacher Education with a specialist interest in pedagogical practice. He has served as the director of studies at both undergraduate and master’s level. In 2010, Niall founded and continues to direct the Technology Education Research Group (www.TERG.ie), where he is still active in research development and mentorship. Donal Canty is a senior lecturer in Initial Teacher Education and the deputy head of the School of Education at the University of Limerick. He is qualified as a post-primary teacher and has eight years of classroom-based teaching experience. He is currently lecturing in Subjects Pedagogics at undergraduate and postgraduate levels in the University of Limerick. Donal is a director of the Technology Education Research Group (TERG) and has collaborated on national and international research studies. He has also consulted with the Department of Education and Skills in Ireland in relation to curriculum design and assessment.

Chapter 15

Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative European Collaborative STEM Project: Lessons from Ireland and Sweden Eva Hartell and Eamon Costello

Abstract This chapter will describe a project that aims to provide teachers and students with necessary and efficient digital assessment approaches for the development of students’ transversal skills in STEM education. These approaches were developed, implemented, and evaluated through large-scale classroom piloting, leading to policy recommendations at national and European level for the further transformation of education. This international project included partners from Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden and was co-funded by partners and the European Commission under its Erasmus+ KA3 Policy and Experimentation initiatives. The aim of this innovative policy experimentation project was twofold. On the one hand, to “know and explain” the process of implementing the Assessment of Transversal Skills (ATS) STEM program and, on the other hand, to “understand” how it works in different contexts (schools, classrooms, countries) and thus make suggestions for improvement. This chapter will attempt to provide an overview of the commonalities and differences among the national standards in the countries involved in the ATS STEM project and compare them to the context of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: Defining the Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education (STEL). Keywords STEM education · Technology education · Engineering education · Experimental

References: ATS STEM: http://www.atsstem.eu. E. Hartell (B) KTH Royal Institute of Technology & Haninge Municipality, Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] E. Costello DCU Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_15

235

236

E. Hartell and E. Costello

15.1 Introduction There are many frameworks that have been developed to try to comprehend STEM education as an emergent interdisciplinary area of study (McLoughlin et al., 2020). However, STEM as a unified entity never quite seems to achieve the goal of true integration. The individual disciplines that comprise STEM will perhaps always exert their independence. This centers around how the STEM disciplines can be integrated so that skills, competencies, values, pedagogies, theories, and practical constraints and technologies can all be accounted for in effective lesson planning and design. The ATS took integrated STEM, formative assessment, and digital tools as its starting point to develop a conceptual framework that could guide learning design to help solve real-world problems via authentic assessment. The European Commission does not regulate education, and it is accepted that control of public education is always left to individual countries. At the heart of European Union (EU) law is the intention to encourage “cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity” (EUR-Lex, 2008). Within European countries, different standards may apply even at regional levels. Many, but not all, European countries have federal structures. Despite this complexity, the European Commission is keen to develop and enhance critical skills, known as transversal skills, in students—particularly in areas such as STEM, which is one of its key priorities (Costello et al., 2020). The Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM (ATS STEM) project was developed with these aims in mind, bringing eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden) into this venture (https://www.atsstem.eu). STEM education has been given high priority by governments and education policy makers worldwide for many years because it is seen as crucial to future global economic prosperity and welfare. More recently, ecological sustainability has become an increasing priority for STEM education. The most important underlying assumption is that countries with dynamic economies tend to be the ones with effective education systems that prioritize STEM education. However, STEM is a contested concept. It is both ill-defined and context-specific, with different driving forces and limitations in different socio-political contexts. Many education systems face profound challenges in helping students understand how to solve real authentic problems using knowledge gained through STEM disciplines. The Erasmus+ innovative experimentation policy project ATS STEM is relevant to STEL because it is concerned with many of the same issues. It attempts to develop a rich and evidence-informed educational framework to improve educational outcomes in technical subjects. The translation from frameworks or standards to practice is a key challenge in education. For instance, in trying to compare and contrast the work of ATS STEM with that of the STEL standards, we can find that certain terms and concepts map well while others do not. For instance, STEL “benchmarks” can map to “learning outcomes” in our work. The STEL framework is comprehensive and

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

237

mature. By contrast, although our 36-month project was based on several in-depth reviews of best practices, our framework is necessarily not as comprehensive or broad in scope as the STEL framework. There is a higher level of detail and support that the STEL standards supply through lesson plans and other resources than we did, although we are currently developing a tool to help educators see a bigger database of examples of activities implemented. In the ATS STEM project, we had a relatively limited scope. In addition, we contended with the highly context-dependent nature of varied educational environments, systems, and languages, from sunlit playgrounds in Cyprus to the snows of Sweden. For example, in place of the 142 STEL benchmarks, our framework provides the tools for teachers to develop their own benchmarks (outcomes), acknowledging the complexity of the eight countries’ national educational curricula. Our focus was on explaining to teachers how to construct their own learning outcomes aligned with national policies and curricula using feedback based on best practices, in particular, and how to share and evaluate those outcomes via classroom conversations. We will next provide an overview of the ATS STEM theoretical framework that describes its standards.

15.2 Development of the ATS STEM Conceptual Framework A series of five reports were written after a desk-based research phase, to help provide a theoretical base from which the project could proceed. • Report #1: STEM Education in Schools: What Can We Learn from Research? (McLoughlin et al., 2020), which reviewed 79 publications and, in so doing, identified 243 specific STEM skills and competences, which were classified into eight core competences. • Report #3: Digital Formative Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM: A Review of Underlying Principles and Best Practice (Reynolds et al., 2020), which addressed two major themes: (1) the key ideas and principles underlying formative assessment theory and (2) the current state of the art with respect to how STEM digital formative assessment is conceptualized and leveraged to support learning of transversal skills. • Report #4: Virtual Learning Environments and Digital Tools for Implementing Formative Assessment of Transversal Skills in STEM (Szendey et al., 2020; see also Kaya-Capocci et al., 2022), which analyzed several frameworks for technology-enhanced learning and then outlined the potential of nine digital architectures to be used for formative assessment. • Report #5: Toward the ATS STEM Conceptual Framework (Butler et al., 2020), which drew on the first four reports and presented an integrated conceptual framework of standards for the assessment of transversal skills in STEM. This became

238

E. Hartell and E. Costello

Fig. 15.1 ATS STEM standards theoretical framework

a conceptual tool to help European educators reach a common understanding of what integrated STEM education is and how it can be assessed using digital tools in schools (see Fig. 15.1).

15.3 Translating Educational Standards We attempted to enact this theoretical framework with teachers in schools across European countries in the project. The regional and country differences in European education can be vast. Not only are we using an array of different languages but, even after translation to the project working language of English, it was still evident that great differences remain. For example, in Sweden, technical drawing is a part of a subject called technology (teknik) education. Technical drawing is a subset of this

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

239

subject that uses pencil and paper and digital tools to convey or communicate technological ideas. In Ireland, technical drawing has historically been a separate subject within the domain of technology education. In Sweden, computer programming is integrated into both technology education and mathematics. This technology education subject teknik runs through compulsory schooling (from year 1 to 9, for 7 to 16-year-olds) as a mandatory subject and is even mandatory with its own curriculum in special education schools. Whereas in Ireland, “coding” is an optional subject in the junior cycle of secondary school, while Computer Science has recently been introduced at senior cycle level. These are just two examples, and there are a myriad others within the European school context. Given the differences in educational systems, the project decided to align the project around learning outcomes that would solve real-world problems. These problems are universal and understandable in any language. Moreover, big problems require integrated approaches. We took the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as a basis (United Nations, 2015). These 17 global goals provided the project with a tangible basis for framing problems that were comprehensible to everyone and are already in use in many educational systems (Fig. 15.2). In the project, a structure was developed for lesson plans that would be designed together with teachers. All lesson plans would include two learning cycles and the embedding of digital formative assessment.

Fig. 15.2 UN Sustainable Development Goals

240

E. Hartell and E. Costello

15.4 Illustrative Examples of STEM Activities Within the ATS STEM Project Within the STEM disciplines, technology and engineering are two of the most contemporary and rich disciplines to prepare learners for the future. They are defined and enacted differently within different educational contexts, but, more importantly, they change rapidly as society changes; equally, they provide historical perspectives. To prepare students with critical skills for the future, technology and engineering education must occupy greater space and play a larger role in school to allow every boy and girl the opportunity to flourish, both for themselves and for society. Understanding, developing, and supporting this quest are challenging for schools, teachers, and researchers. Developing instruction is key, and bridging educational research and practice gives us greater potential to succeed. The STEL framework has contributed to enlarge the T and the E within STEM by providing a rich model of standards that are theoretically derived and can be practically implemented. In the ATS STEM project, the use of digital tools was embedded in all aspects of the project and students used a variety of digital tools such as Minecraft and practices such as design. To acknowledge the topic of this book, we have chosen two examples that particularly emphasize technology and engineering born from the ATS STEM framework and that feed into and connect with the STEL framework. Focusing into practice from theory and then widening out from practice to theory, we can unite around classroom activities using different frameworks. In this way, we learn from each other by trying on different lenses according to the two frameworks. We will illustrate some examples of practices in Irish and Swedish schools involved in the pilot research.

15.5 Examples from Irish Case Study Research The following case is drawn from an in-depth report on the field trials of the project that were conducted in Irish schools by a team of researchers comprising Dr Colette Kirwan, Dr Prajakta Girme, and Dr Eamon Costello. The research is covered in more detail in Kirwan et al. (2021). Our first case study was situated in a co-educational primary Catholic school of 177 pupils with a largely rural/semi-urban catchment area. The pupils and parents/guardians of the 6th class (final year of school, ages 12–13), together with their teacher, consented to be involved in this research. The case study involved 19 students aged 12–13. For the purposes of this research and of implementing the ATS STEM framework, they selected science, art, and history to integrate via STEM. This student project maps closely to STEL 7: Design in Technology and Engineering Education.

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

241

Teaching was conducted with these students over two learning cycles. In the first learning cycle, students designed a 2D Sensory Garden and an arch. The Sensory Garden was to be built on the school grounds during the summer of 2021. This task allowed students to contribute their ideas before the landscape designer and builder started the project. It was intended to give students input into a real-world problem and the chance to conceive of themselves as change-makers in their environment. The teacher used six ATS STEM frame learning design cards to help plan their lesson. These cards break up the ATS STEM conceptual framework into its consistent elements. They draw broadly on visual learning design methods, particularly for allowing teachers to talk about learning design and plan their teaching carefully. The cards identify the core steps outlined as important when designing a STEM task. Figure 15.3 shows cards titled “Real-World Contexts” as a learning design principle and starting card (“setting the context”) that the teacher completed. The cards scaffold teachers to consider the following elements in their lesson planning: Setting the Context, Core STEM Competences, Learning Outcomes and Success Criteria, STEM Learning Design Principles, Digital Formative Assessment, and STEM Task Details. The Digital Formative Assessment element of the framework gives teachers guiding prompts for selecting (digital) technologies for assessment. Key principles by which teachers can intentionally use digital tools for teaching are that they are “functional, flexible, practical and above all, useful in ensuring that formative assessment leads to improvements in learning” (Szendey et al., 2020, p. 17). The context for designing a 2D garden was UN Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3): Good Health and Well-being. This goal was chosen because it addressed the following topics from the Irish geography curriculum at primary school level: “A sense of space,” Using pictures, maps and models, “Human environments,” and “Natural/built environmental features and people.” The task of designing the sensory garden focused on two core STEM competences: Problem-solving and Innovation and Creativity. These “competencies” map to STEL “practices.” The elements of problem-solving that the students engaged with were gathering information, decision making, and finding solutions. The elements of innovation and creativity that they engaged in were using their imagination, coming up with new ideas, and physically creating something original. The learning outcomes and success criteria were defined at the outset. The learning outcomes were to research ideas for a sensory garden, measure the area of the garden, and finally design a 2D map of the gardens. The success criteria the teacher would check for were identified as students being able to identify at least three items for the sensory garden and produce a 2D draft plan to scale with the location of sensory items labeled. It should be noted here that there are parallels here with the STEL framework, for example, STEL-2L, create a new product that improves someone’s life; STEL-2M, differentiate between inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback in technological systems; and STEL-2N, illustrate how systems thinking involves considering relationships between every part, as well as how the system interacts with the environment in which it is used.

242 Fig. 15.3 STEM learning design prompt cards, setting the context card filled out by the teacher

E. Hartell and E. Costello

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

243

The online notice board tool Padlet was used by the teacher during online classes to (1) display learning outcomes, (2) focus students’ attention on ideas for the sensory garden, and (3) display student designs during class. The feedback and voting tool Mentimeter was used by the teacher to ask: How will we measure the space for the proposed sensory garden? The teacher had created a video of the proposed site for the sensory garden and shared with students. She described how she mixed asynchronous and synchronous tools to reach students: “Using Mentimeter, students answered it in their own time, because not all students attended the live online daily Zoom classes.” The teacher had intended for students to create 3D plans of the sensory garden using Minecraft. This was not possible after the COVID-19 lockdown, when school buildings were closed, and students were remote schooling. It was again planned for Learning Cycle 2 when schools reopened but was hampered by software configuration difficulties. Learning Cycle 2 became more “outdoor” focused, ensuring students spent more time outdoors during their school day following the COVID lockdown. During the implementation of Learning Cycle 1, the teacher found she needed to give students more direct instruction in the lesson, so she added a task “design an arch for the garden” to the next cycle. Learning Cycle 2 was concerned with students identifying native Irish trees and creating an eBook of the same. The identification process focused explicitly on bud identification because the activity took place in Spring 2021, when not many trees had leaves. The context for this STEM task was the UN SDG 15: Life on Land. Similar to Learning Cycle 1, the participant teacher completed six ATS STEM learning design cards. Figure 15.4 depicts the first card, “setting the context,” where teachers link their lesson to overarching goals. The Life on Land goal integrated the following STEM topics: “Observe, identify and examine plants that live in local habitats” and investigating the “Characteristics of Living Things.” The task of identifying native Irish trees focused on three core STEM competencies: problem-solving, collaboration, and disciplinary competencies. The elements of problem-solving that the students engaged with were gathering information, asking questions, and making decisions. The elements of collaboration concerned students working together to effectively communicate with each other and to take turns with the use of the iPads. This competence was particularly relevant, as students were just back into school after a three-month lockdown, and as part of COVID restrictions, students were placed in class bubbles and pods. The last competence concerned students’ use of technology, specifically the iPad. Students created an eBook on native trees, using the iPad and also a self-assessment rubricr. Mentimeter answers were given to tree identification questions and via a booklet quiz. The learning outcomes were defined as making a tree identification guide, gathering information via iPad/laptop, identifying native Irish trees around the school, working with others, and taking turns. The success criteria were how well children gathered information, asked questions, and made decisions as part of a group; and whether children used computers effectively to take photos and add them to Padlet/ Adobe webpage/Book Creator. Students used a variety of digital tools and associated assessment strategies. The Book Creator digital tool was used to create books online.

244

E. Hartell and E. Costello

Fig. 15.4 Setting the context ATS STEM learning design card

This tool allows the teacher to create a digital library where all students can store their books, thus allowing the teacher to show work in progress from each group to the class and enabling teacher and peer feedback.

15.6 Examples from Sweden Case Study Research The first example from the Swedish Case Study was an activity called “Is it in the Bin?” The context for this activity was students aged 10–12 years old learning in a multilingual school environment. The subjects included in this example are STEM, Swedish, Swedish as a second language, and English. Targeted skills that were formatively and digitally assessed during the project included communication skills, problem-solving skills, content knowledge, and meta-cognition. Defining a real-world problem related to SDGs, this project took its starting points from the students’ perspective and was a good example of how to keep your students’ attention in STEM. These 10–12-year-olds were very upset at how messy the recycling station near the school was. Two teachers seized the

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

245

learning opportunity and picked up their students’ interest and concern for this reallife problem. They were able to put the students’ concern into the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the ATS STEM framework. Sustainable development is emphasized in the Swedish national curriculum and in society, and something the students cared about. This project particularly focused on SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production and was structured in two learning cycles, as the ATS STEM framework suggests. The first learning cycle particularly focused on concepts and on content, putting it into the context of the real-world problem identified by the students. How to recycle? Where to put what waste and why? What are the different kinds of materials, such as plastics, that can be recycled? There was a lot of focus on vocabulary, both the academic vocabulary and the Swedish language in general, because the majority of the students here have Swedish as their second language. The multicultural school environment presented in this school deliberately supports learners in the Swedish language through these activities. The first learning cycle began by finding out students’ starting points on what they knew already about recycling. In small groups, students sorted pictures of different items of rubbish into pictures of different recycling bins. The students discussed how to recycle all the items and presented their conclusions to the whole group. Teachers elicited evidence of learning via different means of activities, e.g., playing memory (Fig. 15.5) and some additional online quizzes. These activities were all formative and done in groups, pairs, and individually. The teacher carefully monitored content and vocabulary and adapted the learning activities to meet students’ needs. The teacher also had to find ways to meet learners’ needs in terms of content and vocabulary. For example, students faced step-by-step more challenging sorting schemes; for example, eggs in a box could be considered either food waste or cardboard waste. One of the students’ tasks was to build up arguments for why it is important to recycle. They worked in small groups to complete a collaborative exercise of building a timeline showing how long it takes for different materials to degrade (e.g., glass, paper, chewing gum, etc.). One of these timelines is depicted in Fig. 15.6. Students discussed which materials took longer times to degrade than they expected, and which materials they didn’t previously know how long would take to degrade. Another activity was discussing the differences between living conditions and waste during the Stone Age and the present time. This discussion was based on an illustration of the huge extent of waste that people produce nowadays compared to during the Stone Age and aimed to open students’ eyes to how long certain materials take to break down and “disappear.” This discussion also fostered understanding of why it is important to recycle and sort materials. This was a real-world dilemma for the students, and some students had commented in class about littering at the local recycling stations. The second learning cycle focused on more practical observation and had a more inquiry-based approach in which students made observations of the local recycle station (Figs. 15.7 and 15.8). Through these observations, they were trying to understand the problem and find solutions to solve the problem with the messy recycle

246

E. Hartell and E. Costello

Fig. 15.5 Students learning concepts and how to recycle through play (photo credits ATS STEM Team Sweden)

Fig. 15.6 Timeline for degradation time for different materials ATS STEM Team Sweden

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

247

station. Students followed what happened at the recycling station every day for one week, documenting by photo what they observed, making annotations of their investigations, and discussing questions raised through this field work. The students themselves identified the need to inform the local community why recycling is important, not only to sort out the local problem with the mess at the recycle station but also to help residents understand the wider picture. They made posters on which they proposed suggestions on how to recycle better and how to avoid making a mess around the recycling stations. These posters were exhibited at the school library. The students were very proud of their work. On the same topic, they also wrote submissions to the local newspaper. By that the teachers did not only teach them about content they also provisioned them with tools on how to influence the local community by democratic means amplifying student voice. Not only by supporting them in their science and technology understanding but also in the language in general and give them tools on how to influence society fostering democratic citizens. The particular focus on digital tools gave a “boost” in confidence among the teachers involved as they previously were not so familiar in using digital tools in their teaching. Together with their students and support by the ATS STEM framework they found ways to include digital tools in their daily teaching where it supported learning. This was done by experimenting in a deliberate way.

