Technology Education to Engineering: a Good Move? 10 P

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). The Journal of Technology Studies 11 - ysis of (1990) qual s wis (2005) eterson’ gy education, an anal ed that the design process, while v echnolo T wis (2005) quoted P We try to determine desirable levels of try levels to determine desirable We ith the promotion of Engineering as a of design in Engineering, Le . whether we are designing a component, are designing we whether and gather or process, we product, system process significant amounts of information . . crite- evaluation performance and establish can compare the merits we ria with which the tech- consider We designs. of alternative social or regulatory nical, economic, safety, We restrict our choices. constraints that may synthesize alter- abilities to use our creative designs . . . (p. 2). native the sentiment of this Both the language and W Le y ification that design is not a science and has no This presents rigorous rules progression. for for more traditional Engineering edu- problems see the Engineering process as pre- cators who and quasi-scientific.dictable In contrast, Cross (2000) percei variable and evolving, tends to become formal- and evolving, variable of further indicate the diversity To ized. approaches to Engineering design, the Cambridge Engineering Design Centre is devel- methods to computer-based oping evolutionary optimize conflicting design criteria in a diverse electric hybrid range of areas, such as improving Engineering, Engineering, be design would description of Engineering teachers. education Technology familiar to descriptions of the many Although there are Engineering process, just as there are many process, the gen- Technology of the explanations eral and superficial judgment is that there are no significant differences. focus for be the nature of the Engineering process should from varies The depth of this analysis added. “engineering design is the same as technological Education Technology design” (International the Association, 2000, p. 99) to the idea that the Engineering design process centers around four representations of semantic, graphical, ana- (Ullman, 2003). In his sum- and physical lytical, mar pointed out this remains an area of contention, with “some in the engineering community that design lacks the definitive content believing and rigor [that typifies oth- engineering], while cannot be taught” (p. ers contend that creativity 45), and other tensions within Engineering cen- of hands-on learn- value ter on the questionable ing that accompanies design. - - - e , v gy gy for gists ha minolo consequent con gy and other sub e y, and it relates to y, echnolo T While some apolo een vant knowledge. vant The procedural ter ould be to link Science, Biolo ferences, and mak is interdisciplinar ng courses (Project Lead the Way, 2005). Way, Lead the ng courses (Project Provide a career pathway to an engineer- to an career pathway a Provide & Daugherty, (Dearing ing profession 2006). 2004; Wicklein, student learning the quality of Improve 2006). (Rogers, experiences engineer- preparation for university Give i a higher education to technology Elevate level academic and technological 2006). (Wicklein, y xist in the nature of the process and the alent w Contrasted with an historical focus on • • • dis- been considerable Although there has • of Because of the aforementioned suspicion v alliances betw inition of rele y ves, and analyzing and evaluating (Eggert, and evaluating and analyzing ves, clusions. However, after researching this topic, it after researching clusions. However, not be a simple that this would became evident Thus, the primary focus of this article is to task. between determine main areas of deviation if the educa- Technology Engineering education and tion e def Engineering education is generally the same as Engineering education is generally education – for exam- Technology that used in ple, formulating generating alterna- a problem, ti 2005). Eggert elaborated that in (2005) Process the nature of the Engineering knowledge, more attention Engineering process has received (Malpas, 2000). cussion on this topic, there seems to be verycussion on this topic, lit- the similarities, differences, tle discussion about and Technology and the relationship between is a con Engineering as school subjects. STEM fused acronym in which Engineering has a dif- in which fused acronym than Technology ferent type of relationship to This is because Science does to Mathematics. broad a subset of the Engineering is actually the Science example, For Technology. area of equi and Mathematics. rationales for the consideration of developed 1988), it as a discipline (Dugger, Technology actuall disci- Engineering, along with a range of other plines in both the sciences and the arts. an jects, this author’s intent at the beginning of this intent at the beginning jects, this author’s to search Engineering and article was curricula other literature, deter- and Technology mine the dif 1

