Page 115 - Standards for K-12 Engineering Education

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

100 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

inclusion of the word “technology” in this label sparked a state-wide discussion of what that
should include. For the science education community, it was indicative of a science, technology,
and society (STS) perspective reflective of Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989) and the
National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996). For the technology education community, it
suggested a technological literacy perspective reflective of Technology for All Americans (ITEA,
1996). There was some discussion as to whether it meant computers—instructional technology—
but the later inclusion of the label “technology education” in the statement about what the board
“may also include” was interpreted as a reference to computers.

The result of this state-wide discussion was an initial (1996) state framework that defined
“science and technology” as an academic subject that integrated the STS and technology
education perspectives. Later, in the 2001 framework revision (MA ESE, 2001), the STS
perspective was reduced and replaced with more specific engineering principles, leading to the
modified framework title “science and technology/engineering.”

The Vision of Technology/Engineering
This paper is not the place to outline the reasons technology/engineering education adds
significant value to student learning and to our educational programs. Those rationales have been
well developed elsewhere. However, it is worth explaining the general motivations of those who
advocated for technology/engineering in Massachusetts during each stage of the framework
process.

During the development of the initial 1996 framework, technology education staff promoted the
need for students to develop technological literacy in addition to scientific literacy. They also
strongly argued that technology education courses promoted hands-on opportunities for students,
particularly a certain population of students who were not succeeding in “traditional” science
courses. These arguments spelled out the educational value of the discipline.

A third argument was related to adults rather than students. Advocates for this arguments noted
that including technology education in a core academic framework would justify their jobs. It
was their contention that administrators would find it harder to eliminate technology education
programs if those programs directly contributed to student learning of a core academic discipline.

In the revision process leading to the 2001 framework, engineers with an interest in education
entered the conversation to advocate for expanding the technology component of the framework
to include engineering principles. These engineers argued that standards would be necessary to
promote engaging, innovative programs to interest students in current methods and issues of
design and support the state’s need for engineers and technicians.

The Academic Framework over Time
Basic Structure
The state science standards follow a consistent format: strands (disciplines) include a number of
core topics that are specified through standards. There are five strands in the current MA
framework: Earth and Space Science, Life Science (Biology at the high school level), Physical

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.