Fig. 15.7 Students observing and documenting recycle stations

248

E. Hartell and E. Costello

Fig. 15.8 Students analyzing the waste found in the recycle station (photo credits ATS STEM ATS STEM Team Sweden)

Students continued to use the ATS STEM transversal skills vocabulary even after the project concluded. Student engagement and interest was high, particularly when engaging with nearby society about the messy recycling station. Below, we select four of the STEL benchmarks and give a short explanation of how each could be mapped to the project described above. The four benchmarks are as follows:

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

249

3–5

4I. Explain why responsible use of technology requires sustainable management of resources

9–12

4Q. Critique whether existing or proposed technologies use resources sustainably

3–5

5D. Determine factors that influence changes in a society’s technological systems or infrastructure

Pre-K-2

4D. Select ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle resources in daily life

For example, benchmark 4D under STEL 4, Impacts of Technology, indicates that at the Pre-K-2 level students should be able to “select ways to reduce, reuse, and recycle resources in daily life.” Because it provides students with content knowledge, this benchmark may support their understanding of the importance of recycling. A possible continuation of “Is it in the Bin?” is to have a follow-up where students find ways to reuse some of the garbage, they have just learned about how to recycle. Or they could learn more about the recycle chain of material (e.g., aluminum cans that become new cans or PET bottles that may become fleece shirts). The example has touched upon the importance of sustainable management of resources and its complexities, as addressed in benchmark 4I, which states that students should be able to “explain why responsible use of technology requires sustainable management of resources.” Importantly, this involves critiquing existing ways of handling resources sustainably, fostering students’ understanding of the complexity of this goal. “Is it in the Bin?” allowed students to reflect upon their own ecological footprint compared to their ancestors during the Stone Age, addressing benchmark 4Q: Critique whether existing or proposed technologies use resources sustainably. Lastly, giving the “voice” and democratic means to impact society and steer society in a more sustainable direction was something well met in our recycling example. Students became aware that today’s ways of handling the situation also may not be best. Therefore, schools must take an active part to foster life-long learning among today’s youth to keep people engaged with these issues, as clearly stated in STEL 4L and 4M, which state that in grades 6–8 (typically ranging in age from 11 to 14), students should be able to analyze how the creation and use of technologies consumes renewable and non-renewable resources and creates waste, as well as to devise strategies for reducing, reusing, and recycling waste caused from the creation and use of technology.

15.7 Conclusion Many education systems face profound challenges in helping students understand how to solve authentic problems using knowledge gained through STEM disciplines. The international research and development project described in this chapter may contribute to solving this issue. It has not been easy to facilitate the needs of students and teachers from eight countries; however, it has been easy to make sure every

250

E. Hartell and E. Costello

partner’s needs have been taken care of. We learned from each other in this project about our own systems and standards by explaining them to others. In a similar way, the STEL standards, even if they cannot be directly applied in another context such as Europe, can be valuable for generating conversations around education’s essential elements. Our project highlighted differences in emphases in the two overarching approaches and also found interesting commonalities. Both frameworks embrace environmental issues though in different ways. The ATS STEM framework orients all of the student work around an SDG goal, and it is arguable that there is more focus on these development goals of the 2030 agenda. Whether either framework gives greater or lesser environmental emphasis may be a moot point. The bigger question is: Does either framework do enough? The climate and ecological disasters that are unfolding are some of the most urgent issues we can tackle with our students. Technology is a means for fostering communication skills, not just the traditional technology/engineering communication skills such as technical drawing but, more importantly, educational support for content and subject domain specifics as well as generic and broader academic language. Having an inquiry-based approach to integrated STEM teaching may seem controversial in some contexts. However, this project has contributed to finding ways to raise students’ voices and concerns within an inquiry approach. How technology education may support student voice and language is not as prominent in STEL, and how technology may support student engagement for a better world is not as explicit as the route we took in the ATS STEM project due to the inquiry led nature of the projects. During peer review of this chapter, however, an expert in STEL pointed out that STEL is not a curriculum and that we should not compare activity examples with it. Indeed, this reviewer helpfully pointed out that our work may represent examples of how STEL benchmarks can be applied to support student engagement for a better world. In their seminal paper Why Minimal Guidance Does Not Work from 2006, Kirchner et al. critique inquiry-based learning approaches but also do not state they should not be used. Instead, and perhaps more importantly, they amplify the importance of providing students with agency to handle inquiry approaches, which is concurrent with Sjöberg (2019). None of these authors discredit hands-on-activities; instead, quite the opposite in emphasizing the importance of guidance and planning. The ATS STEM examples could be seen as a step toward providing students with tools necessary to conduct investigations and tools to suggest how to solve real-life problems like the messy recycling station in the vicinity of their school. Students were provisioned with opportunities to learn how to recycle (e.g., which material goes in which container) and also learned about how to write to local media or inform parents, at the same time increasing their academic vocabulary. Based on the results from the ATS STEM case studies, we found that by engaging students in real-life problem-solving, the students do not just reproduce facts. The choice of the content that comprised their learning in these activities focused on content that could build knowledge (i.e., that afforded students with tools to influence society). The students did not just reproduce existing solutions, they extended the solutions to new and novel contexts based on their own transfer and scaffolding of

15 Technology and Engineering Education Standards in an Innovative …

251

knowledge and problem-solving. Ultimately, it is our contention that this improved their means to be part of and influence their local communities and environments and hopefully, in time, wider society. We end by pointing out that this project was undertaken during the pandemic. Teachers in schools tackled the pandemic in different ways but also engaged in this project. We asked some teachers if they wanted to drop the project, and the response we got was that the support they found in the group was a relief amidst all the pain. We are deeply grateful for all their commitment and support and also grateful that the project proved useful to them in human terms beyond our core original research aims.

References Butler, D., McLoughlin, E., O’Leary, M., Kaya, S., Brown, M., & Costello, E. (2020). Towards the ATS STEM conceptual framework. ATS STEM Report #5. Dublin City University. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.3673559 Costello, E., Girme, P., McKnight, M., Brown, M., McLoughlin, E., & Kaya, S. (2020). Government responses to the challenge of STEM education: Case studies from Europe. ATS STEM Report #2. Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3673600 Kaya-Capocci, S., O’Leary, M., & Costello, E. (2022). Towards a framework to support the implementation of digital formative assessment in higher education. Education Sciences, 12(11), 823. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110823 Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1?needAccess=true& Kirwan, C., Girme, P., & Costello, E. (2021). National report for Ireland on field trials of assessment of transversal skills in STEM. Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.554316 McLoughlin, E., Butler, D., Kaya, S., & Costello, E. (2020). STEM education in schools: What can we learn from the research? ATS STEM Report #1. Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.3673728 Reynolds, K., O’Leary, M., Brown, M., & Costello, E. (2020). Digital formative assessment of transversal skills in STEM: A review of underlying principles and best practice. ATS STEM Report #3. Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3673365 Sjöberg, S. (2019). Critical perspectives on Inquiry-Based Science Education (IBSE) in Europe. Position Paper written for EUN Partnership, European Schoolnet Transforming Education in Europe, updated March 2019. https://www.academia.edu/38491758/Critical_Perspectives_on_ IBSE_Inquiry-Based_Science_Education_in_Europe_Sjoberg.pdf Szendey, O., O’Leary, M., Scully, C., Brown, M., & Costello, E. (2020). Virtual learning environments and digital tools for implementing formative assessment of transversal skills in STEM. ATS STEM Report #4. Dublin City University. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3674786 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations.

Eva Hartell is currently Head of Research in Haninge municipality and researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, in Sweden. Eva is involved in several national and international practitioner-based research and development projects, such as ATS STEM and K-ULF. She

252

E. Hartell and E. Costello

is working closely with teachers and schools with the purpose of bridging teaching and learning in general and primarily in STEM education. Eamon Costello has worked in industry and university settings for over 25 years. He is deeply curious about how we learn in different environments - online, offline and everywhere in between. He is also concerned with how we actively shape our world such that we can have more humane places in which to think, work, live and learn. He has published widely on a variety of topics including computing and STEM education; open, distance and online learning; critical edtech and social science fiction.

Chapter 16

The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education in Estonia Mart Soobik

Abstract In this chapter, I will discuss STEM teaching primarily from the perspective of Estonian education. STEM education is spreading in many countries around the world and is an important central topic in the field of education. STEM learning enables young people to link different subject areas and find diverse solutions to real-life problems. We need educated young people who will be able to succeed in developing smart and sustainable technological solutions in the world of work in the future. In the context of the Estonian curriculum of Technology Education, I will discuss the relationships with the elements of basic structure of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL). I will discuss STEM education, research, and the evolution of the STEM acronym and the application of the definition in Estonia. According to the results of PISA tests, the knowledge and skills of Estonian students in natural sciences are at the forefront of the world. Various ways of engaging students help to increase their interest in STEM studies, including relevant projects, events, and competitions. Numerous study activities, including international ones, take place in Estonian universities for university students, schoolchildren, and teachers alike, to bring new and fresh study solutions to school lessons, which are attractive to students and develop them technically and technologically. Keywords Technology education · STEM education · Curriculum development

16.1 Introduction All over the world, developed and developing countries see Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education as fundamental to a successful industrial base. Prowess in STEM education is the new educational arms race, and governments are prepared to invest heavily in it (Banks & Barlex, 2014). The acronym M. Soobik (B) University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_16

253

254

M. Soobik

STEM has also become ubiquitous in education, particularly in relation to educational initiatives in science and engineering education, broadly defined (Hallström & Ankiewicz, 2019). The increased call for people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations is an important reason for more people to study technology and engineering (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA], 2020). It is even more important for students to understand the interrelationship between these four areas. This will motivate them to explore individual areas later. STEM education must be comprehensive and complex, focus on real-life problems, and allow students to think for themselves (Villo & Kütt, 2021). People need to understand technology’s impacts on their lives, society, and the environment, as well as how to use and develop technological products, systems, and processes to extend human capabilities. These understandings are all important elements of technological and engineering literacy and have been addressed in a set of standards for STEM education, the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL; ITEEA, 2020). Dugger (2010) emphasised that validated content standards will properly reflect what every student needs to know and be able to do for them to be literate in technology and engineering. Literacy is a fluid construct, meaning that knowledge, skills, and abilities in a given field will change over time. One important defining feature of technological and engineering literacy is the emphasis on process and action, including designing and making. The purpose of STEL is to articulate the components of technological and engineering literacy (ITEEA, 2020). The STEM subjects are kept separate in most national curriculum documents around the world but with common links at a range of levels, and with at least a nod to relevance in the “real world” and to vocational usefulness (Banks & Barlex, 2014). In the real world, problems cannot be solved by experts in just one discipline, such as mathematics or chemistry; they require interdisciplinary teams to work towards solutions (Rennie et al., 2012). Integrating concepts, topics, standards, and assessments is a powerful way to disrupt the typical course of events for our students. When we open the doors to the outside world and place integrative practices into our cycles of teaching and learning, we can finally remove the brick walls and classroom doors to get at the heart of learning (Institute for Arts Integration and STEAM, 2022). Dugger (2010) mentioned three ways STEM education can be implemented in schools: (a) teach each of the four STEM disciplines individually, teaching each discipline as an independent subject with little or no integration; (b) teach all of the four STEM disciplines, but with more emphasis on one or two of the four; and (c) integrate one of the STEM disciplines into the other three being taught (e.g. engineering content can be integrated into science, technology, and mathematics courses). Hobbs et al. (2018) revealed four different models of STEM implementation based on the discipline (four STEM disciplines were taught separately; teaching all four but more emphasis on one or two; integration at least three disciplines; the integration of all four subjects by a teacher). Kubat and Guray (2018) believed that these four disciplines should be taught holistically as an undistinguished collective, rather than teaching the four disciplines independently.

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

255

A more comprehensive approach is to infuse all four disciplines into each other and teach them as an integrated subject. There are a multitude of delivery models and teaching strategies that can be used in teaching STEM. Unfortunately, more work needs to be done that probes which model or strategy works best in each school or community (Dugger, 2010). Schools have the role to prepare students for an unpredictable world in which there are interdisciplinary professions, and teamwork is crucial for problem-solving, initiating innovative ideas, and implementing them. Effective integrative STEM education could increase students’ understanding of how things work, improve their understanding, and use of technologies, and develop their innovation and problem-solving abilities (Dagan et al., 2019). To date, STEM subjects are generally taught in the Estonian school system as separate subjects. However, there are schools in Estonia where different subjects are interconnected, such as science and robotics. Modern STEM education should consist of relevant learning content that focuses on technology- and engineeringbased learning and incorporates elements of science and mathematics (Villo & Kütt, 2021). The key challenge of the twenty-first century is to make smart content choices for the curriculum that meet the educational demands of society (Läänemets, 2021, p. 41).

16.2 Technology Education Curriculum in Estonia Technology Education has moved away from Craft and towards Technology with the aim being to increase students’ technological abilities. In the restored Republic of Estonia, three national curricula for basic schools and upper secondary schools have, to this day, been adopted (in 1996, 2002, and 2010), which all brought about changes in the objectives and content of the subject of Craft and Technology Education. Estonian curricula can be called framework curricula, meaning that they give tips on how to develop school curricula (Krull, 2009). After several working versions, a consensual syllabus of Technology Education (TE) was developed (2010), and for the first time in the history of curricula in Estonia, TE has become a compulsory subject for both boys and girls. In September 2010, schools adopted the National Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools (NC), which was complemented to some extent and newly adopted on 6 January 2011 Vabariigi Valitsus (2011a). The NC includes the subject field Technology. Since 2011, the NC has been upgraded many times, which grants students a larger number of options than before, including co-learning possibilities for boys and girls as well as project work and exchange between study groups. These principles were introduced into the new subject syllabus to give boys and girls an early chance to get used to learning and working together (i.e. collaboratively) to solve real tasks in lessons. Doing things together enables boys and girls to experience different patterns of thinking and to practise cooperation.

256

M. Soobik

There are a number of keywords presented as new in the learning objectives of the most recent syllabus (e.g. technological literacy, cooperation skills, multicultural world, globalism, and analysing the influences of technology). The syllabus handles the educational objectives of TE in a broader and a more global way. The educational objectives, learning outcomes, and content are similar in its elements to the basic structure of STEL (core, practises, contexts; ITEEA, 2020). There are also some common elements with the STEL (e.g. creativity, cooperation, communication, impacts of technology, etc.). The essence of TE is to develop analytical thinking and technical understanding by problem-solving in school lessons, to promote creativity by designing objects, and to develop manual skills through practical preparation of artefacts (Soobik, 2011). Integration between students’ wishes and TE enables them to acquire elementary technological literacy, which may help them to cope with the rapidly developing technology in the modern world. The aim of TE is to raise future citizens, whose technical intelligence and personal attitudes allow them to cope with technological procedures at home, at work, and at leisure. In the NC, subjects have been divided into six fields, one of which is the field of Technology (in Estonian, “tehnoloogia ainevaldkond”), which includes the following subjects (syllabi): Handicraft (in Estonian, “tööõpetus”); TE (in Estonian, “tehnoloogiaõpetus”); and Handicraft and Home Economics (HHE) (in Estonian, “käsitöö ja kodundus”). The field outlines technological competence, the subjects, the volumes and integration of the subjects, the description, the development of general competencies, and the integration and recurring topics. The subject syllabi describe the learning and educational objectives of relevant subjects, learning activities, physical learning environment, assessment, learning outcomes, and content. The study content and study results are elicited for different school stages of study. In the field of Technology, the NC for basic schools in Estonia stressed the following: As a part of the study process, students generate ideas, plan, model, and prepare objects/ products and learn how to present these. Students’ initiative, entrepreneurial spirit, and creativity are supported, and they learn to appreciate an economic and healthy lifestyle. Learning takes place in a positive environment, where students’ diligence and development are recognised in every way. Teaching develops their skills in working and cooperating, as well as their critical thinking and the ability to analyse and evaluate. (SFT, 2011, p. 3)

Handicraft is taught in Years 1 to 3 to girls and boys together (4.5 h a study week at the first school stage). At the 2nd school stage of studies, the students are divided into study groups based on their wishes and interests, selecting either HHE (mostly girls, in Years 4 to 9; 5 h a study week at the second stage and 5 h a week at the third stage) or TE (mostly boys, in Years 4 to 9; 5 h a study week at the second stage and 5 h a week at the third stage). For example, in Years 4 and 9, this equates to 1 h a week throughout the academic year, or a double lesson a week during a half of the school year, with a total workload of 35 h. In Years 5 through 8, students spend 2 h a week, with a total workload of 70 h). This allows students to study, in greater detail, the subject that they are interested in. The division into study groups enrolment is not restricted based on gender (SFT, 2011). The aim is to give both boys and girls an opportunity to choose the subject suitable for them, either TE or HHE, which will be their main subject. Every year, more and more girls choose the TE group;