The Journal of Technology Studies 2 anal quent stressesanddeflections. Thermodynamic involves staticanddynamicloadsconse- ensure functionalityandendurance,it Engineering. Analytic designmay beutilizedto Technology of educationandthelatterapart l model and the testing process to further developmodel andthe testing processtofurther test ittodestr amodelbridge and tors, they willthenconstruct dents de education. In mon projectinbothEngineering and Technology model bridge-makingexercise, which isacom- the natureofengineeringprojects. development. This isobviously essential,given ofasolution,priortoits lead totheverification Engineering, experimentation andmodelling and modellingthatleadstoasolution.In ables involved. Itisaprocessofexperimentation tainty becauseofthediverse qualitative vari- not possib about itssuccess.In Technology education,itis producedandthen judgments aremade first research andideadevelopment, asolutionis range ofcriteria,andthroughaprocess by what “works,” by which a isinitially defined Success in Technology educationisdetermined judgments. and fatigue to di its production. predictability aboutthedesignoutcomepriorto analytic framework, thusenabling themtohave the devising ofdesignsolutionsfromamore taught tostudents,sothatthey couldapproach Science andMathematicswould needtobe Engineering, oneimplicationisthatmore that if Technology educatorsaretoembrace This reflectsLewis’s (2005)earlierdiscussion predictive resultsandconsequentrepeatability. technology thatprecludesthedevelopment of absence ofmathematicalrigorandanalysis in processes inEngineeringand Technology isthe the fundamentaldifference between thedesign (Cambridge EngineeringDesignCentre,2009). ing cheaperandmorecompactspacesatellites pollutants andnoiseinaero-engines,design- vehicle drive systems,trading-off reductionin ytic design,thefor yses ma This difference may beillustrated by a Conceptual designislesspredicti This thinkinghasledanumberofauthors Gattie and Wicklein (2007)concludedthat vide designintoconceptualandana v elop anunderstandingofdesign fac- le topredictw y Technology education,afterstu- uction. be requiredinordertomak mer beingcommonin The hat willw y will anal ork withcer- yze the v e. e yield - tion ofdesignsolutions”(K and optimizationforthemathematicalpredic process isthatengineeringdesignusesanalysis “The mostnotable difference inthedesign Engineering designand Technology education. acceptable outcomes. abroaderrangeof are moreopen,permitting develop. For technologists, thedesigncriteria fordivergentopportunity andcreative ideasto range ofoutcomesarepossible andthereisless implyingmore deterministic, thatamorelimited thedesignhasfailed. meet specifications, the testingofbridgeindicatesthatitdoesnot ments. Next, themodel.If they willconstruct tothedesignrequire- the modelwillconform and thenanalyze allthevariables toensurethat develop anunderstandingofthedesignfactors, have discovered. InEngineering,studentswill they another modelasaresultoftheinformation their understanding. They possibly willconstruct Ho bodyofknowledge. and basedonadefined Engineering design:onethat is moreanal process thatisalignedwiththe natureof discussion, willnecessarily employ adesign which istheframework ofthecited formost has apre-engineeringorvocational goal, education. Engineeringasaschoolsubjectthat place inacontext ofgeneralorpre-vocational sive andnotascrucial. T whileThis predictionoffailure, still presentin paper withregard criteria” (p.89). tofailure that arerequiredtotestaproposeddesignon concentrations andflows, voltages andcurrents, detailed calculationsofforcesanddeflections, outthe andcarry as “theabilitytoformulate as theimpor come possibilities. uisite knowledge andis lessdivergent inout- ferent typeofdesignthatrequiresmoreprereq- more infor not meanthatEngineeringdesignisnecessarily production isafeatureofEngineering. This does and testingofprototypesolutionspriortotheir a The useofScienceandMathematicstodevelop ment projectspromote Engineeringdesignin