Technology Education to Engineering: a Good Move? 10 P
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Technology Education to Engineering: A Good Move? 10 P. John Williams s e i d u t S y g Abstract o literacy in the population (Barlex, 2008). l o n Recent curriculum changes in the educa- Despite the idea that Mathematics and Science h c e tional system of Australia have resulted in education can be improved by combining them T f allowing optional Engineering course work to with Engineering and Technology this has not o l a count for university entrance for students choos- been proved, and the concept of STEM literacy n r u ing to apply to a university. In other educational is a bit befuddling and ill defined. o J systems, Engineering is playing an increasingly e h T important role, either as a stand-alone subject or Much has been written about the synergistic as part of an integrated approach to Science, relationships among Science, Mathematics, and Mathematics, and Technology. These develop- Technology, particularly between Science and ments raise questions about the relationship Technology. A succinct summary of these rela- between Engineering and Technology education, tionships has been provided by Kimbell and some of which are explored in this article. Perry (1991): Science provides explanations of how the Introduction world works, mathematics gives us numbers Curriculum agendas that include a proposed and procedures through which to explore it, link between Technology and other curriculum and languages enable us to communicate areas rarely seem to favor Technology. When within it. But uniquely, design & technolo- Science and Technology are offered in primary gy empowers us to change the made world. schools, science is prioritized, and consequently (p. 3) technology is not delivered well (Williams, 2001). This is a function of both primary school Allied with the STEM approach is a facilities and primary teacher training. Science Technology education revisionary movement and Technology offerings in secondary schools toward adding Engineering in schools, particu- tend to be quite academic rather than practical larly in U.S. schools. Technology educators who (Williams, 1996). Numerous Science, promote this approach do so out of the frustra- Technology, and Mathematics (STM, SMT, or tion that has come from the absence of general TSM) projects that have been developed around recognition of Technology education after many the world produce interestingly integrated cur- years of advocacy, and they propose it as an riculum ideas and projects, but these have rarely adjustment to the focus of Technology education translated into embedded state or national cur- (Gattie & Wicklein, 2007). The fact that William riculum approaches. This is partly because the Wulf, the President of the National Academy of school and curriculum emphasis on Science, Engineering wrote the foreword for the Technology, and Mathematics is not equivalent “Standards for Technological Literacy” across these areas. Even the earliest integrated (International Technology Education approaches involving these subjects promoted Association, 2000) is heralded as a significant reform in Science and Mathematics (LaPorte & benediction (Lewis, 2005) to the shift from Sanders, 1993) rather than the goals of Technology education to Engineering (Rogers, Technology. Recently, Engineering, has been 2006). The rationales are various and dubious, brought into the mix as a number of Science, but they are similar to those presented for the Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) STEM agenda: projects have been developed, most significantly, in terms of numbers and influence, both in the • Increase interest, improve competence, United Kingdom and the United States. Again, and demonstrate the usefulness of mathe- the agenda for this type of amalgamation is not matics and science (Gattie & Wicklein, being driven by a desire to progress the goals of 2007). technology education; rather, it is being driven • Improve technological literacy (Rogers, by a desire to improve Science and Mathematics 2005), which promotes economic education in order to increase the flow of STEM advancement (Douglas, Iversen, & people into the workforce and to improve STEM Kalyandurg, 2004). • Provide a career pathway to an engineer- Engineering, ing profession (Dearing & Daugherty, whether we are designing a component, 11 2004; Wicklein, 2006). product, system or process, we gather and T h process significant amounts of information . e J • Improve the quality of student learning . We try to determine desirable levels of o u r experiences (Rogers, 2006). performance and establish evaluation crite- n a l ria with which we can compare the merits o f • Give preparation for university engineer- T of alternative designs. We consider the tech- e c ing courses (Project Lead the Way, 2005). h nical, economic, safety, social or regulatory n o l constraints that may restrict our choices. We o • Elevate technology education to a higher g use our creative abilities to synthesize alter- y academic and technological level S t native designs . (p. 2). u d (Wicklein, 2006). i e s Both the language and the sentiment of this Although there has been considerable dis- description of Engineering design would be cussion on this topic, there seems to be very lit- familiar to Technology education teachers. tle discussion about the similarities, differences, Although there are many descriptions of the and the relationship between Technology and Engineering process, just as there are many Engineering as school subjects. STEM is a con- explanations of the Technology process, the gen- fused acronym in which Engineering has a dif- eral and superficial judgment is that there are no ferent type of relationship to Technology than significant differences. Science does to Mathematics. This is because Engineering is actually a subset of the broad With the promotion of Engineering as a area of Technology. For example, the Science focus for Technology education, an analysis of equivalent would be to link Science, Biology, the nature of the Engineering process should be and Mathematics. While some apologists have added. The depth of this analysis varies from developed rationales for the consideration of “engineering design is the same as technological Technology as a discipline (Dugger, 1988), it design” (International Technology Education actually is interdisciplinary, and it relates to Association, 2000, p. 99) to the idea that the Engineering, along with a range of other disci- Engineering design process centers around the plines in both the sciences and the arts. four representations of semantic, graphical, ana- lytical, and physical (Ullman, 2003). In his sum- Because of the aforementioned suspicion of mary of design in Engineering, Lewis (2005) any alliances between Technology and other sub- pointed out this remains an area of contention, jects, this author’s intent at the beginning of this with “some in the engineering community article was to search Engineering and believing that design lacks the definitive content Technology curricula and other literature, deter- and rigor [that typifies engineering], while oth- mine the differences, and make consequent con- ers contend that creativity cannot be taught” (p. clusions. However, after researching this topic, it 45), and other tensions within Engineering cen- became evident that this would not be a simple ter on the questionable value of hands-on learn- task. Thus, the primary focus of this article is to ing that accompanies design. determine if the main areas of deviation between Engineering education and Technology educa- Lewis (2005) quoted Peterson’s (1990) qual- tion exist in the nature of the process and the ification that design is not a science and has no definition of relevant knowledge. rigorous rules for progression. This presents problems for more traditional Engineering edu- Process cators who see the Engineering process as pre- Contrasted with an historical focus on dictable and quasi-scientific. In contrast, Cross Engineering knowledge, the nature of the (2000) perceived that the design process, while Engineering process has received more attention variable and evolving, tends to become formal- (Malpas, 2000). The procedural terminology for ized. To further indicate the diversity of Engineering education is generally the same as approaches to Engineering design, the that used in Technology education – for exam- Cambridge Engineering Design Centre is devel- ple, formulating a problem, generating alterna- oping evolutionary computer-based methods to tives, and analyzing and evaluating (Eggert, optimize conflicting design criteria in a diverse 2005). Eggert (2005) elaborated that in range of areas, such as improving hybrid electric vehicle drive systems, trading-off reduction in their understanding. They possibly will construct 12 pollutants and noise in aero-engines, and design- another model as a result of the information they ing cheaper and more compact space satellites have discovered. In Engineering, students will s e i (Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, 2009). develop an understanding of the design factors, d u t and then analyze all the variables to ensure that S y Gattie and Wicklein (2007) concluded that the model will conform to the design require- g o l the fundamental difference between the design ments. Next, they will construct the model. If o n h processes in Engineering and Technology is the the testing of the bridge indicates that it does not c e T absence of mathematical rigor and analysis in meet specifications, the design has failed. f o technology