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

257

therefore, the number of students in the HHE groups is decreasing; however, there are two groups in schools. With both subjects, there is a compulsory exchange of the subjects every year for about eight lessons or four weeks, two lessons at a time. In addition, every year, project-based learning supervised by both teachers is conducted for about 25% of the lesson time a year. In the process of project-based learning, students can choose between two or more simultaneously on-going elective topics or subject-based projects. The elective topics and projects cover both TE and HHE. The projects in these classes can be integrated with projects in other subjects or projects conducted between different classes as well as with school-wide and longer-term events between schools. Projects are selected based on local traditions, innovative or traditional processing methods, and interest in in-depth dealing with certain topics. The area of project work represents an independent unit, which does not require previous topic-related skills or knowledge from students. Figure 16.1 describes the choices of Year 4 to 9 students between TE and HHE in the subject field of Technology. The actual TE part forms approximately 65% of the total duration, HHE 10%, and project work 25% (SFT, 2011). The teacher decides how to arrange these parts during the school year in cooperation with the HHE teacher. The teaching focuses largely on students’ purposeful and creative innovation, where along with the joy of discovery, they experience creating a selected product, from idea to product. The content of TE has five subskills: technology in everyday life; design and technical drawing; materials and processing; home economics (study groups are exchanged); and project work (girls and boys together). For example, in Year 3, the subskill of technology in everyday life includes the following content topics: (a)

Fig. 16.1 Students’ choices in the subject field of technology

258

M. Soobik

analysing technology: positive and negative effects; (b) ethical beliefs in the application of technology; (c) information and communication technology (d) agricultural, medical, and biotechnology; (e) economical consumption of resources; (f) the world of work and work planning; (g) raw materials and production; and (h) future perspectives of the technological world. This content is similar in its elements to the basic structure of STEL with its contexts, practices, and core standards (ITEEA, 2020). The 2011 syllabus of subject field Technology for comprehensive schools outlined that the subjects of the field allow students to acquire knowledge, skills, and values based on traditional and modern technology and to become aware of the ways of thinking, ideals, and values of contemporary society. Students learn to cope in today’s rapidly changing technological world, bearing in mind the tenets of sustainable development (SFT, 2011). Students learn to understand and analyse the essence of technology and its role in the development of society, and they are guided towards making connections between thinking processes and manual activity and understanding the association between knowledge acquired at school and the physical and social environment that surrounds them (SFT, 2011). TE studies are increasingly being integrated with different subject areas and materials. For example, computer-based programmes are used in the study for drawing, making models, and controlling machine tools, including 3D printing, CNC machine tools, and laser machine tools. Microcontrollers, electronics, and robotics might be featured. Efforts are made to connect learning with real-life problem-solving and inquiry-based learning (Pedaste et al., 2015). The TE curriculum is implemented flexibly in schools and students’ learning outcomes can be acquired in several ways, depending on local opportunities. Versatility and, in a certain sense, freedom have created a situation where the TE curriculum is implemented in schools in different and unique ways, and it is considered a strong component of curricula in Estonia.

16.3 STEM Education and Research in Estonia STEM education began to spread in Estonia in the early 2000s. Guidance was sought in the book published by the International Technology Education Association, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (International Technology Education Association [ITEA], 2000). For us Estonians, this was a novel approach to learning that integrated subjects, and it served as inspiring material for teaching. We interacted with Dr. William E. Dugger and received his permission to translate the book into Estonian. The American publication was translated in 2007 (Soobik, 2007). The Estonian version is a paper edition, identical to the original source, including the structure and illustrations, and the page numbers for the content. The book is available to teachers through the Estonian Association for Technology Education, and the corresponding textbook link https://tehnoloogia.ee/opik/ is also available on our Website. TE teachers are familiar with this book, and several teachers are implementing the standards of the book in their teaching.

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

259

Increasingly more often, the letter A is added to the acronym STEM, signifying the use of creativity and teamwork skills, for example, in problem-based learning. In Estonia, TE would support all this, but the insufficient training of teachers to use such teaching methods tends to be an obstacle (Rajavee & Himma, 2018). Although the name STEM has been used in Estonia for a long time, an Estonian version of the term has also been sought. In 2019, a competition was organised to find a beautiful and accurate Estonian word instead of the acronym STEM/STEAM. The competition proved very popular: over 200 words were submitted. The winner was the linguistically convenient and easy MATIK, which represents practical training based on five fields and successfully combines mathematics, science, technology, engineering, and arts. Such learning is becoming more and more important, and the first exposure to this field is already given in kindergarten, which is another reason why an exact match for an unfamiliar expression was sought in Estonian (Education Information Technology Foundation, 2019). Because the term MATIK is quite new, it has not yet taken root amongst the teaching staff, and time will tell whether Estonia will stick to STEM/STEAM or MATIK. In the European ranking of the PISA 2018 survey, Estonia’s 15-year-olds hold the first position in reading, mathematics, and science. At the world level, our students are fifth in reading, eighth in mathematics, and fourth in sciences (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2019). Estonia is one of the five countries in the world where students have been able to show improved results in two areas. Given the statistical significance of the difference in results, Estonia shared 4th to 5th place in the world with Japan in sciences and ranked first amongst OECD countries. Estonia is also number one amongst European countries (Tire et al., 2019). In Estonia, 12% of students were top performers in science, meaning that they were proficient at Level 5 or 6 (OECD average: 7%). These students can creatively and autonomously apply their knowledge of and about science to a wide variety of situations, including unfamiliar ones (OECD, 2019). The Baltic Research Institute conducted a survey titled Mapping and Analysis of Activities on of STEM popularisation amongst Estonian general education students, as well as how the Popularising Science and Technology, the aim of which was to get an overview of the current situation of STEM popularisation amongst Estonian general education students and how the popularisation progressed in the years 2013– 2018 (Baltic Research Institute [BUI], 2019). The summary of the results revealed a need to increase the attractiveness of the teaching and supervising professions and to strengthen the skills of active and practical teaching of subjects at degree level and in in-service training. Studying Technology Education is not popular after basic and secondary education, and few students choose a professional career in this field (CITE). The main reason given by respondents was lack of interest, which is probably due to general ignorance of the field, the difficulty of the studies, and insufficient skills. Of the representatives of the schools which responded to the survey, 67% also agreed with the statement that the low career awareness of young people is due to the popularisation of STEM instruction starting too late. The largest number of events popularising STEM are held in the field of robotics (87%) and Technology Education (53%) (BUI, 2019).

260

M. Soobik

In basic school, practical hands-on learning is important. The areas with the largest practical share in Estonian schools are electrical engineering, mechanics, and Technology Education. The need for STEM activities is still high: only 8% of school representatives responded that the coverage of target groups with various “STEM” activities was sufficient. The study revealed that about 60% of the popularisation of the interest was hindered by the density and rigidity of the curriculum, its weak connection to daily life, and the complexity of reorganisation of studies. The initiative of teachers as important in choosing popularisation activities was identified by 80% of school representatives. The cooperation survey revealed that cooperation between basic and upper secondary education and universities was considered important, with just 28% of basic schools and 66% of upper secondary schools cooperating with universities. The analysis of the project reports showed that creating interest in sciences was important for 52% of respondents and maintaining interest for only 20% of respondents (BUI, 2019). Estonia participates in the international Lab4STEM project, which is funded by the European Union’s ERASMUS+ programme. The project ran from October 2020 to November 2022 and involved partners from Latvia and Lithuania, resulting in accessible training materials on STEM subjects and high-quality handbooks for teachers (Kütt, 2021). The aim of the international project Lab4STEM is to popularise STEM subjects and produce state-of-the-art teaching materials for both students and teachers (Kütt, 2021). In the first stage of the project, a survey was conducted amongst students and teachers of grades 7 to 9 from selected Estonian schools. The aim was to find out what the current state of STEM subjects is in schools and what teaching materials teachers and students need. The survey found that many schools lack modern and interesting STEM teaching aids. Over 93% of Estonian teachers share the opinion that it would be better to teach STEM subjects if they could use modern technology in the class. Similarly, teachers think that it would facilitate learning if more business representatives and employees visited schools to tell students about their profession (Kütt, 2021). Along with emphasising the role of a (good) teacher, the shortage of teachers in STEM fields, and therefore the overload of few active teachers and the low number of new teachers, are considered worrying (Mets & Viia, 2018). In a 2017 study titled “change in the levels of students’ science literacy during upper secondary education,” Estonian educational researchers found that the level of science literacy of students improves minimally over the period of upper secondary school. The results of students in the 10th and 12th grades are similar in terms of the reproduction of subject knowledge, higher levels of cognitive skills, understanding the nature of science, self-evaluation, and the use of concept cards. The researchers found that the education system focuses on the teaching and assessment of reproducible knowledge, and the development of students’ cognitive skills (problemsolving, use of interdisciplinary knowledge, decision-making) is low (Rannikmäe et al., 2017). At the end of 2021, the Government of the Republic of Estonia approved the Development Plan for Education 2021–2035 (Ministry of Education and Research

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

261

[ME], 2021), which also includes STEM learning. The plan notes that to increase the effectiveness of learning and to continue to support the development of the learner, the principles of modern learning and teaching must be followed in the development and implementation of curricula and the assessment of learners, and smart learning materials and methodologies must be developed. To do this, it is necessary: to provide all people with more exposure to the world of work and opportunities to participate in civil society during their studies, by providing more practical vocational and technological skills from basic education onwards and by creating opportunities for civic participation, including through the integration of formal and non-formal learning; to encourage the practical teaching of science and technology subjects in general education and to expand the integrated learning of science and technology and creative subjects in order to develop creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking in learners. (ME, 2021, p. 21)

The development of skills that create greater added value will be encouraged and opportunities for in-service training and retraining will be expanded, including workbased learning, to respond quickly to the development needs of the world of work and to provide all Estonians with the necessary skills and knowledge in sciences and technology required in the labour market (ME, 2021, p. 27). The above-mentioned studies and documents point at bottlenecks in the Estonian education system and the solutions to make the interdisciplinary integration of science, engineering, and TE in schools more effective so that it would evolve into STEAM education.

16.4 Using STEM Elements to Train Teachers at Estonian Universities At Estonian universities, teachers are trained at the master’s level, preceded by a bachelor’s degree. At the University of Tartu, the master’s level basic school TE teacher training course runs over two years in the form of study sessions. TE teachers are trained within the Arts and Technology Teacher curriculum. In the subject “Didactics of Technology Education,” we discuss the book of technological literacy standards, and in the subject “Man and Technology,” students are required to familiarise themselves with and learn the material from the book of technological literacy standards (Soobik, 2007). The postgraduate students must write a longer assignment based on the standards 14–20 of the book on a topic that they could introduce to their pupils at schools later and thus improve the pupils’ knowledge about the world of technology. At the Tallinn University of Technology, the master’s level training course for technology teachers is primarily aimed at training technology teachers for upper secondary schools. Voluminous study material titled “Engineering Pedagogy: Effective Teaching and Learning of STEM Subjects” (Rüütmann, 2019) has been compiled for the students. This study material is designed for those who want to use the principles of engineering pedagogy and STEM didactics in teaching STEM subjects and

262

M. Soobik

apply modernised teaching methods in their work. The handbook consists of two parts. The first deals with the basics of engineering pedagogy and STEM didactics, and the second part deals with the didactics of laboratory teaching and the teaching methodology in the field of STEM. The Tallinn University programme conducts various projects and training sessions for school teachers related to MATIK studies. They are also involved in the international project “Upgrading Pre- and In-Service Teachers’ Digital Skills With Online STEAM Hands-on Training Modules,” which aims to create digital a competence assessment model for STEAM learning; learning modules for the development of STEAM competencies amongst primary, basic, and secondary education teachers; an open repository of study materials and a virtual STEAM laboratory for submitting study materials; and a guide for using the materials (Eduspace, 2022). The project’s focus is on improving the digital skills of pre- and in-service teachers in early childhood, primary, and secondary schools. The STEAM development project aims to guide European schools in improving the existing STEAM approaches; to guide young Europeans in their interest, skills, and careers in mathematics, science, engineering, and technology; and to provide schools with the necessary basis to engage their students, teachers, and other members of the community into STEAM-related activities by developing an appropriate STEAM school strategy. By providing adequate guidance and supporting innovative activities developed at the national level, the project will expand the network of STEAM schools to include not only teachers and administrators but also other stakeholders, such as STEAM research and non-formal education centres (Tallinn University School of Digital Technologies, 2022). The Tallinn University training courses for teachers include, for example, “Design and Research of the Learning Process in Natural and Technological Subjects” (Tallinn University, 2022), which focuses on teaching the EDUlab method as part of an innovation laboratory type university partnership programme where university lecturers mentor the designing, testing, and research of new STEAM methods (e.g. exploratory learning with sensors, interdisciplinary integration, and similar methods that support the changed approach to learning and the use of technology). The Tallinn University of Technology (TalTech) and the Estonian Academy of Arts (EAA) started a joint training programme “Engineer of the Future” (TID) in November 2021, where talented pupils in grades 9–12 from all over Estonia were expected to participate. Together with mentors, young people sought problem-based answers to the questions of what engineering and arts-related professions are needed for, what their roles are, and how engineers and designers complement each other in their product development. In this project, TalTech and EAA combined engineering knowledge and skills with creativity, meaning, and user-centredness. The broader theme of the project was climate change and its impact on society, which resulted in real prototypes of new opportunities to deal with the climate crisis. From the young people participating in the programme, the facilitators expected creativity and the courage to experiment with ideas that may seem crazy at first. The modules of the

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

263

programme were formulated as questions: Who creates the world of the future? How to get to the other shore? How to get food? How to learn in a changing climate? (Tallinn University of Technology, 2021). Thus, Estonian universities are actively involved in the promotion and development of STEM learning, trying to connect this learning mostly with robotics and other newer technological possibilities.

16.5 Conclusion In the twenty-first century, we are increasingly moving towards a sustainable world, where limiting consumption, using green energy, saving resources, and finding smart solutions are the key words. On this path, it is important to prepare students in schools through STEAM learning and to create opportunities for students to use integration with other subjects, in particular STEAM subjects, in their learning, and to integrate the views and elements of STEL into learning. Science, mathematics, and engineering can be used very well in TE classes, which focus on integration with other subjects and practical output in the form of a product or innovative solution. Teachers need to be able to understand and use modern solutions and opportunities for teaching TE, considering problem-oriented and inquirybased learning to solve real-life situations. This requires the teacher’s continuous professional development and in-service training, as well as the wise application of acquired knowledge in teaching. Although according to PISA tests, Estonian students are amongst the top in terms of content knowledge, there is still a need to provide students with an opportunity to participate in creative activities from the start of basic school to allow them to continue to develop their creative thinking and foster the advancement of relevant educational activities. It is the skills of solving various real-life problem situations that are necessary in the future world of work, and these need to be practised in schoolwork. Guidance for the implementation of STEAM education comes from the universities through their training courses for teachers, subject associations providing in-service training, and the exchange of teachers’ best experience in solving essential real-life problems with the help of the latest technological solutions and innovative equipment. Teachers need to get accustomed to the need to constantly develop and improve themselves and to be aware of new approaches based on the latest scientific knowledge and proven methods, which may enhance students’ technological literacy. Various projects, events, and competitions are useful challenges for teachers and students to come up with new ideas and exciting solutions and thus to develop students’ technological literacy. It would be useful to translate STEL into Estonian, so that Estonian teachers can also become familiar with technological and engineering literacy. However, this requires appropriate project funding.

264

M. Soobik

The development of subjects needs to be based on the development of a systematic curriculum in which an independent and professional institution prepares a comprehensive and well-considered solution that does not depend on corporate and politicised interests but rather on necessary and wise content choices that meet society’s educational demands. STEL is a unique and effective educational material, tool, for learning in the field of technology and engineering and for its wide application in Estonian schools as well. The STEL contains a lot of necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities and is therefore a very good study material for use in teaching. We need to pay more attention to the skilful use and promotion of STEL, so that the interest, awareness, and desire of young people to learn about technology and the field of technology and engineering will increase. In the future, we need young people who can make well-thought-out original and effective and sustainable solutions. The future of STEL depends on the cooperation and readiness of institutions, teachers, and opinion leaders to develop and promote the subject in accordance with the established global principles and standpoints inherent in STEL.

References Balti Uuringute Instituut [Baltic Studies Institute] [BUI]. (2019). Teadust ja tehnoloogiat populariseerivate tegevuste kaardistamine ja analüüs. Uuringute analüüs 2019 [Mapping and analysis of activities promoting science and technology. Research analysis 2019]. Balti Uuringute Instituut. https://www.etag.ee/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Teadust-ja-tehnoloogiatpopulariseerivate-tegevuste-kaardistamine-ja-anal%C3%BC%C3%BCs.pdf Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. Routledge. Dagan, O., Ragoins, N., Wagner, T., & Goldman, D. (2019). Integrative STEM education—A new M.Ed. program: Development, objectives, and challenges. In S. Pulé, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings PATT 37: Developing a Knowledge Economy Through Technology and Engineering Education (pp. 125–132). University of Malta. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. Eduspace. (2022). https://eduspace.tlu.ee/en/steamupgrade/ Hallström, J., & Ankiewicz, P. (2019). Laying down the “T” and “E” in STEM education: Design as the basis of an integrated STEM philosophy. In S. Pulé & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings PATT 37: Developing a Knowledge Economy Through Technology and Engineering Education (pp. 187–194). University of Malta. Hariduse Infotehnoloogia Sihtasutus [Information Technology Foundation for Education]. (2019, October 19). Sõnause tulemused teada: uus STEAM on MATIK [The results of the sentence are known: the new STEAM is MATIK]. https://www.hitsa.ee/uudised-1/sonause-tulemused-teada Hobbs, L., Clark, J. C., & Plant, B. (2018). Successful students—STEM program: Teacher learning through a multifaceted vision for STEM education. In R. Jorgensen, & K. Larkin (Eds.), STEM education in junior secondary (pp. 133–168). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-544 8-8_8 International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Author.