echnolo body ofknowledge that enables theanalysis w Herein liesakey difference between Thus forengineers,thedesigncriteriaare A Petroski (1996)characterized thisdifference e v er discussion ofthisdif , gy educationacti some authors and curriculum develop-some authorsand curriculum med (McCade,2006),itisjustadif tance of failure considerations, such tance offailure vities, islessper ference shouldtak elle y , 2008, p.51). ytic v a - - e - The Journal of Technology Studies 13 - ere ersity v ears, students at The courses w Among the recom vious in the number wing: prepared for vailable to students with vailable status for either university each of which would have would each of which y , school. In these y ocational studies. y gy education is ob realize opportunitiesrealize devel- through the designed strategies innovative opment of needs. to meet human and operational, organizational, apply to using, skills appropriate manipulative and adapting technologies. developing, values, cultural beliefs, understand how positions are inter- abilities, and ethical and use of connected in the development and enterprise.technology riculum Council, 2001). 5. ENTERPRISE. Students pursue and pursue Students 5. ENTERPRISE. Students SKILLS. TECHNOLOGY 6. Students IN SOCIETY. TECHNOLOGY 7. an idea of the relationship 1 gives Table During the 2000-2005 period of progressive This was a particularly positive outcome for positive a particularly This was The significance of the change for courses of study hich up until this time did not offer students hich up until this time did not offer echnolo xisting 270 subjects a between outcomes and content. The content has outcomes and content. between into a scope and sequence, but it been developed is quite broad and open to interpretation. it became implementation of the Framework, years two clear that it did not encompass the last of secondar school did one of the follo university entrance, began preparatory entrance, began vocation- university al studies for later transfer to a tertiary vocation- and al institution, or studied school designed assessed subjects. In 2001, the government the upper secondary curriculum reviewed (Cur mendations of the review were to replace the were mendations of the review e 50 entrance or v to be outcomes based and consistent with the and implemented Learning devised previously Area Framework. Area Framework, Learning Technology the w courses that could be used for uni T entrance; the focus was on vocational prepara- on vocational entrance; the focus was tion for other post-school destinations. Of the 50 proposed courses, those that represent a continu- second- studies in the lower Technology ation of 2. Table ary are listed in years the same preparator study options that are now of technology-related compared with the former to students, available had none. Students can they situation in which ving solutions to OCESS. Students vironments to meet human ork” was a radical departure from ork” was ving solutions to technology ving solutions to technology w TERIALS. Students select and use vices, or en apply a technology process to create or a technology apply modify products, processes, systems, ser needs and realize opportunities. MA materials that are appropriate to achiev- challenges. ing solutions to technology Students design, INFORMATION. adapt, use, and present information that is appropriate to achie challenges. technology SYSTEMS. Students design, adapt, and use systems that are appropriate to achie challenges TECHNOLOGY PR rame It brought together a number of previously It brought together 2. 3. 4. The kindergarten to year 10 Technology 10 to year The kindergarten 1. Prior to the application of this discussion to Prior to the application . riculum is defined in terms of outcomes and y specific the an introduction to context, a echnology Education in Western Australia Western Education in echnology discrete subjects that included a similar process discrete subjects that included a similar were The subjects focus and philosophical basis. Technology, Home Economics, Design and Agriculture, and Business Studies. Computing, cur are: outcomes The seven content. T a curriculumWestern education in Technology in 2000, a state In this area, Australia follows. introduced that was curriculum framework was included eight learning areas, one of which devel- These learning areas were Technology. imple- oped and used in schools as a trial for Learning The “Technology mentation in 2005. Area F previous