16 The Impacts and Relationship of STEL and Technology Education …

265

International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: Defining the role of technology and engineering in STEM education [STEL]. https://www.iteea.org/stel.aspx Krull, E. (2009). Õppekavaülesed ideed Eesti õppekavades [Broader ideas in the curricula of Estonia]. Haridus, 11–12, 34–41. Kubat, U., & Guray, E. (2018). To STEM or not to STEM? That is not the question. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(3), 388–399. Kütt, K. (2021, February 19). Baltimaade ühisprojekt uurib STEM-õpet Eestis [A joint Baltic project investigates STEM education in Estonia]. Õpetajate Leht. https://opleht.ee/2021/02/toomaailmvajab-integreeritud-stem-haridusega-spetsialiste/ Läänemets, U. (2021). Ratio Studiorum: Õppekavadest ja kuidas korraldada kooliharidust [Ratio Studiorum: About curricula and how to organize school education]. Kirjastus Avita. Mets, U., & Viia, A. (2018). Tulevikuvaade tööjõu- ja oskuste vajadusele: haridus ja teadus [Perspectives on labor and skills needs: education and research]. SA Kutsekoda. http://oska.kut sekoda.ee/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/OSKA-Hariduse-ja-teaduse-uuringuaruanne-2018.pdf Ministry of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia [ME]. (2021, November). Haridusvaldkonna arengukava 2021–2035 [Education Strategy 2021–2035]. Ministry of Education and Research of the Republic of Estonia. https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/haridusvaldkonna_a rengukava_2035_kinnitatud_vv.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2019). Country note: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Result Form Pisa 2018 (Vols. I–III). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_EST.pdf Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zachariac, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edu rev.2015.02.003 Rajavee, A., & Himma, M. (2018, April 13). STEM ained muutuvad STEAMiks, kuid Eestis takistab arengut õpetajate väljaõpe [STEM subjects become STEAM, but teacher training in Estonia hinders development]. Eesti Rahvusringhääling [Estonian Public Broadcasting]. https://novaator.err.ee/747709/stem-ained-muutuvad-steamiks-kuid-ees tis-takistab-arengut-opetajate-valjaope Rannikmäe, M., Soobard, R., Reiska, P., Rannikmäe, A., & Holbrook, J. (2017). Õpilaste loodusteadusliku kirjaoskuse tasemete muutus gümnaasiumiõpingute jooksul [Changes in students’ science literacy levels during upper secondary education]. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 5(1), 59–98. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2017.5.1.03 Rennie, L., Venville, G., & Wallace, J. (2012). Preface. In L. Rennie, G. Venville, & J. Wallace (Eds.), Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Issues, reflections, and ways forward. Teaching and Learning in Science Series (p. vii). Routledge. Rüütmann, T. (2019). Inseneripedagoogika. STEM valdkonna õppeainete mõjus õpetamine ja õppimine [Engineering pedagogy. Effective teaching and learning of STEM subjects]. I osa. Teine, uuendatud trükk. TTÜ kirjastus. Aura trükk. Soobik, M. (Ed.). (2007). Tehnoloogilise kirjaoskuse standard: tehnoloogiaõppe sisu [Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology]. Eesti Tehnoloogiakasvatuse Liit. Soobik, M. (2011). Tehnoloogia muudab maailma [Technology changes the world]. In M. Soobik (Ed.), Tehnoloogia ja loovus [Technology and creativity] (pp. 13–17). MTÜ Eesti Tehnoloogiakasvatuse Liit. Tallinna Tehnikaülikool [Tallinn University of Technology]. (2021, November 12). Tallinna Tehnikaülikool ja Eesti Kunstiakadeemia ootavad andekaid noori ühiselt loodud koolitusprogrammi [Tallinn University of Technology and the Estonian Academy of Arts are waiting for a jointly created training program for talented young people]. https://taltech.ee/uudised/tallinnatehnikaulikool-ja-eesti-kunstiakadeemia-ootavad-andekaid-noori-uhiselt-loodud

266

M. Soobik

Tallinna Ülikool [Tallinn University]. (2022, June 9). Õppeprotsessi disainimine ja uurimine loodus-ja tehnoloogiaainetes. https://www.tlu.ee/koolitused/oppeprotsessi-disainimine-ja-uur imine-loodus-ja-tehnoloogiaainetes Tallinna Ülikool. Digitehnoloogiate instituut [Tallinn University. Institute of Digital Technologies]. (2022, June 1). DOSE: LTT hariduse arendamine [Development of STEAM education]. https:// www.tlu.ee/en/node/1826 The Institute for Arts Integration and STEAM. (2022). What is STEAM education? https://artsinteg ration.com/what-is-steam-education-in-k-12-schools/ Tire, K., Puksand, H., Lepmann, T., Henno, I., Lindemann, K., Täht. K, Lorenz. B., & Silm, G. (2019). PISA 2018 Eesti tulemused [Pisa 2018 Estonia’s Results]. SA Innove. https://www.hm. ee/sites/default/files/pisa_2018-19_raportweb.pdf Vabariigi Valitsus. (2011a). Põhikooli riiklik õppekava [National Curriculum for Comprehensive Schools] [NC]. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/123042021010?leiaKehtiv Vabariigi Valitsus. (2011b). Ainevaldkond “Tehnoloogia” [Subject Field “Technology”] [SFT]. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/aktilisa/1230/4202/1010/1m%20lisa7.pdf Villo, H., & Kütt, K. (2021, February 19). Töömaailm vajab integreeritud STEM-haridusega spetsialiste [The world of work needs professionals with integrated STEM education]. Õpetajate Leht. https://opleht.ee/2021/02/toomaailm-vajab-integreeritud-stem-haridusega-spetsialiste/

Mart Soobik a lecturer in Technology Education at the University of Tartu, Estonia and he is the leader of the Technology Education curriculum in master’s studies. Since 1985, he has been working in primary schools as a teacher in Technology Education. He is the head of the Estonian Association of Technology Education, www.tehnoloogia.ee. He has developed a systematic approach to Technology Education and has been a leading expert in the preparation of the curriculum of Technology Education in Estonia for a long time. His main research interests are didactics and curriculum development in Technology Education and STEAM.

Part V

Critical Perspectives on Standards-Based Educational Programs

Chapter 17

Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic Michael Hacker

Abstract The author has been an evangelist for content standards for decades, having contributed to the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) and the New York State Standards for Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Over the last several years, through insights gleaned from large-scale National Science Foundation-funded research projects, skepticism has crept in about the role learning standards should play in guiding curricular decision-making. This paper does not assert that learning standards have little value—rather, that standards all too often assume elevated and unwarranted instructional transcendence. Their judicious and sparing use as instructional focal points is suggested as a complement to other consequential approaches: revisiting big ideas in multiple contexts, and using authentic design-based learning activities to facilitate a psychological state of flow in learners. Purposes of educational and industrial standards are contrasted. Some questionable examples of educational standards are drawn from the widely adopted (in the USA) Common Core State Standards in Mathematics that are the basis of high-stakes assessments. Key questions raised include: How are standards used differently in industry and in education? What are arguments for and against standards-based instruction? Are learning standards an old paradigm, rooted in industrial era standardization? In technology and engineering education, upon what basis are standards developed? How should standards be optimally used by classroom teachers? In the context of these questions, some brief thoughts are offered about Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL). Going back to first principles, the chapter discusses the fundamental purposes of education and how standards-based instruction might best serve those purposes. Keywords Educational standards · Industrial standards · Flow theory · Technology and engineering education · Thematic ideas

M. Hacker (B) Center for STEM Research, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_17

269

270

M. Hacker

17.1 A Journey from Standards Evangelist to Standards Skeptic When I began teaching in 1964 in the waning years of the industrial era, the ethos driving Industrial Arts Education (the immediate precursor to Technology Education in the U.S.) was teaching students skills and knowledge about tools, materials, and industrial processes. The ordained pedagogy was project-making, where all students were expected to make the same teacher-chosen artifact in unit shops (woods, metals, etc.). During my undergraduate days at the City College of New York, Professor Harold Wiggins lined up the wooden puzzles we made on a bench top, sorted them, and gave out grades according to craftsmanship. Assessment of conceptual learning? Not so much. The sea change that has taken place in the ensuing years—the focus on important ideas about technology and engineering, conveyed largely through design pedagogy—is our profession’s response to societal change. The metamorphosis occurred concurrently with the educational establishment’s assimilation of a belief system that development and attainment of high standards in education would lead to individual student success and national preeminence. Sensibly, during the transition, much of the hands-on learning that made Industrial Arts popular with many generations of students has been preserved—as the handson project, still central, has now become a vehicle for contextualizing learning as opposed to being an end in itself. My personal journey includes 20 years of Industrial Arts/Technology Education teaching and supervision; service as a New York State Education Department (NYSED) supervisor for technology education for 13 years; and, since 1997, serving as the Co-director of the Center for STEM Research at Hofstra University, where my work involves writing proposals to the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and managing projects in STEM education curriculum and professional development. At the NYSED, I was an evangelist for developing high academic learning standards as this was smack in the middle of the time when all school disciplines were jumping onboard the standards/national curriculum bandwagon. During that time, my colleagues and I developed the interconnected New York State Standards for Mathematics, Science, and Technology (MST in 1994, pre-STEM). My evangelism was reinforced while serving as a member of the writing team for the national Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) between 1997 and 2000. At some point, skepticism began to creep in. Skepticism does not mean cynicism, rather it implies thinking critically about accepted dogma to clarify one’s convictions. There were several things that caused me cognitive dissonance: 1. Reviewing the U.S. Common Core State Standards in Mathematics, the highstakes assessments based upon them, and the vested interests that promote them; 2. Watching children play computer games, marveling at how they were so engaged, and wondering how that engagement could be captured in planned educational contexts;

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

271

3. Observing and interviewing students and teachers who were designing solutions to real problems in societally relevant contexts during our NSF projects, and trying to understand and capture the reasons they were so riveted by the work they were doing; 4. Reflecting on the fundamental purposes of education and questioning whether we are becoming so atomistic that we were losing sight of them.

17.2 The Purpose of Standards Standards outside education include inter alia, standards of conduct, legal standards, ethical standards, standards for patient care, and notably, national, and international industry standards.

17.2.1 Industry Standards Standards in industry are sets of technical specifications that detail safety, process, or performance requirements. There are tens of thousands of standards for products and systems. Some familiar examples are stop signs that are octagonal; worldwide railroad track spacing (1435 mm); fire hydrant couplings; traffic light colors; screw threads; measures of quantities like mass, time, and frequency; gasoline pump nozzle sizes; personal computer architecture; battery sizes; and Wi-Fi protocols. Industry standards are designed to enable interconnectivity and interoperability. They often have a quantitative component and are developed so that products and systems conform. Setting industry standards is a huge global undertaking. The International Standards Organization, ISO, headquartered in Geneva, is one organization that develops them. ISO 9001 is a well-known standard for creating and following a quality management system. ISO 8601 sets the international standard date notation as YYYY-MM-DD, and ISO 7180 sets the standard for credit cards: 85.6 mm × 53.98 mm with rounded corners with a radius of 2.88 mm. Over 24,000 ISO standards have been developed by over 800 technical committees in 167 countries, each with its own National Standards Body (NSB). NSBs coordinate and approve standards in their home countries. Australia’s NSB is Standards Australia. In China, the NSB is the Standards Administration of China; in the UK, it’s the British Standards Institute. The USA’s NSB is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). A full list can be viewed at https://www.iso.org/members.html. The NSBs don’t develop standards, but they accredit Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), examples of which are American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE); Institute of

272

M. Hacker

Fig. 17.1 Sample industrial standard (IEEE)

Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Thousands of SDOs exist worldwide. Figure 17.1 is an image of a table from IEEE’s Standard C95.1-2019 for Safety levels for Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields. This single standard took four years to develop and involved over 100 experts. It comprises a 310-page document with an overview, a rationale, scope, literature review, exposure limits, effects of exposure, and examples to illustrate compliance. IEEE, as one SDO, has developed over 1200 standards.

17.2.2 Education Standards Standards in education are descriptive, not quantitative. They describe competencies students should have at particular grade levels en route to being prepared to succeed in further education or in the workplace. In the U.S., development of educational learning standards gained momentum in the late 1980s. The precursor to learning standards was Bill Spady’s Outcome-based Education movement (OBE), which drew upon Benjamin Bloom’s Learning for Mastery (1968). Earlier, highly influential educators advocated for curricular objectives. In the U.S., Franklin Bobbit (1913, 1924) was among the first to base curriculum on objectives. In the early 1900s, Bobbitt worked with experts in different fields to determine the competencies they needed to do their work effectively. He did task analyzes, as Frederick Taylor did with scientific management. From these analyzes, he back-mapped to what students should learn. Bobbitt believed that the purpose of the curriculum was to fill the gap between what professionals do and what students know. Ralph Tyler, an advisor to Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Johnson and the chair of the committee that developed the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP; referred to as the nation’s report card), completed his Eight-Year Study

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

273

on the American high school in 1941. He concluded that curriculum should start with “what educational purposes the school should seek to attain” and suggested that curriculum objectives should come from three sources: learner interests and experiences, society’s values, and worthy subject matter knowledge (Tyler, 1949). The movement toward higher educational standards in the U.S. was given impetus by the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, which prompted a move toward more rigorous math and science education; and by the Nation At Risk report in 1983 (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983), that stated “if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war” (p. 5). The report proposed increased high school graduation requirements in core subjects. That report also recommended using measurable goals to assess progress in learning.

17.3 Why is There Skepticism About Education Standards? 17.3.1 Pros and Cons of Using Standards There are arguments in favor of and opposed to setting standards in education, some of which are summarized in Table 17.1. Some questions to ask: Does (and should) the industry standards’ paradigm of conformance apply to people as products of the educational system? Is standardization an antiquated factory system paradigm, and should we not be privileging creativity and uniqueness? How much of the support for Common Core standards in the U.S. is coming from moneyed or other vested interests? Can instructional standards be decoupled from high-stakes standardized testing?

17.3.2 Common Core State Standards in the U.S. Despite the federal No Child Left Behind mandate in 2002 that all U.S. states have rigorous standards in place, there was still considerable variation in the quality of state standards. Hence, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative was undertaken in 2010 by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. These standards are meant to prepare students for college and careers and to make the U.S. more competitive academically. Initially, 46 states adopted them, but as of 2022, 16 states have introduced legislation to repeal them, eight states have withdrawn from being part of the Common Core, and 21 states have revised them (Sparks, 2017).

274

M. Hacker

Table 17.1 Standards: some pros and cons Pros

Cons

National standards set clear teaching and learning goals. National standards are needed for social and political cohesion

Standardization is an industrial era factory model Standards have been criticized as vague, repetitive, and poorly coordinated. Too many performance expectations lead to curriculum overload (NRC, 2008) Standards have had little impact on attainment (Loveless, 2012)

As teachers will be teaching the same content, Many factors influence student achievement: well-trained teachers, and a societal and professional development will be consistent and improve achievement cultural emphasis on education (Darling-Hammond, n.d.) Standards ratchet up rigor

Rigor is beyond standards; it’s how you teach (Blackburn, 2011)

Standards advance equity

Common Core is a back-door means for government to spy on citizens and indoctrinate children (Beck & Williams, 2014)

Standards get students college ready

NAEP results show a drop in the percentage of students prepared for college (Vander Hart, 2016)

Standards improve international rankings

Latest PISA rankings show a US decline

17.3.3 Politics, Money, and Common Core Standards Aside from questioning whether all the Common Core standards are truly needed by all students and whether some are in fact, arcane, it is clear that money and vested interests have propelled adoption of CCSS in the U.S. The march toward implementation of CCSS was given impetus by large infusions of government and foundation money. High-stakes tests have created a huge national market for book publishers and test developers (Weiss, 2011), and these tests have become the de facto standards (National Academy of Education [NAEd], 2009). The Pearson Corporation delivered 9 million high-stakes tests to students across the United States in 2014. The company received a $32 million contract to administer New York State’s end-of-year tests (Tampio, 2015). In the state of Texas alone, Pearson was paid $428 million for a five-year assessment contract (Weiss, 2015). According to Diane Ravitch (2014), who was once a proponent of CCSS, “the Pearson Corporation has become the ultimate arbiter of the fate of students, teachers, and schools.” In the three years after CCSS was launched, the value of the U.S. market for educational testing soared to $2.5 billion (Striner & Johnson, 2011). Do these widely adopted standards result in increased student engagement? Here are some examples of common core high school mathematics standards (there are 162 at the high school level alone).

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

275

The Complex Number System. HSN-CN.A.3: Use conjugates to find moduli and quotients of complex numbers. Linear, Quadratic, and Exponential Models HSF.LE.B.5: For exponential models, express as a logarithm the solution to abct = d where a, c, and d are numbers and the base b is 2, 10, or e. Arithmetic with Polynomials and Rational Expressions HSA.APR.C.4: Prove polynomial identities and use them to describe numerical relationships. For example, the polynomial identity (x 2 + y2 )2 = (x 2 − y2 )2 + (2xy)2 can be used to generate Pythagorean triples. Real Number System HSN.RN.A1: Explain how the definition of rational exponents follows from extending the properties of integer exponents to those values, allowing for a notation for radicals in terms of rational exponents. For example, we define 51/3 to be the cube root of 5 because we want (51/3 )3 = 5(1/3)3 to hold, so (51/3 )3 must equal 5. Are these competencies indeed needed by all students? They are examples of standards that all students are expected to know and can be tested on—in highstakes assessments that determine their futures: their post-secondary pathways, their acceptance into universities of their choice, and their college placement—whether the careers they choose to enter are highly mathematical or not. The Needed Math NSF project (# 2100062) is investigating the mathematics manufacturing technicians (not engineers or scientists) need to be successful in their work. A preliminary finding is that most manufacturing technicians need mathematics only at the level of algebra I or below. The National Research Council (NRC, 2008) has criticized standards as vague, repetitive, and poorly coordinated; and noted that too many performance expectations result in cognitive and curriculum overload. The danger of relying too heavily on prescribed standards and benchmarks is that we become too atomistic and lose sight of what really is important for all students to learn.

17.4 From Standards to Thematic Ideas in T&E Instruction Along with the standards movement, there has been a concomitant move toward identifying and using overarching thematic ideas in T&E in order to enable more holistic understanding. Real conceptual understanding depends upon people having the ability to generalize from their experiences—and argues for the need to teach for transfer in order to promote deep understanding. Several research studies (cited below) established a consensus of expert opinion about the most important transferable big ideas students should comprehend about technology and engineering. In 1963, NSF funded the Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project and the resulting text, The Man Made World (Truxal & David, 1971), identified categories

276

M. Hacker

of engineering concepts as technology and man, decision-making, optimization, modeling, systems, patterns of change, stability, communicating with computers, logic circuits, and machine memory. In Formulating a Concept Base for Secondary Level Engineering (Custer et al., 2009), the developers identified major engineering concepts, among them analysis, constraints, design, efficiency, experimentation, functionality, innovation, modeling, optimization, prototyping, systems, trade-offs, and visualization. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) reviewed eight prior studies and identified 16 categories of engineering concepts, skills, and dispositions for K-12 education. These included design, STEM connections, engineering and society, constraints, communication, systems, systems thinking, modeling, optimization, analysis, collaboration and teamwork, creativity, knowledge of specific technologies, nature of engineering, prototyping, and experimentation (NRC, 2010). An international Delphi research study, Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education (CCETE; Rossouw et al., 2012), identified five overarching thematic areas of understanding in T&E: design, modeling, systems, resources, and human values. Another Delphi study (Hacker & Barak, 2017) furthered the CCETE work by comparing perceptions of high school T&E teachers and academic engineering educators about the importance of T&E competencies. The two study groups came to consensus on the 38 most important T&E competencies for high school graduates to learn in the five thematic areas. Standards and thematic ideas can coexist. Thematic ideas are made explicit as Practices and Crosscutting Concepts in the Next Generation Science Standards (NRC, 2011) and as Practices and Core Concepts in Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (ITEEA, 2020).

17.4.1 Using Standards Constructively as Focal Points for Instruction Constructivist educational philosophy maintains that knowledge is constructed by the learner, not transmitted by the teacher. Teachers should have freedom to use their professional judgment to decide what to emphasize and when, and to select interesting and rich learning activities based upon knowledge of their students and communities that will motivate students to remain engaged. This is especially possible to do in T&E, since there are usually not high-stakes assessments that necessitate adherence to particular sets of specific competencies. To ensure that standards can be used in harmony with constructivist pedagogy—to enable students to be the active participants in the transaction between the teacher and the learner—standards should never become straitjackets for teachers and students.

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

277

Teachers can use standards constructively, not as starting points or as destinations, but selectively as instructional focal points: to focus student attention and learning at key points during activity.

17.4.2 A Curricular Example An example of contemporary T&E curriculum materials that integrate many of the ideas expressed in this chapter are those developed by the National Science Foundation-funded Engineering for All (EfA) project. EfA developed, classroom tested, evaluated, and revised two engineering design-based six-week middle school curriculum units in two authentic social contexts: urban food scarcity (designing hydroponic vertical farming systems) and water contamination (designing filtering systems to provide potable water to populations in need). EfA’s expectation is that students will develop predispositions to forge a sustainable future and learn that engineering study is a potential route to engage in socially significant work. Curriculum materials are available from the ITEEA. A 10-min video overview is at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQkowF2g53Q. Unscripted student and teacher comments illustrate how learners achieved a psychological state of flow (see 17.5, Flow Theory) during the activities. To use standards effectively as instructional focal points, time must be set aside to reflect about standards-based key ideas at the right moment. For example, when teaching about hydroponic systems (as a technological system), instructors would come to a full stop and ask questions such as: “What’s the system input (the desired result)? The output (the actual result)? Where’s the feedback loop in this system, and what sensors are being used to monitor the output? Do you see how this system is comprised of various sub-systems? How do they relate?”

17.4.3 Design-Based Learning Activities as Instructional Drivers Design challenges that are perceived by the learner to be authentic and important serve as contexts within which key thematic transferable ideas can be revisited. Teachers can meaningfully address standards and benchmarks—but only as relevant. In this way, careful selection of rich learning activities will become the primary drivers of teachers’ lesson planning. Standards, then, are not necessarily the starting points or the destination, but they can be effectively used as focal points to underscore important concepts when the right time arises.

278

M. Hacker

What Jerome Bruner (1971, p. 26) claimed to be the object of education was leading the child to be able to discover for himself or herself. Discovery, and the sense of confidence (and joy) it provides, is the proper reward for learning. Chosen correctly, design-based learning activities will promote bird walks into probative learning that sustain interest and enable our students to experience a state of flow.

17.5 Flow Theory Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was a Hungarian-born psychologist who proposed the psychological concept of flow in 1975. We’ve all experienced flow. We feel it when we’re totally engaged in something; when we do something for its own sake. We are completely focused. The ego falls away, time flies. We are intrinsically motivated. When in a state of flow, an activity becomes an end in itself. You experience a sense of ecstasy. A skier, to use a 1960s term, is at one with the mountain. The pianist Lang Lang, eyes closed, is totally immersed in his piano playing, just as Gary Kasparov is in his chess game or my wife is in her yoga. Here’s what artist Jamie Wyeth has to say about his painting of gulls (Demorotski, 2015): Many times working with the gulls, it’s sort of drudgery; but once in a while, things really click, and that’s the opiate, when that gull all of a sudden breathes and the fire starts going, I mean, that’s, that’s why you paint. That’s why I paint.

I became interested in Flow Theory after watching my son as a five-year-old, consumed by his Nintendo Game Boy handheld console in the back seat of our car. He didn’t want to talk or stop for food; only after he had to go to the bathroom was he willing to put it down. As a teen, he was riveted by the computer game Age of Empires, where he learned quite a bit about Atilla the Hun, Montezuma, Saladin, and Genghis Khan (an example of stealth learning). Not all the game play was historically authentic, but it occurred to me that if game developers could make a game that would enable learning to occur while keeping players totally riveted, so could educators design similar engaging learning environments. That led me to investigate why games were so compelling. Brain scans show that dopamine production in the brain doubles during video game play (Koepp et al., 1998). The aim of game design is to create such an interesting experience that it holds players’ attention as long and as intensely as possible (Kiili et al., 2012). This should be our aim in instruction. Notably, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) found that designing something new resembles flow activities.

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

279

17.5.1 Teaching with Flow as the Goal The best moments in our lives are when we are in a state of flow. Our best moments as teachers are when we can enable our students to be in a state of flow, but we need to plan carefully for flow experiences to occur, recognizing that there is a set of conditions that needs to be established. Learners must see clear goals, obtain immediate feedback, have a sense of control over their environment, have necessary cognitive pre-preparation, and feel confident in their ability to complete the task. Our desired outcome is a self-directed, engaged, and intrinsically motivated learner. To achieve that, as instructors, we would • Start with rich learning activities and provide opportunities for students to address design challenges relating to authentic social issues of importance to them. • Scaffold learning by using pre-design instruction that inculcates a knowledge and skill base to enable students to approach the design challenge from a more informed perspective. • Revisit key ideas using examples in different contexts to facilitate learning transfer. • Cherry-pick a limited number of standards as focal points and avoid feeling the need to tick off all the boxes.

17.5.2 The Value of Enabling and Encouraging Student Bird Walks Constraining learning to prescribed, externally-defined content is antithetical to selfdirected, engaged learning. It is more essential to ensure that learners are engaged than it is to ensure that all performance benchmarks in a list are ticked off. Dewey wrote Individual effort is impossible without individual interest. If work is not in itself interesting to the individual, he cannot put his best efforts into it. However hard he may work at it, the effort does not go into the accomplishment of the work but is largely dissipated in a moral and emotional struggle to keep the attention where it is not held (Boydston, 2008a, p. 151).

When involved in activities that have captivated them, students might not learn every competency in a standards document, but they will go off on investigative bird walks to learn what they need to know—just-in-time learning—often going far beyond what is prescribed, to solve challenging problems; problems that to them have become important and fascinating.

17.5.3 What’s It All About, Alfie? In 1966, Michael Caine and Shelly Winters starred in a movie called Alfie. Alfie was a British limo driver living in Manhattan. He was a totally self-absorbed guy, a

280

M. Hacker

womanizer, who thought very little about others. He came into hard times, became reflective, and started thinking about how to change his ways. The title song was written by Bacharach & David (1966) and sung by Dionne Warwick, where the lyrics asked Alfie to consider what life is all about….whether we live just for the moment, or whether there’s more to it when you sort it all out. For us, as educators, what is it all about? Is it more about a focus on atomistic content standards, or more about contributing to the fulfillment of the larger purposes of education? John Dewey claimed that “the ultimate aim of education is nothing other than the creation of human beings in the fullness of their capacities” (Boydston, 2008b, p. 289). In drawing upon philosophers and historians of education (e.g., Bobbitt, Tyler, Dewey), my skepticism has been fueled by going back to first principles—contemplating what it’s all about, what it means to be an educated person, and how we as educators should not lose sight of the fundamental purposes of education—because these provide the strongest rationale for compulsory education. Most of us would agree that educators should strive to enable our students to: • • • • • • • •

Respect and practice honesty and civility Maintain a healthy lifestyle Earn a good living Question prejudices and propaganda Augur toward empathy, tolerance, and social equity Make a difference in the world Contribute to and benefit from technological change Derive optimal fulfillment from life’s experiences.

The last goal is of paramount importance, often underestimated as a seminal purpose of education. An educated person sees things differently and appreciates them to a greater extent than one who has never been exposed to those facets of life. A T&E student sees bridges very differently than someone who has never designed, built, and tested them in a T&E class; physics education helps one understand why a bicycle rider is advised not to ride against traffic flow; music education enables deeper appreciation of performances seen and heard. Being able to value and appreciate what is encountered throughout life is a compelling argument for a solid liberal education for all students. If the overall mission of education is, as per Dewey, to create human beings in the fullness of their capacities, and if, as per Tyler, curriculum should come from learner interests, society’s values, and worthy subject matter knowledge, then our challenge is to ensure that what we do, as technology and engineering educators, contributes not only to subject matter knowledge but to the fundamental purposes of education, facilitates a psychological state of flow in learners, and ultimately, stimulates students’ intrinsic motivation to learn.

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

281

17.6 Summary and Conclusions This chapter raises questions about the use of standards in planning and implementing instructional programs in technology and engineering education. In industry, standards are used to enable interconnectivity and interoperability. They are developed to ensure that products and systems conform. Education standards are designed to set forth the knowledge and skill that students should possess after schooling. The author argues that the industrial rationale for standards, that products conform, is not appropriate for products of the educational system—learners who we hope will become divergent thinkers and creative problem solvers. Disciplinary content standards have been developed to include hundreds of student performance objectives. A challenge for curriculum designers is to choose which standards to emphasize to avoid curriculum and cognitive overload. To be well understood, concepts should be situated in contexts that are authentic and socially relevant to the learners. Along with the standards movement, there has been a move toward identifying overarching thematic ideas in technology and engineering education. “Big ideas” are best understood when revisited in several different contexts to facilitate learning transfer. Rich learning activities can and should be the primary drivers of teachers’ lesson planning, and through their use teachers can meaningfully address standards and benchmarks—but only as relevant. Selected, relevant standards can serve as focal points for instruction rather than as starting points or destinations. As educators, we aspire to facilitate a psychological state of flow in learners that will prompt discovery and deep learning. We strive for our students to be engaged and self-directed. When involved in activities that have captivated them, students might not learn every competency in a standards document, but they will go off on bird walks to learn what they need to know, often going far beyond listed benchmarks to solve problems that, to them, have become important and fascinating. What we do as Technology and Engineering educators can provide joyful, meaningful learning experiences for our students that should contribute to the fundamental purposes of education. The danger of relying too heavily on attainment of prescribed standards and benchmarks is that we become too atomistic and lose sight of what really is important for all students to learn. In doing so, self-directed, engaged learning might be sacrificed. A short commentary is offered as an addendum about STEL, including a discussion about whether the standards are based on competencies displayed by exemplary professionals in the field. Suggestions are made that in a companion document, or the next iteration of STEL, examples might be provided to illustrate how thematic ideas might be situated and revisited in various contexts, and that modeling should be identified as a Practice.

282

M. Hacker

Appendix: Commentary on Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy In light of the focus of this book, the author was asked to briefly comment on STEL— although a comprehensive review and analysis are beyond the scope of this chapter. To their great credit, STEL developers narrowed down the list from 20 Standards and 288 Benchmarks in the prior Standards for Technological Literacy (STL), to 8 Standards and 142 Benchmarks in the current version. STEL has identified a set of thematic big ideas, called practices (including systems thinking, making and doing, attention to ethics, etc.). The development team wisely avoided identifying specific competencies within each of the disciplinary domains they have identified as contexts. What will be helpful to teachers could be a subsequent publication that illustrates, within each context, how big ideas might be presented and revisited, and that provides some curriculum models that serve as exemplars. From Where Do Standards Come? In her book Outcomes in Process, Roseanne DeFabio (1994) writes that: Performance standards in the real world are based on the performance of professionals who exemplify the highest possible achievement in that field. The child who plays Little League ball holds the bat, pitches the ball, covers the bases in as close an approximation of the child’s favorites as possible. It is reasonably easy to name the standard setters. It is considerably harder to delineate the standards. There was no serious dispute as to the identity of those who made great butlers, but the question centered on “what precisely is this greatness?” We might concur on the public speaking ability of John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. but generalizing from the performance of individual standard setters to standards is not easy; nevertheless, it is essential that we make an attempt if we are to help our students reach and surpass those standards (pp. 5–6).

Harkening back to Franklin Bobbitt’s analysis of competencies professionals needed to do their work effectively, we wonder who are the standard setters in technology and engineering and whether our STEL standards reflect the abilities and performance of the highest achievers in the field? For example, relative to STEL Standard 7, Design in Technology and Engineering Education, it would not be terribly difficult to identify people or companies who are experts in engineering design, or to learn about how high-achieving designers do their work: People like James Dyson, Jony Ive, Zaha Hadid, and Frank Lloyd Wright come to mind. One can assume that these standard-setting designers were expertly able to “determine the best approach by evaluating the purpose of the design” (STEL Standard-7W); and to “apply a broad range of design skills to their design process” (STEL Standard-7CC). But were experts studied or consulted or used as archetypical examples of standard-setting designers? And, if not, on what basis were the highest standards identified? If each STEL standard were to be back-mapped from the performance of exemplary professionals in the field, then standards would indeed become valid aspirational targets.

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

283

Modeling as a Practice Standards in science and mathematics education identify modeling as a core competency. NGSS (2013) specifically identifies Developing and Using Models as a Science and Engineering Practice. In mathematics, modeling is a Standard for Mathematical practice (NGA, 2010) that carries across all grades. Modeling has historically been a cornerstone of the PISA framework for mathematics (OECD, 2020); and implementing mathematical modeling in context enables teachers to implement integrated STEM education (Stohlmann, 2020). According to Chae et al. (2010), a commonality among the science, technology, and mathematics is modeling: The science standards state that all science subject matters focus on facts, concepts, principles, theories, and models. Similarly, technological standards assert that students should understand and build abilities to select and use models. Modeling allows people to find problems or conflicts before the whole system runs. Mathematics standards indicate that students need to understand mathematical models that are created as results of accumulated knowledge. Especially, standard 12 stresses the role of representation in mathematics, including the importance of building the mathematical modeling concept.

In the Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (Meijers, 2009), unique in its comprehensiveness and depth, contributing scholars focus on the role of modeling. Meijers writes Since models are so central to engineering, for example, computer models or scale models, most of this part is devoted to the analysis of models and modeling. Firstly, there is an extensive historical account of the notion of a model. This is followed by a semantic analysis of functional modeling and mathematical models. Several case-studies are presented to show how in engineering, models are actually used as epistemic and methodological tools (p. 12).

Modeling is one of the most prominent concepts identified in all of the research studies cited earlier that established a consensus of opinion about the most important T&E competencies students should attain. In the Comparison of Perceptions Delphi study (Hacker & Barak, 2017), high school technology teachers and post-secondary engineering educators concurred (on a seven-point Likert scale), that six modeling competencies are very important for students to learn by the time they are graduated from high school (see Table 17.2). Modeling is underrepresented in STEL. Although the term is noted numerous times in the STEL document, it is either discussed within other passages (as on p. 34, in relating to the importance of optimization and trade-offs); or briefly on p. 35 (STEL-2T), where, in “demonstrating understanding of core concepts, in grades 9–12, students should demonstrate the use of conceptual, graphical, virtual, mathematical, and physical modeling.” But modeling itself is not identified as a core concept. Instead of specifying modeling as a practice, STEL elevates Making and Doing to that status. This is a throwback to crafts /industrial arts teaching and does not adequately represent the fullness of the concept of modeling in STEM to include mathematical, physical, virtual, predictive, and representational models. Modeling should be identified as a Practice in STEL and can subsume Making and Doing.