curricula in the area, which were con- curricula were previous area, which in the focused tent specific and in a quite detailed way out- was framework The new on teacher inputs. comes based and specified content in a general w lower secondary and even primary schools, secondary even and lower but not be vocational should this level at which of edu- levels at lower A design process general. design and is pre- prioritizes analytic cation that the mastery body of knowledge of a ceded by and divergent limits creativity and consequently such as inappropriate. Projects thinking is “Primary Engineer” are in fact in engaging use the and presumably Technology Design and reasons related to status or Engineering label for recognition. 1

The Journal of Technology Studies 4 Table 1.DesignandTechnology OutcomesandContent. Years 11-12. T Note. Council. Council,2008,Perth:Adapted from“EngineeringStudies”by Curriculum Curriculum from 2006through 2011. are beingprogressively implemented inschools tional studies. These new courses have beenand universityment asthebasisforfurther or voca- select fromthesesubjectsand usetheirachieve- able 2.Technology-Related Courses Media Productionand Materials, Design,and Technology F Engineering Studies Design Constr PathwaysCareer andEnterprise Business ManagementandEnter Aviation Automoti Applied Information Technology Ag Accounting andF • • • • • Technology Process • Information • • M ood Scienceand The creation of information The creationofinformation The natureofinfor The selectionanduseofmaterials The natureofmaterials Devising Investigating Evaluating Producing aterials riculture (AnimalorPlant) uction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Techniques Devising Investigating Devising Investigating Processes Features, anduse properties Form andattributes Form andattributes Evaluating Evaluating Considerations Generating andcommunicatingdesigns Methods Outputs Producing Conte Producing Context andimpact Conventions andconsiderations v e Engineering and xt andimpact inance Technology mation Anal ysis T echnology prise focussed on industry andcommercial standards. focussed onindustry related toMathematics andScience,more lum becomesmore analytical, moreexplicitly nolo Technology tech- educationintoa more specific focus w it isclearthattheprocesstak ence betw are listedin Table 3,andthey indicatethediffer- tion). Someelementsofthetechnology process subjects listedin Table 2(pre-vocational educa- includesthetypeof lum, anduppersecondary oftheK-10generaleducationcurricu- is apart to g is dif anduppersecondary.secondary The curriculum elaborated accordingtothesetwo stages:lower 12. Inthiscur subjects areavailable 11- forstudentsingrades • • T • • Enterprise • Systems • • • Technology inSociety The natureofsystems The useanddevelopment ofsystems echnology Skills Organizational skills Enterprising capabilitiesandskills Enterprising attitudes Enterprising Influencing factors Influencing factors Operational skillsandmanipulative skills Consequences rade 10,andthenarangeofmorespecif gical areasuchasEngineering. In support ofthe previousIn support literaturereview, T ferent atthesetw echnology istaughtasgeneraleducation hen studentspro • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • een thesestages. Materials Materials Materials Information Information Infor Devising Investigating Form andattributes Systems Systems Systems Evaluating methods Evaluating outputs Generating ideas Evaluating Process –investigating Communicating andmanaging Maximising opportunities Producing Context andimpact riculum, thetechnolo mation o stages: lo g ress be es onadif y w ond general er secondar gy processis The cur ferent ricu ic y - The Journal of Technology Studies 15 - and then , hich becomes ined vironmental, marine, wledge is proposed by ields is broad, a definedields is broad, body of elopment of prerequisite skills and riculum unit. xists for each area, w v Advanced Technology Education pro- Technology Advanced Upper Secondary (Yr 11-12) Upper Secondary wledge that accompanies Engineering gy products similar debate exists among technology similar debate exists acturing, materials, mechanical, “mecha Engineering kno A wledge e wledge, because it can be def wledge before the design process is utilized discrete cur ays to plan and design solutions to technology and design solutions to plan ays or use in developing plans and proposals or use in developing ors of production (e.g., choices of materials, tech- ors of production (e.g., educators. Some propose that students should skills and mate- master a range of manipulative proceed to rials understandings before they so that their design work in design, engaging tronic,” mining, nuclear, and telecommunica- mining, nuclear, tronic,” the definition that hypothesis This author’s tions. of the kno and Technology will be different, with the for- will be different, Technology and mer both more limited and more defined than as not seem to be as plausible would the latter, Although this list of thought. originally Engineering f manuf kno a of that some to be taught prior to the application kno it can inform design process. “The idea is the as opposed to being the that design is informed, result of a guess or multiple guesses” (McCade, State York the New example, 2006, p. 73). For Center for kno (1998), however, (McCade, 2006). Petroski noted that design should be taught to students in their Engineering education, which early significant them to achieve enable proce- would dural understanding. aeronautical, agricultural, automotive, bioengi- aeronautical, agricultural, automotive, neering, chemical, civil/structural, electrical/electronic, en posed the de Mathematical and scientificMathematical methods analytical and the functionality examining when applicable use of particularsuitability for technologies W to meet detailed specificationsHow and market/ products, developing when commercial standards systems, services, and environments Industry-standard risk management strategies Commercial specifications of quality, and standards presentation, and performance evaluating for technolo challenges that incorporate fac- of detailed analysis t needed) niques and costs, people Mathematical and scientific appropriate principles f and there wing , TECHNOLOGY PROCESS TECHNOLOGY hich gy echnolo T Therefore, if gy areas that are not wing roles of engineers in the Technology is broader than that Technology ypothesis. le h gy, computing), this would seem to computing), this would gy, Lower Secondary (Yr 8-10) Lower echnolo T gy education is more appropriate as a ould be a disadvantage. y xts is presented as very broad. In his book However, the scope of Engineering in some the scope of Engineering However, The initial hypothesis of this discussion was The initial hypothesis pecifiedfind to criteria (e.g., how standards and echnolo ssues to be addressed when devising solutions to devising when ssues to be addressed appropriate standards and criteria) appropriate standards social, and environmental Functional, aesthetic, i challenges technology to meet detailed specificationsHow and standards products, systems, services, and developing when environments of and maintaining a variety Methods of organizing tools, resources, and equipment detailed specificationsPredetermined, and standards personal work that can be used to evaluate Key design features and properties design of technologies Key can determine use and suitability to functionality that meet designs and plans for generating Strategies s on Engineering Design, Eggert (2005, p. 16) refers to the follo product realization process: sales engineer, fieldapplications engineer, service engineer, materials design engineer, industrial engineer, manufacturing industrial engineer, engineer, quality control engineer and project engineer, the New educational context, In an engineer. Engineering Studies Syllabus Wales South (Board of Studies, 2009) lists the follo conte are man Engineering (architecture, industrial design, biotechnolo be a plausib of education deals with the breadth Technology then Engineering as a subject would Technology, that one of the virtues of be more limited. Given is that teachers can choose to teach Technology aspects that are of interest to them and relevant seem that limiting this to their students, it would scope w areas of Engineering as those from w aerospace, study modules will be developed: of Engineering. If it were accepted that of Engineering. If it were Engineering is a subset of Knowledge that the scope of component of general education. The different approaches to design taken by approaches to design taken The different indicate that Technology Engineering and T Table 3. Aspects of the Technology Process. Technology of the 3. Aspects Table 1