284

M. Hacker

Table 17.2 Modeling items from comparisons of perceptions study Modeling items

Median rating

Use representational modeling (e.g., a sketch, drawing, or a simulation) to convey the 6.68 essence of a design Create and test a physical model of an artifact, process, or system using tools and materials to ensure that a design solution meets given criteria and constraints

6.08

Develop a fair test (changing only one factor at a time) and use it to analyze the strengths and limitations of a physical or virtual model of a design

5.92

Use mathematical modeling (e.g., using the equation for conductive heat flow, Q = kAΔT/L, to design a shelter) to quantitatively describe and predict the effects of variables

5.77

Use simulation software to investigate complex systems and issues

5.17

Create and test a virtual model of an artifact, process, or system using simulation software to ensure that a design solution meets given criteria and constraints

5.15

References Alfie. (1966). Film. Dir. Lewis Gilbert. Paramount Pictures. Bacharach, B., & David, H. (1966). Alfie. Produced by George Martin. Beck, G., & Williams, J. (2014, February 27). Who is fighting against Common Core? US News and World Report. Blackburn, B. (2011). Rigor and the CC state standards. Education World. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. UCLA CSEIP, 1, 2. Bobbitt, J. F. (1913). The supervision of city schools: Some general principles of management applied to the problems of city-school systems. National Society for the Study of Education. Bobbitt, J. F. (1924). How to make a curriculum. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boydston, J. A. (Ed.). (2008a). The later works of John Dewey, Volume 9, 1925–1953: 1933–1934. Essays, reviews, miscellany, and a common faith (p. 151). Southern Illinois University Press. Boydston, J. A. (Ed.). (2008b). The later works of John Dewey, Volume 5, 1925–1953: 1929–1930. Essays, the sources of a science of education, individualism, old and new, and construction and criticism (pp. 289–298). Southern Illinois University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1971). Toward a theory of instruction (p. 26). The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Chae, Y., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. (2010). Core concepts for engineering literacy: The interrelationships among STEM disciplines. American Society for Engineering Education. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass. Custer, R., Daugherty, J., & Meyer J. (2009). Formulating the conceptual base for secondary level engineering: A review and synthesis. Utah State University. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=ncete_cstudies Darling-Hammond, L. (n.d.). Only a teacher: Teachers today. Linda Darling Hammond Interview. PBS.org DeFabio, R. Y. (1994). Outcomes in process: Setting standards for language use. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc. Demorotski, A. (2015, December 1). Crystal Bridges Museum transcription of Jamie Wyeth Video. Bentonville, AR. Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project (ECCP). (1971). The man-made world. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

17 Learning Standards: A Journey from Evangelist to Skeptic

285

Hacker, M., & Barak, M. (2017). Important engineering and technology concepts and skills for all high school students in the US: Comparing perceptions of university engineering educators and high school technology teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 31–52. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. VA: Reston Kiili, K., de Freitas, S., Arnab, S., & Lainema, T. (2012). The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science, 15, 78–91. Koepp, M., Gunn, R., Lawrence, A., Cunningham, V. J., Dagher, A., Jones, T., Brooks, D. J., Bench, C. J., & Grasby, P. M. (1998). Evidence for striatal dopamine release during a video game. Nature, 393, 266–268. https://doi.org/10.1038/30498 Loveless, T. (2012) Brown Center report on American education. The Brookings Institution. Meijers, A. (2009). Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Volume 9. General introduction (p. 12). Elsevier Publishing. National Academy of Education (NAEd). (2009). Standards, assessments, and accountability. Education Policy White Paper. http://www.naeducation.org/Standards_Assessments_Accoun tability_White_Paper.pdf National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk. U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED226006 National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Research Council. (2008). Common standards for K-12 education? The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12990 National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on New Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. DC: The National Academies Press. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). PISA 2022 Mathematics framework. OECD, Paris, France. Ravitch, D. (2014, January 11). Common core standards: Past, present, future. Speech at the Modern Language Association Conference, Chicago, IL. Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. (2012, April). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798010-9129-1 Sparks, S. D. (2017, January 18). Common core revisions: What are states really changing? Education Week. Striner, R., & Johnson, M. L. (2011). No size fits all: A new program of choice for American public schools without vouchers. Anthem Press. Stohlmann, M. (2020). STEM integration for high school mathematics teachers. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2020.71 Tampio, N. (2015). For Pearson, Common Core is private profit. Aljazeera America. http://america. aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/3/for-pearson-common-core-is-private-profit.html Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press. Weiss, J. (2011, March 31). The innovation mismatch: ‘Smart capital’ and education innovation. Harvard Business Review Blog. Weiss, J. (2015, May 18). Pearson loses Texas contract for standardized exams. Dallas News. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2015/05/18/pearson-loses-most-of-contract-for-nextfour-years-of-staar-tests/

286

M. Hacker

Dr. Michael Hacker co-directs the Center for STEM Research at Hofstra University in New York. Since 1997, he has been a PI or Co-PI on 15 large-scale National Science Foundation projects focused on improving teaching and learning in K-16 STEM education. He previously served as a New York State Education Department supervisor for Technology Education, and was a secondary school teacher, department supervisor, and university teacher educator. Michael’s research interests are focused on Technology and Engineering education reform, improving engineering design pedagogy, investigating the mathematics truly needed by manufacturing technicians, and using authentic social contexts in STEM education.

Chapter 18

Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity, Access and Equity, and Literacy Molly S. Miller, Scott A. Warner, Mishack T. Gumbo, Idalis Villanueva Alarcón, and Stephen Petrina

Abstract The four sections in this chapter provide critiques of the standards. Each of these critiques comes from a particular relevant perspective: design, indigenous, equity and access, and literacy. It is important for readers of the Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy to recognize that these standards are just the latest effort of developing educational standards toward teaching about technology and engineering. Great care was taken to make sure the broadest, most diverse range of perspectives went into creating this iteration. Nonetheless, there are an unlimited number of areas in the human experience in which technology and engineering play a part, however large or small. Each of those areas, then, would have their own perspectives on the value, accuracy, and applicability of the standards. This chapter takes a small peek at four of those perspectives. Keywords Design · Lliteracy · Indigenous · Access · Equity · STEM · Meaning

M. S. Miller · S. A. Warner (B) Millersville University, Millersville, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. S. Miller e-mail: [email protected] M. T. Gumbo University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] I. V. Alarcón University of Florida, Gainesville, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. Petrina University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. R. Bartholomew et al. (eds.), Standards-Based Technology and Engineering Education, Contemporary Issues in Technology Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5704-0_18

287

288

M. S. Miller et al.

18.1 A Design Perspective Miller and Warner This section critiques Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) from a design perspective. Our perspectives in this critique come from our experiences and research as educators who use the design-based approach to teaching about technology and engineering. Those experiences have cut across the middle school, high school, and university levels. Space limitations prevent us from providing much detail about our critique of STEL, so instead we have tried to take a broad and expansive view as to how STEL engages with design. Historians of technology such as Burke (1978) and Williams (1987) often credited the beginning of the first industrial revolution in England with the original use of industrial-scale looms in water-powered factories to weave mass produced cloth. Merriam-Webster defined weaving as “the interlace of threads into cloth” (para. 1). The metaphor of weaving is an appropriate fit to any discussion of design within the context of the study of technology and engineering. Design thinking and doing are the dominant threads that interlace throughout all of humankind’s relationship with technology and, later, with engineering. Bronowski (1973) observed how deeply in time this relationship of design thinking and doing toward technological refinement goes when he wrote: Even in prehistory man already made tools that have an edge finer than they need have. The finer edge in its turn gave the tool a finer use, a practical refinement and extension to processes for which the tool had not been designed. (p. 116)

The history of technological education (Manual Education, Manual Arts, Industrial Arts, Technology Education, and now Technology and Engineering Education) in the US has shown a professional acceptance of, and engagement with, technological and engineering design. Although the depth of that acceptance and engagement has varied based on other factors of the time, those interlaced threads of technology and engineering design continued within the evolving curricula of technological education (Warner, 2009). STEL, the most recent manifestation of educational standards, proclaims that “Design is the foundation for all technology and engineering activity” (p. 56). That statement in this document is a confirmation to all who read it of the fundamental importance of design thinking and making toward the study of technology and engineering. In essence, STEL embraces the role of design within the context of the study of technology and engineering as being equally important toward the preparation of both the mind and the hand, between the conceptualization of ideas and the making and building of those ideas into tangible artifacts and systems. STEL further elaborates that there are eight key ideas which “provide a foundation for student understanding and capabilities related to design” (p. 56). Those ideas are: (1) Design is a fundamental human activity. (2) There is often no single, correct solution in technology and engineering design; furthermore, designs can always be improved and refined.

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

289

Design in technology and engineering is iterative. There is a range of skills needed to carry out technology and engineering design. There are universal principles and elements of design. Making is an inherent part of technology and engineering design. Design optimization is governed by criteria and constraints. There are many approaches to design (pp. 56–58).

These key ideas are in harmony with an iterative approach to the design process that was developed by Kimbell et al. (1991). That model (see Fig. 18.1) saw the iterations not between each stage of refinement of a given design, but between the actions of the mind and the hand. Ideas would become artifacts once they were made by the hand. Artifacts in various stages of development would provide further fuel to the mind as it would then come up with increasingly refined and elaborated concepts for the next version of the original idea. In short, this model reflects the type of scaffolded mind/hand relationship with technological design that can be the ideal model for what learning experiences based on STEL can achieve with students from across the entire developmental spectrum. These design-based learning experiences develop in students not only technological and engineering literacy but also a wide range of both intellectual skills such as critical thinking and decision making, as well as manipulative skills dealing with eye-hand coordination using materials, tools, and machinery. At the core of STEL is the assumption that all people, regardless of their occupational directions in life, should develop some level of technological and engineering literacy. As noted by the opening passages of STEL, “As the world grows more complex, it is increasingly important for everyone to understand more about technology and engineering” (p. 1). Later, STEL defined technological literacy as “The ability to understand, use, create, and assess the human-designed systems and artifacts that are the product of technology and engineering activity” (p. 161). The integration of engineering into this form of literacy involves the intentional use of “scientific and numerical data to make informed decisions about design solutions” (p. 58). This position recognizes that the study of technology and engineering should help students understand the entire life cycle of human-made artifacts and systems. Design thinking and doing then becomes a thread that weaves itself through the entire fabric of STEL. In the preface to STEL, when discussing the vast changes in K-12 curricula since the previous standards were released (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), the authors claim that the emphasis on design in technology and engineering programs has expanded considerably. In considering those changes, it is important to address the degree to which the new STEL standards meet the educational needs of all students as well as fostering designerly perspectives in future designers. This is not a novel idea. Cross (2006) argued that “design ability is, in fact, one of the several forms or fundamental aspects of human intelligence” (p. 15). It is important for STEL to address and meet the need of equipping all young people to encounter ill-defined wicked problems with the confidence, ingenuity, and persistence required to develop robust solutions. A few distinct aspects of the standards lend themselves well to preparing future designers and problem solvers of all kinds.

290

M. S. Miller et al.

Fig. 18.1 The APU design and technology model of the interaction of the mind and hand. Note. From “The Assessment of Performance in Design & Technology,” by R. Kimbell, K. Stables, T. Wheeler, A. Wozniak, & V. Kelly, 1991, p. 20. Copyright 1991 by the School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information. Reprinted with permission

The amorphous nature of the standards in their three categories, the mix-and-match structure, the inclusion of vocabulary intrinsic to design-based education, and the vast exemplars in design-based education all lend themselves to a favorable outcome for expanding the understanding and use of design by teachers and students alike. STEL is unique in its organization into three distinct categories: standards, practices, and contexts, which can be combined in 512 unique ways to best match the needs of the classroom, the content, and the students. This concept of taking what is available and using it in purposeful and unique ways in order to meet the needs of a situation speaks directly to the behavior of designers. This means that teachers have more flexibility in their classroom planning and that students also have a wider array of possibilities for displaying their understanding and mastery. Next, the vocabulary of the STEL is noticeably different from that of its predecessor, the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007). The inclusion of practices as part of the standards document weaves together a series of behaviors that are intrinsic not only to technology and engineering, but also to design. The frequency of terms like creativity, optimism, critical thinking, and ethics have all increased drastically since the STEL’s predecessor document. Each of these terms, as well as the other practices laid out in the standards, help to address Cross’s definition of an “educated” individual as someone who is, “able to understand the nature of ill-defined problems, how to tackle them, and how they differ from other kinds of problems” (Cross, 2006, p. 13). Finally, the STEL includes many examples of real-world ways

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

291

for teachers to combine practices, standards, and contexts in a variety of classroom and content settings. Many of these vignettes include a design-based approach to teaching and learning. The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy hold up well in a critical review through the perspective of advocates for designerly thinking as a means to educating all students. Upon this finding, an equally important step is to consider what comes next. Developing and introducing quality standards is an important first step. However, it is necessary to ensure that those standards are accessible, understood, and implemented by educators at all levels. This is no small task for ITEEA to face. Technology and Engineering Education is a unique area of education in that its identity and essential tasks seem to vary not only between nations and states, but even on a smaller scale, such as from one rural district to another urban counterpart. This type of diversity offers opportunities for division and confusion within the profession but, conversely, it can also be a source for a richness in what is taught and valued that reflects both the local and broader perspectives. Essentially, the processes of design thinking and doing becomes our content and the localized context becomes our means to deliver the content. While STEL provides a framework to embrace and foster learning in a variety of contexts and settings, developing awareness and engagement in teachers may be more difficult. Just as the amorphous nature of the standards structure is a strength from the designerly perspective, it can at the same time be a barrier to the standards gaining widespread understanding and use. This next step in implementation of STEL will be just as monumental a task as its creation. This task also requires a creative approach that considers all involved parties and meets the teachers where they are in order to encourage use and alignment to a new and unique guide for teaching and learning.

18.2 An Indigenous Perspective Gumbo In this section of the chapter, I critique STEL from an indigenous perspective. The critique is premised on ITEEA’s (2020, p. 3) claim that “the importance of technological and engineering literacy for all is provided by considering socio-cultural implications” and social justice. My critique acknowledges the good and problematic sides of STEL and its far-reaching implications for STEM education internationally, especially for indigenous people within the broader context of multicultural education. Indigenous people are defined according to their original habitation of a geographical area and as those who have an experience with colonialism. Colonialism means an invasion and exertion of power by outside groups on indigenous people and their places (Gumbo, 2020), such as that experienced by Indians in America, Blacks in South Africa, and so on. Colonialism is a political and economic relationship in which the sovereignty of the colonized people rests on the power of the outsiders,

292

M. S. Miller et al.

(in many cases, Europeans) who colonized them (Mignolo, 2005). It is a historical process that culminates in the invasion, conquest, and direct administration of the indigenous people of a colonized nation (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013). My critique of STEL should be understood in the context of STEM education and issues that relate to indigenous people. This critique is also informed by my observation while participating in numerous PATT conferences and the 75th ITEEA conference.

18.2.1 Theoretical Underpinning My critique of STEL is framed in Banks’ (1995) theory of liberal multicultural education, which has five dimensions: content integration, knowledge construction process, prejudice reduction, equity pedagogy, and empowering school culture and social structure. This theory is complemented by Crenshaw’s (2002) critical race theory, which harbors five foundational racial understandings. These are as follows: racism is a social norm, race is a social construct that promotes White dominance, interest convergence is the overarching principle in race relations, race and racism are endemic in all of our social systems, and racialization is unique to the marginalized peoples and not experienced by Whites. Yet another complementary theory is Nieto’s (1996) socio-cultural theory with its four options, which are aimed at achieving multicultural integration at the institutional level. These include: (1) tolerance as it relates to awareness and respect for differences, (2) intellectual acceptance of the importance of differences, (3) respect for differences, and (4) intimating high esteem and valuing differences. If STEL is to represent and serve diverse cultures expressed in the students of US society and the world at large, it needs to promote notions of democratic education and human justice.

18.2.2 ITEEA as a STEM Organization ITEEA’s aim is to promote STEM education in countries around the world through technological and engineering literacy in line with the advancement of technology and the changing nature of the industrial world. This effort is welcomed because it implies human development that is immersed in the understanding of STEM. However, White dominance in the composition of ITEEA (ITEEA, 2020) is a symbol of colonialism that seeks to advance White thinking in STEM education. The element of cultural and global representation (especially indigenous people) is almost absent, evident in the organization’s structural composition (e.g., Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education [CTETE], The Elementary STEM Council [ESC], Council for Supervision and Leadership [CSL], and Technology and Engineering Education Collegiate Association [TEECA]), as well as its affiliate representativity. Other conferences, such as Pupils Attitudes Towards Technology [PATT] (based in the Netherlands) and The International Conference on Technology

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

293

Education [ICTE] (based in the Asia Pacific Region) attract international scholars from different contexts and cultures, who exchange ideas about developments of STEM in different contexts. These conferences create a multicultural environment that generates energy and tolerance for attendees to accept one another, and they promote the injection of ideas from different contexts. ITEEA could do more to allow the contributed knowledge from different contexts to inform the conception of STEM education and, ultimately, STEL. The points of view brought by indigenous scholars or by non-majority participants are missing perspectives that should be brought to bear on decision-making, even on allocating research dollars and developing technology to benefit communities. Currently, an opportunity is lost to diversify STEM education for social justice and decolonization. The coming together of international scholars should help promote content integration in Technology Education by embracing other cultures’ forms and practices of technology; co-constructing knowledge (through project collaborations that are open to alternative technological knowledge and practices); and enriching conventional pedagogical approaches with indigenous ones (e.g., Ubuntu can be used as a guiding framework for teamwork, group work, and collaboration). Ubuntu promotes the human values of oneness, respect, community, and more. Scholars are important agents of change through research; through their research work and research communities, they could inject transformation into learning situations to discourage racism in favor of the benefit of learning that differences in culture and intellectualism between indigenous and non-indigenous students can lead to greater understanding.

18.2.3 Globalization of STEM Curricula The globalization of STEL has shaped the nature of STEM curricula. My stance is that STEM education should not be blind to indigenous perspectives if it is to avoid Western dominance. Scholars such as Ruele (2017) and Gumbo (2003) confront the Western ideological influence in STEM curricula in Africa. Though there has been an effort to contextualize curricula (such as in South Africa) by aligning them to democratic principles including indigenous knowledge systems, social justice, and inclusivity (Basic Department of Education, 2011), Western ideologies still drive the curricula and influence the school culture. Although the 2000 standards document titled Technology for All Americans (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000, 2002, 2007) strived to be broad-based, the choice of title attracted critical questions: What is the truth in the phrase “Technology for All Americans”? To what extent do STEM curricula embrace indigenous notions such as processing wood, hut design and construction, making equipment, etc.? Who creates the curriculum? Whose STEM knowledge is taught to children in the US, South Africa, Thailand, Australia, and elsewhere? How do indigenous students receive STEM curricula? Are indigenous notions of STEM acknowledged in STEM curricula? Reading the STEL document, I get a feeling that marginalization still reigns in STEM curricula both locally (US) and internationally. However, STEL could

294

M. S. Miller et al.

be used to embrace, firstly, all people in the true sense of the word, irrespective of color, creed, gender, culture, ethnicity, and other characteristics. So much work has been done to promote multicultural education in America (see Gumbo, 2001, among others), and STEM education, through STEL, could be used to promote a broader understanding of multiculturalism and socio-culturalism. Secondly, since STEM has a global mission, I propose viewing the updated standards within a subtext of “Technology for All Nations” that is relevant for global citizens. This expanded context will compel designers of technology and engineering curriculum models to ensure the integration of content and STEM relevance to different contexts. STEL seems to be going in that direction, thus providing an advantage for the transformation of STEM.

18.2.4 STEL As stated above, STEL considers contextual differences, practices, and standards (ITEEA, 2020, p. 11). Indeed, the products of technology and engineering emerge in people’s contexts and practices (activities). There is an opportunity here to explore technology and engineering within indigenous-rich contexts. An interest should be shown in how technology and engineering manifest in contexts such as transport and building technologies; in practices such as systems thinking as informed by Ubuntu principles of holism, collaboration, unity, etc.; and in standards such as characteristics of technology and engineering, impacts of technology, and the history of technology. STEM-inclined activities are carried out daily in indigenous contexts, which students must learn about to build on their understanding of STEM and diversify their design solutions. Interest in indigenous forms of STEM would help decolonize these fields and in the process transform them. For example, Ogunbure (2011) provides an indigenous definition of technology which includes tangible and intangible dimensions; technology is not all about touchable or concrete solutions. Gumbo (2019) expands on the indigenous meaning of technology in the book titled Teaching Technology (Chapter 1: What is technology? and Chapter 2: Forms of knowledge and technology). I believe that entertaining indigenous forms of STEM would produce a different and important perspective on STEL. It would make sure that indigenous students are not disadvantaged; that they can identify with STEM knowledge, skills, processes, material resources, and equipment from their unique contexts; and that students produce culture-friendly curricula and teaching materials are produced. It would also help transform the school culture in terms of the treatment of indigenous students. Therefore, the participation of indigenous practitioners right from the design stage of the STEM curriculum development is a needed consideration that can confront indifference and promote cultural differences as a tool instead of a barrier to learning.

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

295

18.2.5 Literacy Redefined to Fit the Purpose Indigenous people are associated with illiteracy all over the world (Curtis, 2009) because of colonialism, which has stifled their educational programs about literacy. At one time, literacy was narrowly defined as the ability to read and write, particularly to suit Western educational standards. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM] (2016), supported by ITEEA, has now broadened the scope of the definition to distinguish foundational literacy from disciplinary literacy. ITEEA confirms the importance of disciplinary literacy by claiming that technology and engineering are ubiquitous in all aspects of people’s lives: that every human activity depends upon the products, systems, and processes that are created to help grow food, provide shelter, communicate, work and recreate (2020). Furthermore, technology and engineering take different forms in different contexts. ITEEA recognizes this fact as it claims, “it will be up to states and provinces, school districts, teachers, and others to develop curricula based upon these standards in ways that make sense for particular educational settings” (2020, p. ix). It is in this light that the definition of this term has expanded (Hoepfl, 2020). Therefore, it is fitting that the disciplinary literacy in indigenous technological knowledge systems be explored and expanded to enrich STEL. The global marketization of STEM by ITEEA suggests that the US should not be the only one conceptualizing STEL for the world. Participation in STEL should be widened to accommodate other cultures and contexts. Creativity can be enhanced through trans-/inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches that are inspired by different ideas, knowledge, and methodologies. The prejudice that tends to stigmatize indigenous people as illiterate will be dismissed when all feel respected, and their ideas are welcome.

18.2.6 Trans-/Inter-/Multi-disciplinarity of STEM The trans-, inter-, or multi-disciplinarity of STEM relates well to indigenous people’s system thinking in tandem with the principle of holism encapsulated within Ubuntu: individualization (specialization or single subject) is better understood within the context of the whole (community of subjects). The opportunity arises in the role that technology plays within STEM, expressed by ITEEA (2020, p. ix) thus: “the interdisciplinary connections between technology and engineering to other subject areas do not stop with science and mathematics.” This aligns well with the notion of literacy expressed above, which can embrace capabilities in numerous subject areas such as language arts, social studies, and the arts. Students could be assigned to investigate indigenous or culturally situated ideas and practices that could offer alternative ways through which technology and engineering could improve human conditions. The arts and culture of indigenous people harbor rich technological expressions that should not be studied in the context of museums only but instead can enliven

296

M. S. Miller et al.

the subject of STEM education. This way, a cultural cross-pollination will be realized which is guided by Ubuntu. Investigation methods could include discussions with indigenous knowledge holders, especially elders who possess vast experiential knowledge. Case studies could be used in the learning activities. Diversification of language for learning technology should be considered as well. For example, what are indigenous versions of technological concepts that can be used in teaching and learning to expand the meaning of technology to students? Indigenous students could be called upon to unpack such concepts for the benefit of the entire class.

18.2.7 Collaborative Learning Approaches Numerous target skills in STEM education, particularly Technology Education, augur well with indigenous pedagogies. Gumbo (2016) deliberates on indigenous pedagogical principles that can be applied in the teaching of Technology. They include inculcating a holistic view to knowledge and phenomena, enriching learning with experiential knowledge of the elders, building a learning community through Ubuntu, and so on. These can enrich or even transform the eight practices contained in STEL (ITEEA, 2020), which are closely related to pedagogy and skills. For example, students could collaborate in their learning activities by drawing from Ubuntu principles of collaboration while they observe the ethics of the tripartite relationship between humans, nature, and spirit.

18.2.7.1

Suggestions

In closing this section, I offer some suggestions which can help address the issues raised in this critique. • The composition/membership of ITEEA should be truly representative of the multicultural realities of the US society and beyond. An effort should be made to extend the membership of this organization to other regions in the world, especially in the greater South. • The above suggestion would also encourage wider participation in the conferences attached to ITEEA which will, in turn, contribute diverse STEM knowledge, skills, and pedagogies to enrich STEL. • STEL should not be a blueprint, but adapted and reflected upon in different contexts. • A concerted effort should be made to accommodate indigenous technological knowledge systems in STEM and STEL. This would help relate STEM and STEL well to more subject areas than just science and mathematics and would ensure the growth of students’ literacy in those areas. This would also transform the classroom and school culture by embracing indigenous epistemologies related

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

297

to STEM. For example, knowledge, resources, and pedagogical approaches relevant to STEM can be explored in indigenous contexts, such as the design of a rope bridge in India, the evolution of the design and art of the Ndebele people’s hut in South Africa, the survival techniques of the Islanders in Australia, etc. The knowledge and skills acquired from learning these aspects could enrich the current designs and solutions to make them relevant to indigenous people as well. Scenarios and case studies from these practices can be designed for learning and assessment tasks. Most importantly, indigenous knowledge holders, especially the elders, can be used to share knowledge and demonstrate certain skills. Indigenous students can be used as resources as well because they possess knowledge sourced from their cultural contexts. • Similarities and differences between Western technological knowledge systems and indigenous technological knowledge systems should be explored to inform STEL going forward (e.g., indigenous preservation methods and processes compared to Western preservation methods and processes).

18.3 An Equity and Access Perspective Alarcon

18.3.1 Introduction The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL), a joint project of the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) and the Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE), helps members of society to delineate the role that both technology and engineering play in education and practice. One of the caveats of STEL is literacy, which is defined as a “fluid construct, meaning that knowledge, skills, and abilities change over time” (STEL, 2020, p. 2). Yet, these literacies are intricately woven into individual experiences in society. If not attended to properly, these same literacies can become stagnated, particularly around equity and access. The purpose of this chapter section is to present the (mis)use of the terms of equity, access, and its intersections within the STEL standards. Furthermore, recommendations for improving the STEL standards from these three perspectives are included. The section ends with concluding thoughts aimed at igniting critical reflections amongst its readers.

18.3.2 Motivation The Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL), a joint project of the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA)

298

M. S. Miller et al.

and its Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education (CTETE), helps members of society to delineate the role that both technology and engineering play in education and practice. STEL includes considerations for the standards themselves, its practices, and their contexts so that all venues, from technological innovation to PreK-12 education, includes technological and engineering literacy. These literacies are important for supporting “citizens who participate in decision-making” because “many of our current global problems were created by our technological choices” (ITEEA, 2020, p. viii). STEL represents a significant re-envisioning of the document first put forth in 2000, the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000, 2002, 2007). One of the central tenets of STEL is literacy, which is defined as a “fluid construct, meaning that knowledge, skills, and abilities change over time” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 2). Yet the rate of change of these knowledge bases, skills, and abilities can become stagnant if there are no clear considerations of how individuals’ realities are intricately woven into society. The purpose of this chapter section is to present the (mis)use of the terms of equity, access, and its intersections within the STEL standards. Furthermore, recommendations for improving the STEL standards from these three perspectives are included. The section ends with concluding thoughts aimed at igniting critical reflections amongst its readers.

18.3.3 Critiquing and Improving the STEL Standards on Equity, Access, and Its Intersections 18.3.3.1

Equity

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), “Equity involves trying to understand and give people what they need to enjoy full, healthy lives. Equality, in contrast, aims to ensure that everyone gets the same things to enjoy full, healthy lives” (2023, para. 7, italics added). As the equity definition conveys, understanding what people need to enjoy full, healthy lives requires an in-depth exploration of the context of that need, which includes but is not limited to historical, socio-economic, (sub)cultural, and societal considerations. In the STEL report, the word “equity” was mentioned twice, once on page 46 in its presentation of a PreK-12 school project conveying Core Disciplinary Ideas and again on page 87 when presenting another PreK-12 school example on Technology and Engineering Access. Upon closer examination, specifically focusing on Fig. 2.1 that summarizes the three organizers for technological and engineering for teaching, there is no mention of the word “equity.” This is problematic because, according to STEL, “Ultimately, the success of STEL rests with teachers” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 16). Yet, if the term “equity” is not formally included in its standards, practices, core disciplinary ideas, or contexts, the result may be an implicit conveying of and unintentional messaging to users (i.e., teachers) and learners (i.e., students) of STEL

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

299

that the fields of technology and engineering do not value equity or diversity, which is a hidden curriculum message that is often associated with these disciplines (e.g., Villanueva et al., 2020). Yet, as STEL acknowledges, “Technology and engineering are intricately woven into the fabric of human curiosity and are influenced by human capabilities, cultural values, public policies, and environmental constraints” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 26). As such, the influence of human capabilities, cultural values, public policies, and environmental constraints must include considerations of equity from conception to action, especially when trying to understand and give people what they need (AECF, 2023). From a benchmark standpoint, STEL emphasizes the importance of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains (e.g., page 14 and Table A.3) to better understand a human-made need for a given technological design or innovation. Upon closer examination of these domains, from the perspective of equity, it appears that both users (teachers) and learners (students) of STEL must be able to cross over from lower levels of each domain (e.g., remembering—cognitive; receiving—affective; observing—psychomotor) to higher levels (e.g., evaluate—cognitive; characterization by valuing—affective; adapting—psychomotor) over time. Yet, to achieve these higher domain levels, equity perspectives must be at the forefront. For example, in the cognitive domain, a learner must be able to understand, analyze, and evaluate the context of a given need and how equitable that need is for individuals in society. For the affective domain, a learner must value the need and assess how the need will be equitably met across different people in society. For the psychomotor domain, a learner must observe and adapt to the context of people so that needs are equitably met by said technology. Thus, equity is intertwined at all stages of STEL. It is recommended that the term “equity” and its clarifying definitions are explicitly included in the STEL standards to ensure that both learners and users of STEL can more meaningfully cross over from lower to higher levels of each domain. In addition, the term “equity” should be included in STEL follow-up activities such as curriculum development, teacher trainings, and supporting addenda that the ITEEA and its partners create.

18.3.3.2

Access

Interestingly, the word “access” was mentioned on 29 pages out of the 188-page STEL report, suggesting a greater awareness of this need in the standards. Yet, like equity, its mention or explanation was not explicitly included in the standards. Most of the uses of the term “access” were in connection to exemplar projects used by PreK-12 classrooms. In these examples, “access” was used interchangeably with “accessibility.” This was evidenced in how “access” was referred to primarily as the availability of physical spaces, materials, or natural resources, information, communication networks and levels, learning opportunities, expertise, life-saving procedures, and universal designs across the STEL document. Similar to how STEL conveys the word “engineering” as both a noun (study of) and a verb (a habit of mind) on page 5, the term “access” suffers from similar misconceptions and misuses of the term. It

300

M. S. Miller et al.

often gets confused or used interchangeably with “accessibility.” Yet, access and accessibility are not the same. Accessibility involves “the design, construction, development, and maintenance of facilities, information and communication technology, programs, and services to all people (so that they) […] can fully and independently use them” (White House, 2021, italics added). Accessibility requires an in-depth understanding of the systemic and structural barriers that may prevent people from fully or independently using a given resource to attend to a given need. Access, on the other hand, emphasizes the extent to which accessibility affords an individual to use that which they had intended to use (Chalgoumi, 2011). In the context of STEL, this signifies that access serves as a metric for the degree of accessibility of a technology or engineering innovation to meet a given need. As such, there should be further clarifications in the STEL standards to define and/or explicitly support users’/learners’ understanding of the subtle yet important distinction between access and accessibility. This distinction should be more prevalent in the STEL practices section of the report and, more specifically, in explaining the roles that technology and engineering carry in society. For practices such as Systems Thinking, Critical Thinking, Making and Doing, Communication, and Ethics, for example, STEL standards can include considerations and explanations of how accessibility and access may be attended to using these practices. Since “access to accurate information is therefore essential for making sound […] decisions” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 112), it will be important to adapt the STEL standards in the future to include a more clarifying and accurate explanation of the use of access and its accompanying terms. To tease out these nuances in the context of technology and engineering education, it will be important to include experts in special education, universal design for learning, and members of the community (teachers, students, parents) who can help verify and validate the meaning of these terms and its use within the standards. Moreover, in understanding how these practices affect other components of a context, a need, or a technological design, we can’t disconnect “the affordances, histories, relationships, structures, communities, and individuals that draw upon the broad contexts, activities, and experiences” in order to gain access (Villanueva Alarcón et al., 2021, p. 5). That is where the intersection of equity, access, and their accompanying terms in the consideration of the STEL standards will be important.

18.3.3.3

Intersections of Equity and Access

Due to the misconceptions between equity and equality, access, and accessibility, it is no surprise that equity and access tend to be viewed as independent terms with little to no connections established between the two. In the exploration of the STEL report and the standards, it was clear that the intent was to convey that the standards, practices, and contexts are interwoven (e.g., STEL-3C: Demonstrate how simple technologies are often combined to form more complex systems; ITEEA, 2020); however, this intent may have been lost in translation to its readers.

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

301

For example, in STEL-3C, complex systems consist of “many interconnected or interwoven parts that interact in such ways as to produce outputs that cannot always be predicted” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 151, italics added). Interconnectedness or interwovenness implies that a user (teacher) or learner (student) of STEL must understand the connections and relationships between contexts, activities, designs, experiences, and other factors that situate human needs. Only once in the report was the intersection of equity and access addressed and it was done nonchalantly through an example presented on p. 105 under TEC-5 (Technology and Engineering Context: Information and Communication). For the TEC-5 example, the term used was “equitable access” to convey the idea that communication networks and devices are important in ensuring “individuals’ ability to participate in the social, economic, and political functions of the global society” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 105). Let’s explore another example within Technology and Engineering Practices, more specifically Practice 3: Making and Doing. According to STEL, making and doing “continue to be… foundational components of technology and engineering education” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 76). This quote means that making and doing require users and learners of STEL to situate “hands-on” learning experiences and prototyping for technology and engineering. For making and doing to happen, universal designs (e.g., Mace, 1985) must rely on Universal Design for Learning (Rose, 2000) principles to guide the teaching and learning of technology and engineering. However, if equity and/or access are not considered from its inception, universality risks “becoming a form of generalization and normalization that could re-enact exclusion” (Villanueva & Di Stefano, 2017, p. 4). In other words, even though we think all will have the same access or equity of access to learn and apply what is learned in the context of technology and engineering, some groups will inherently be left behind unless learning experiences are conceived otherwise. Thus, considering intersections of equity and access is important, especially among the spaces where learning and practice of technology and engineering education happen (e.g., prototyping centers, labs, makerspaces, classrooms). According to Villanueva Alarcón and colleagues (2021), equity of access is defined as follows: Equity of access consists of the affordances, histories, relationships, structures, communities, and individuals that draw upon the broad contexts, activities, and experiences of making for the purpose of exchange and mutual growth. (p. 5)

Again, as with equity and access, there must be a consideration of the contexts of the user and learner of STEL. This intersectional use of terms must be considered so that users and learners of STEL are well-equipped to mutually exchange information and grow together as they apply what is learned to a technological innovation or product. As such, STEL standards must include further clarity of these intersections and how they can serve for mutual growth of both the user and learner of STEL. At the same time, users and learners of STEL are people who live, learn, and/ or work in a community that in and of itself is interwoven. These interdependencies can manifest as community needs, wants, funds of knowledge (e.g., Moll et al., 1992), experiences, and desires. It means that STEL must cross historical, societal, cultural, and age divides beyond PreK-12. For example, consider expanding the STEL

302

M. S. Miller et al.

standards to include adult learners and users. There is an expansive knowledge-andliterature base on adult learning that could be used to inform professional training, career and technical education, and informal learning experiences from the perspective of STEL. Following the same train of thought, it will be important to include expertise and practices from other disciplines to ensure that in the process of acquiring and teaching for technological literacy, “a broader array of subject areas, including language arts, social studies, and the arts” (ITEEA, 2020, p. ix) are included. It is recommended that experts from these disciplines also be considered in future iterations of the STEL standards. Finally, in considering the intersections of equity and access, we must not forget to consider how issues of race, ethnicity, and other social constructs (Gannon, 2016) may influence the use, design, teaching, and learning of technology and engineering. To this end, it is recommended that the STEL standards include considerations of justice, diversity, and inclusion in addition to equity and access. The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), in its recent iteration of accreditation standards, included additional clarifications to its criteria to consider inclusion and diversity (ABET, 2020). Similarly, STEL recognizes the same need (ITEEA, 2020). However, explicit explanations and definitions of access, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (and their intersections) in the STEL standards, as they relate to ITEEA and its partner activities, are needed to fully consider the contextual and situated ways of knowing, thinking, and doing of all people living and working in society.