The Journal of Technology Studies 6 Engineering and knowledge isrelevant in thestudyofboth tent knowledge, highlights thequestionofwhat ences inthedevelopment ofproceduralandcon- have obtainedinresponsetotheirfeltneed. immediately apply theskillsandknowledge they problem solvingbecausethisallows studentsto of need.Inthiscase,needgeneratedthrough effectively ifthey aretaughtatthetime learned which statesthatskillsandknowledge aremore is invoked ofthislatterapproach, insupport Pavlova &Pitt,2000). A pedagogical argument and thestudyofmaterials(Johnsey, 1995; practiced atthesametimeasmanipulative skills i creativity andinnovation, sotheskillsinvolved d b a 2 Custer,Merrill, Daugherty, Westrick, &Zeng, c the designprob knowledge andisnotdependentonthenatureof so for ter therelevant bodyofknowledge,defines isprede- theknowledgedetermines thatisrelevant. are projected, andthepursuitof solution lem isanalyzed, possible pathways toasolution absence ofadesignprob gogy inthatcontentcannotbetaughtthe theaccompanyinglem. peda- This alsospecifies priortoanalyzing theprob- cannot bedefined body ofrelevant knowledge, which ofcourse ferent inEngineering than Technology. solution ofatechnolo thatisneededtoprogress the The information by thenature oftheproblem. brief isdefined nological knowledge to aproblem ordesign In Technology education,therelevance oftech- difference between Engineeringand Technology. knowledge isrelevant? of knowledge, sothequestion arises: What with Technology body where thereisnodefined of designprojects.However, thisisnotthecase w acceptable bodyofknowledge relatedtothatarea civil and orautomotive, thenthereisadefined tent areaofEngineeringisbeingtaught,suchas n an beinformed, reasonable, andpossible (e.g., pproach designthinkingwould beconstrained y ents possess,which would consequently limit 008). The alternative propositionisthatinthis hich forms theparametersfordevelopmenthich forms mined, beitchemical,marine,automotive, and learning howlearning todesignshouldbetaughtand the skillandmaterialunderstandingsthatstu- This latter approach, of concurrent experi- This latterapproach,ofconcurrent In Engineeringstudies,thecontext, which The ans th. Becausethecontentdeter w er tothisquestionhighlightsthe lem, thetaskfor thestudentisdif T echnolo gical prob lem. gy . If a particular con- If aparticular The designprob lem becomesthe mines relevant - - A examine someoftheEngineeringcurriculum. understanding of theprofessionengineering” Engineering Studies “de general aspects,thefocusisquite vocational. thatprovide optionsforstudy: specialist fields Council, 2008,p.3),thereisacoreplusthree (Curriculum limited totheengineeringindustry” employment needsinarangeofoccupationsnot foundationtomeet students withthenecessary “course contentissuf Engineering. Despitethestatementthat evolved intoaquitelimitedapproachto tors becameinvolved, andthecoursehas more conservative university Engineeringeduca- way. However, duringitsdevelopment, some Engineering-related areasofstudyinapractical design focussed (Cur ticular needsormarket opportunities” ing principlestosolve problems andmeetpar- to designandmake thingsby applying engineer- forstudentswithdifferentopportunities interests course provides challenging,practicalways and on cultures,societiesandenvironments. The influenced allaspectsofourlives by impacting will develop aninsightintohow engineeringhas over timetoimprovelife. ourqualityof They systems have becomeincreasingly sophisticated machines,productsand the designofstructures, Western Australia, “studentswillexplore how lows: n 11and12. in grades A briefdescriptionofthe t T A he optionofprogressing tostudyEngineering ature oftheseEngineeringstudiesisasfol- echnology they thenhave tothetenthgrade; s ustralian states,studentsstudyDesignand explained previously, inanumberof I In New South Wales, thesubject Therefore, even thoughthisincludessome SPECIALIZA CORE: Engineering design The coursew During thecourseEngineeringstudiesin riculum Council,2001,p.1). n the lightofthisdiscussionitisusefulto , broadl as originall TION: f icientl y v co elops kno and community prise, en and processenter- systems andcontrol. engineering, or electronic/electrical engineering, or Mechanical v ering arangeof y y di conceived as v erse topro vironment wledge and vide The Journal of Technology Studies 17 lem is vity ined icant aspect of ws a general Associate vement of general vement lem is ill def an Engineering prob e school follo illiams is an y esign and Technologyesign and Engineering W D General Designerly Defined the problem by Defined the context by Math/Sc dependent Analytic, Vocational the type of engineering that is so there is less scope for the stu- This is not a signif , y ohn ehicle for the achie J . gy education prob gy Education Research at the gy Education Research P . sity of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, Hamilton, New Waikato, sity of ined b Technology education is a more appropriate Technology Dr The process of Engineering design involves a needed to solve The knowledge hnolo ricula v chooling 10 Up to year 11-12 Years ubject echnolo ec S S Focus Process Knowledge technological skills than is Engineering, but a technological Engineering studies system of education where at upper secondar second- education at the lower Technology based and a progression, be a logical would ary level education. Technology for “good” move predef being studied define and consequently dent to explore relevant knowledge. cur Professor in the Centre for Science and for in the Centre Professor T Univer and Adjunct Professor in the School of in the School Adjunct Professor and Mt University, Education at Edith Cowan of He is a Member-at-large Australia. Lawley, Tau. Epsilon Pi problem factor analysis, which is dependent on which factor analysis, problem Science and an understanding of applicable Mathematics. T are different; Technology education is more education Technology are different; education, of general component a appropriately vocational. studies are more and Engineering in termsThe implication the school curriculum of is a component education Technology is that secondary education, of primary and lower is partand Engineering the upper secondary of is summarized in This position schooling. 4: Table Technology the type of design carried out in scope for the achieve- less education. It provides ment of the general goals related to creati con- and lateral thinking because it is more strained. until the nature of the problem is fully explored is fully until the nature of the problem The knowl- and the design process is underway. edge needed to solv Table 4. Lower and Upper Secondary Table Studies. Technology inal y it all students ven though the ven wledge related to gical literac le to secondary students, ailab It does not mention preparation v vision of real-life problem-solv- . for each student. ther y vities in a wide range of student interest of ethical considerations and the aim of of ethical considerations eloping their technolo v wing areas: energy technology, environmen- technology, wing areas: energy The process and the kno The breadth of approach in this course is The breadth of approach the title of the In the state of Queensland, sustainability in meeting the needs of socie- sustainability in meeting responsibilities, engineers such key With ty. place increased importance on areas now synthesis and such as communication, of information, skills management analysis (p. 6) and teamwork. No longer do engineers only formulate do engineers only No longer solutions and integrate provide problems, responsibili- understanding. Key technical include responsi- profession now ties for the full responsibili- creation, taking wealth ble ty In general, it seems that e that this subject should benef de y y Conclusion Technology education and Engineering studies Technology further illustrated by the modules from which it which the modules from further illustrated by is constructed – these are in the areas of house- hold appliances, landscape products, braking structures, per- systems, bio-engineering, civil aero- transport,sonal and public lifting devices, nautical engineering, and telecommunications is The study of all these modules engineering. compulsor subject that is a (Queensland Studies Technology Engineering of this dis- 2004), muddies the waters Authority, cussion fur for the engineering profession, it does however for the engineering profession, it does sa (Board of Studies, 2009, p. 6), but 2009, of Studies, (Board includes this rationale: the following with a broad focus, quite of the areas. Students must study four (or more) follo b through the pro ing acti com- manufacturing technology, tal technology, construction technology, munication technology, and transportation technology. rationale for studying Engineering in the f of secondaryyears schooling has a pre-vocational focus, it also has a more general focus that interested in are to students who apply may broad technical areas rather than specific preparation for studying Engineering at a university. that specify high school Universities Engineering as a prerequisite for entering Engineering courses tend to emphasize the vocational aspect of the school subject. 1