18.3.4 Concluding Thoughts STEL provides an ample exposition of the need for, and role of, technology and its relationships to science, engineering, and math. Its standards set the groundwork for users and learners of STEL to interpret and apply the standards to their unique needs and contexts. However, from an equity and access perspective (along with their intersections), there needs to be further clarification of important terms and practices to help individuals connect their contexts and experiences to the standards. The critiques and tips for improving the STEL standards that are presented here are not comprehensive and were constructed primarily based on word counts of the standards document, but this limited analysis has sparked discussions that are intended to ignite reflections that will inspire sustainable change now and in the years to come.

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

303

18.4 A Literacy Perspective Petrina

18.4.1 Critique of the STEL from a Literacy Perspective This section argues that we cannot guide or understand literacy without a substantive analysis and discussion of meaning-making, “the complex process by which people glean, understand, interpret, or otherwise make sense of who they are and what is going on in some social context” (Ferrante, 2018, p. 154). Indeed, essential to cognition and culture, literacy is meaning-making. If the “standards and benchmarks were established to guide students’ progress toward technological and engineering literacy” (ITEEA, 2020, p. 14), then it is no exaggeration that this guidance will be inadequate until meaning-making is included as a core concept or practice. Guidance will be inadequate unless design, engineering, and technology (DE&T) educators acknowledge that making meaning is as important as making things. This section first addresses the centrality of meaning-making to literacy and then transitions to discussions of meaning in and of DE&T practices and products. Invariably, benchmarks and standards raise questions of construct validation. Constructs are abstract without operationalization. Similarly, standards are static without some measure of their expression in everyday life or school and some means or instrument for measurement. If a construct is insufficient, measures will be fragmented. If an instrument is inoperable, the construct will remain abstract or without qualification and quantification. Is technological and engineering literacy a comprehensive construct? In STEL (2020), technological and engineering literacy is defined as “the ability to understand, use, create, and assess the human-designed environment” (pp. 8, 161). For the past 25 years or so, construct validation focused on building a network of associations or relationships among the key concepts or practices of technological and engineering literacy: understanding, using, creating, and assessing. A version of this network is depicted in Fig. 2.1 and Table 4.1 of STEL (pp. 11, 72). Given that the Standards for Technological Literacy (STL; ITEA/ITEEA, 2000, 2002, 2007, p. 9) defined technological literacy as the “ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technology,” we can include managing as a key concept within this network of relationships. Can a student assess engineering and technology practices if they never created an engineering or technological artifact or system? Can one use engineering or technological devices without assessing their effects? Does using a system necessitate or develop an understanding of the system? Can one be literate in this sense if they never managed a system, however small (e.g., an operating system for a mobile device) or large (e.g., supply chain of groceries for a kitchen)? Some critiques helped expose opportunistic motives that potentially reduce literacy to the ability to exploit engineering and technology for economic advantage, whether individualistic or nationalistic (Petrina, 2000). Drawing distinctions between functional and critical literacies, others stressed the inclusion of critiquing as a key concept

304

M. S. Miller et al.

of technological and engineering literacy (Dakers, 2006, 2014; Petrina, 2018). Is critiquing independent of assessing? Is designing and making things sufficient for making meaning? However much attention has been given to these five key concepts, understanding, using, creating, managing, and assessing, literacy itself has been taken for granted or underanalyzed. STEL acknowledges that “literacy is a fluid construct” and notes that technological and engineering literacy emphasizes “process and action, including designing and making” (p. 2). Literacy is “the ability to read and write” but it is also the ability to make meaning. A glaring omission, from STL through STEL, is arguably this most important key concept of literacy—meaning-making. Since the 1980s, literacy research has increasingly focused on the meanings that readers and writers make of their literary, linguistic, and semiotic experiences (e.g., Harste et al., 1984). Introduction of the World Wide Web (WWW) and hypertext in the 1990s reinforced this turn to meaning. Literacy is defined as meaning-making. As Lankshear and Knobel (2002) assert, “any acceptable concept of literacy has to make sense of reading, writing, imaging, and other modes of meaning-making as integral elements of social practices” (p. 33). Creating and using engineering and technological artifacts are examples of these “other modes of meaning-making.” What meanings do children, youth, and adults make of their DE&T practices and products over time? What meanings do DE&T offer? When teens insist that “my phone is my life,” what are the implications for technological and engineering literacy (Anonymous, 2014)?

18.4.2 Connotative Meanings in/of DE&T While denotative meanings are important, connotative meanings of DE&T are that much more important for technological and engineering literacy. It would seem that from their beginnings, DE&T practices, processes, and products have generated deep, symbolic meanings—status being just one of these meanings. Media have made explicit and dramatized these deeper meanings, which then script meanings that children, youth, and adults alike make of their varied interactions with DE&T. Anthropologists have had a longstanding interest in symbolic meanings. Malinowski (1942), for instance, explains that “insofar as an activity is performed as a means to an end—objects handled, devices constructed and used—it can be stated that the organism is engaged in the instrumental use of the apparatus. But the same artifacts, devices, and habits may act as signals or cues” (p. 66). It is a mistake to then jump to the conclusion that “technology has to do with means; culture, with meanings” (Wickenden, 1947, p. 179). Malinowski was adamant that we cannot understand design, engineering, or technology if they are purified of culture. Meaning is made through interaction. Symbolic meanings, Cox (1971) clarifies, are those meanings technologies have above and beyond their merely technical function.

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

305

Technological artifacts become symbols when they are “iconized,” when they release emotions incommensurate with their mere utility, when they arouse hopes and fears only indirectly related to their use, when they begin to provide elements for the mapping of cognitive experience. (p. 128)

This begs basic questions, such as “how did these meanings get there and who put them there?” and “what are these meanings and what do I make of them?” Symbolic meaning is coincidental with the ancient origins and history of design. From the early modernism of da Vinci through the nineteenth century, iconography and symbology were systematized for education and practice in DE&T (Johnson, 1992; Krampen, 1989). Practitioners and theorists demonstrated how to express a range of meanings through decorative, material, and structural techniques. Artifacts used in unintended combinations within larger systems took on different and new meanings. Rapoport (1977) captures the significance of this in defining design as “the organization of space, time, meaning, and communication” (p. 8). This is not to suggest that designers, engineers, and technologists are always clear about their intended meanings or that consumers or users are aware of these practices or readily decipher and interpret these meanings as such. Meanings in some DE&T artifacts or practices may be fixed, but interpretations are not. “The designer can usefully be considered as the first of many who will affix meaning to design” (Buckley, 1986, p. 12). This difference is exemplified in gift exchanges wherein meanings made by givers can differ from those made by recipients.

18.4.3 Meaning-Making Through DE&T Given the symbolism of DE&T, what meanings do children, youth, and adults make? Asking “what does design, engineering, or technology mean?” is a much different question than “what does this specific design, engineering, or technology practice or product mean to me or the environment or society?” Oware (2008) addresses this question of children’s meaning-making: To learn what engineering means, a child has to employ internal mental processes such as going from the word and abstraction. The child also must assimilate the concept of engineering through psychological processes. An educator can help a child learn about engineering, but cannot force a child to learn about engineering by simply telling the child a definition and having the child memorize and repeat that definition. (p. 24)

Educators tend to recognize that students necessarily make meaning through DE&T (Garcia et al., 2018). For instance, this is evident in optimistic statements about latent meanings of DE&T: “The opportunity to design means that we are in charge of our lives and that we can change them. Design offers us an inherently forgiving and optimistic model for self-renewal” (Shannon, 1992, p. 61). Some may perceive that specific DE&T practices or products symbolize liberation while for others they symbolize oppression (Buckley, 1986). A bicycle might signify freedom

306

M. S. Miller et al.

to riders but a threat to walkers. When a 64 year old adult says, “my mobile device means to me contact with a friend, exit from a state of depression and loneliness to a better state of mind,” is this also the device’s marketers speaking (Hima, 2020, p. 23)? When a 41 year old reports that “tech can change your life… the iPhone proved this from the day it was launched,” is this also the Apple product speaking (Ellis, 2022)? Recognizing or restoring the centrality of meaning-making to technological and engineering literacy does not require validating each and every meaning made. Literacy or fluency does not lead to meaning-making; rather, meaning-making is central to the development of literacy and fluency. What role then does meaningmaking play in technological and engineering literacy, and how does it connect (or not) to the new STEL? Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Darcie Christensen from Iron Range Engineering in the University of Minnesota-Mankato and Mr. Edwin Marte Zorilla in the Herbert Wertheim College of Engineering at the University of Florida for their editorial assistance.

References Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2020). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2020–2021. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/cri teria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2020-2021/#GC3 Anonymous. (2014, October 31). My phone, my life. Teen ink: By teens, for teens. https://www.tee nink.com/opinion/school_college/article/729847/My-Phone-My-Life Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 390–400. Bronowski, J. (1973). The ascent of man. Little, Brown and Company. Buckley, C. (1986). Made in patriarchy: Toward a feminist analysis of women and design. Design Issues, 3(2), 3–14. Burke, J. (1978). Connections. Simon & Schuster. Chalghoumi, H. (2011). Balises pour l’intervention avec les technologies auprès des élèves qui ont des incapacités intellectuelles [Doctorat en Sciences de l’éducation]. Université de Montréal. Cox, H. (1971). The virgin and the dynamo revisited: An essay on the symbolism of technology. Soundings, 54(2), 125–146. Crenshaw, K. W. (2002). The first decade: Critical reflections, or “a foot in the closing door.” In F. Valdes, J. M. Culp, & A. P. Harris (Eds.), Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory (pp. 9–31). Temple University Press. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9 Curtis, M. (2009). A world of discrimination: Minorities, indigenous peoples and education. https://minorityrights.org/wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-655-A-world-ofdiscrimination.pdf Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). (2006). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework. Palgrave MacMillan. Dakers, J. R. (Ed.). (2014). New frontiers in technological literacy: Breaking with the past. Palgrave Macmillan. Department of Basic Education. (2011). National Curriculum Statement: Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) Technology Grades 7–9. Government Printers. Ellis, M. (2022, January 10). What the iPhone means to me. Mac O’Clock. https://medium.com/ macoclock/what-the-iphone-means-to-me-232cfd6b1ce4

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

307

Equity vs. Equality and Other Racial Justice Definitions., The Annie E. Casey Foundation., https:// www.aecf.org/blog/racial-justice-definitions (2023). Ferrante, J. (2018). Places that matter: Knowing your neighborhood through data. University of California Press. Gannon, M. (2016). Race is a social construct, scientists argue. Scientific American, 5, 1–11. Garcia, A., Stamatis, K., & Kelly, M. (2018). Invisible potential: The social contexts of technology in three 9th-grade ELA classrooms. Research in the Teaching of English, 52(4), 404–426. Gumbo, M. T. (2001). Multicultural education and its politics. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 223–241. Gumbo, M. T. (2003). Indigenous technologies: Implications for a technology education curriculum [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Vista University. Gumbo, M. T. (2016). Pedagogical principles in technology education: An indigenous perspective. In G. Emeagwali & E. Shizha (Eds.), African indigenous knowledge and the sciences: Journeys into the past and present (pp. 13–32). Sense. Gumbo, M. T. (Ed.). (2019). Teaching technology: Intermediate to senior phase. Oxford University Press. Gumbo, M. T. (2020). Introduction. In M. T. Gumbo (Ed.), Decolonization of technology education: African indigenous perspectives (pp. 7–24). Peter Lang. Harste, J. C., Woodward, V. A., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Heinemann. Hima, J. (2020). The Nobel prize must be given to the smartphone inventor [unpublished bachelor’s thesis]. University of Gavle. Hoepfl, M. (2020). Defining technological and engineering literacy. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 80(3), 1–6. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=182516&v=3b63d81a International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000, 2002, 2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Author. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. Author. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=168785&v=fb52b0c8 Johnson, N. R. (1992). Metaphor and design. Studies in Art Education, 33(3), 144–153. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wozniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design & technology. School Examinations and Assessment Council/Central Office of Information. Krampen, M. (1989). Semiotics in architecture and industrial/product design. Design Issues, 5(2), 124–140. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2002). Doom or mortal combat? In L. D. Soto (Ed.), Making a difference in the lives of bilingual/bicultural children (pp. 31–51). Peter Lang. Mace, R. (1985). Universal design: Barrier free environments for everyone. Designers West, 33, 147–152. Malinowski, B. (1942). Man’s culture and man’s behavior. Sigma Xi Quarterly, 30(1), 66–78. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Weave. Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/weave Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The darker side of Western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. Duke University Press. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2013). Why decoloniality in the 21st century? The Thinker, 48, 10–15.

308

M. S. Miller et al.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The social context of multicultural education (2nd ed.). Longman. Ogunbure, A. A. (2011). The possibilities of technological development in Africa: An evaluation of the role of culture. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(3), 86–100. Oware, E. (2008). Examining elementary students’ perceptions of engineers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Purdue University. Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. Petrina, S. (2018). From crit to social critique. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), International handbook of technology education (pp. 39–50). Springer. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man—Environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon. Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45–49. Ruele, V. (2017). Adopting a foreign curriculum in Botswana: Benefits, shortcomings and implications for Africanisation. In M. T. Gumbo & V. Msila (Eds.), African voices on indigenisation of the curriculum: Insights from practice (pp. 181–223). Reach Publishers. Shannon, M. J. (1992). Design and technology education: A program for community-based learning. Journal of Epsilon Pi, 18(1), 61–65. Villanueva Alarcón, I., Downey, R. J., Nadelson, L., Choi, Y. H., Bouwma-Gearhart, J., & Tanoue, C. (2021). Understanding equity of access in engineering education making spaces. Social Sciences, 10, 384. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100384 Villanueva, I., & Di Stefano, M. (2017). Narrative inquiry on the teaching of STEM to blind high school students. Education Sciences, 7(4), 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040089 Villanueva, I., Di Stefano, M., Gelles, L., Youmans, K., & Hunt, A. (2020). Development and assessment of a vignette survey instrument to identify responses due to hidden curriculum among engineering students and faculty. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), 1549–1569. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10195906 Warner, S. A. (2009, Fall). The soul of technology education: Being human in an overly rational world. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 72–86. White House. (2021, June 25). Executive order on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in the Federal workforce. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/ 25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/ Wickenden, W. E. (1947). Shall higher education be expanded on the technological pattern? Journal of General Education, 1(3), 178–186. Williams, T. (1987). The history of invention: From stone axes to silicone chips. Facts on File.

Molly Miller is a technology and engineering teacher at Penn Manor High School in Millersville, Pennsylvania, where she teaches courses in engineering, applied physics, and computer science. She is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Applied Engineering, Safety & Technology at Millersville University. She has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Millersville University as well as her doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh. Molly speaks nationally on technology and engineering teaching and learning. Molly is involved in a number of student organizations including state leadership of the Pennsylvania Technology Student Association (TSA). Scott A. Warner is a Professor in the Department of Applied Engineering, Safety & Technology at Millersville University. He has degrees from Millersville University, Ball State University, and West Virginia University. He has taught at the middle school, high school, and university levels. He is a member of several organizations that deal with education and design including the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA) and the Industrial Designers Society of America (IDSA). He has authored or co-authored over 40 peer reviewed articles or

18 Lenses for Critiquing and Improving the Standards: Design, Indigeneity …

309

book chapters and has given over 50 presentations to educators and design professionals at various conferences. Mishack T. Gumbo is a Research Professor of Indigenous Technological Knowledge Systems Education in the Department of Science and Technology Education at the University of South Africa. He has more than 100 publications in the form of journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and books. He is currently leading a research project on the Indigenisation of Mathematics, Science and Technology Master’s in Education Programme, and A Strategic Intervention in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. He has successfully supervised 31 master’s students and doctoral students. He is the Editor-in-Chief of Indilinga: African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Idalis Villanueva Alarcón is Associate Professor and Associate Chair for Research & Graduate Studies in the Department of Engineering Education at the University of Florida. She has over 12 years of experience in engineering education research and practice on hidden curriculum, mentoring, mixed- and multi-modal methods, engineering professional development, and performance. Her work seeks to improve STEM learning and working conditions by analytically and critically exploring structural issues that impact the expansion of opportunities for all. Her technical training, in a former life, was in Chemical and Biological Engineering (Ph.D.) from CUBoulder and Analytical Cell Biology (Post-Ph.D.) from NIH. Stephen Petrina is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy at the University of British Columbia. He specializes in how we learn media & technology across the lifespan, and especially how students and teachers innovate in classrooms, labs, workshops, makerspaces, and virtual spaces. He has published in various fields including Media Studies, Science and Technology Studies (STS), Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics education (STEM), and Curriculum Studies. He is currently researching the philosophy of media and technology for children and youth.