The Journal of Technology Studies 8 Curriculum Council.(2008). Curriculum Johnesy, R.(1995). Dearing, B. M.,&Daugherty, M.K.(2004).Delivering engineeringcontentintechnology education. Malpas, R.(2000). International Technology Education Association (2000). Gattie, D., & Wicklein, value needsforinfusingengineering andinstructional R.(2007).Curricular R.(2005). Eggert, Dugger, W. (1988). Technology –thediscipline. Douglas, J., Iversen, E.,&Kalyandurg, C.(2004). Council.(2001). Curriculum Cross, N. (2000)Designasadiscipline.InD. Durling&K.Friedman (Eds.). B Barlex, D. (2008)STEM:Canwe stillbecheerful?D&TNews, 38,16-17. References Ro Rogers, G.(2005).Pre-engineering’s placeintechnologyand itseffect education ontechnological Queensland Studies Authority. (2004). Project Lead The Way. (2005). Primar Petroski, H.(1998).Polishing thegem: designproject. A first-year P Pavlova, M., &Pitt,J. (2000). C., Custer,Merrill, R.,Daugherty, J., Westrick, M.,&Zeng, Y. (2008)Delivering coreengineering McCade, J Le LaP Kimbell, R.,&Perry, D. (2001). Kelley, T. (2008).Cognitive inengineering-focuseddesigninstruc- processesofstudentsparticipating Cambridge EngineeringDesignCentre(2009). etroski, H.(1996). oard ofStudies.(2009). f design intoK-12technology education. Design: Foundations for theFuture. http://www-edc.eng.cam.ac.uk/ competencies as perceived by Indiana teachers. 41 literacy asperceived by technology educationteachers. 87 practice inRussia? levelconcepts tosecondary students. 17 Education, 16 mathematics inthemiddleschool. of teaching andlearning. tion. Conference. Loughborough,England:LoughboroughUniversity. current practices andguidelinesfor thefuture. The Technology Teacher,64 wis, T. withengineeringdesignascontent. (2005).Comingtoterms gers, G.(2006). or thestudyoftec or (3), 6-22. (4), 445-449. (2), 72-75. te, J y Journal of Technology Education, 19 Engineer ., &Sanders,M.(1993). . (2006). Isdesignaright-brainorleft-brainacti (2), 37-54. . Engineering design. (2009). Retrie The ef The universe ofengineering. The placeoftheprocess skillmakingindesignandtechnology. In hnology. IDATER 2000Conference.Loughborough,England:Loughborough University vention bydesign. fecti E ngineering Studies,Stage 6 London: EngineeringCouncil. Engineering studies. Our youth,ourfuture. Post compulsoryeducationreview (3), 8-11 v Reston, A Curriculum philosophy. eness of design-based approach totechnology education-Isitacceptable v Design andtechnology inaknowledge economy: A distinctivemodel ed fromhttp://www.primaryengineer.com/ The technology, project:Integrating T/S/M integration science,and The Technology Teacher,52 V Engineering technology. Stoke-on-Trent, UK:Staffordshire University Press. A: Author. New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Journal of Technology Education,20 Pr Cambridge, MA:Har oject Leadthe Journal of Technology Education, 19 (2), 50-64. Improving thedesignprocess. The Technology Teacher,48 London: The Royal Academy ofEngineering. Washington, DC: ASEE EngineeringK12Centre. Journal of Technology Education,18 Perth: Author. Engineering intheK-12classroom: An analysis of . Retrieved fromhttp://www.pltw.org Sydney: Author. Standards for technological literacy: Content W Journal ofIndustrial Teacher Education, vity? J ay cur v ard Uni Brisbane, Qld, Australia: Author. (6), 17-21. ricula inde ournal of Journal ofEngineeringEducation, J v ournal of Technology ersity Press. T (1), 3-6. ec v (1), 48-64. eloping pre-engineering Doctoral Educationin Retrieved from hnology Education, (1), 6-18. IDATER 1995 . (1), 66-78. Perth: Author. The Journal of Technology Studies 19 Melbourne, Vic, (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. ed.). Boston, (3rd Technology education for teachers. education for Technology 7), 25-29. ( The teaching and learning of technology in Australian primary and secondary Australian in learning of technology and The teaching The mechanical design process design The mechanical Department of Education, Science and Technology Working Report, Commonwealth of Report, Commonwealth Working Technology Department Science and of Education, he Technology Teacher, 65 Teacher, he Technology Australia: Macmillan. Australia. T schools. Williams, P. J., & Williams, A. (Eds.). (1996). Williams, & J., P. Williams, Ullman, D. (2003). (2003). D. Ullman, Wicklein, R. C. (2006). 5 good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. for technology as the focus design engineering reasons for 5 good C. (2006). R. Wicklein, Williams, P. J. (2001). J. P. Williams,