Page 32 - Standards for K-12 Engineering Education

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST CONTENT STANDARDS 19

The underlying assumption of standards-based educational reform is that student learning
will be positively affected by standards-related changes. However, the evidence on this point is
inconclusive. For example, in a meta-analysis conducted by Harris and Goertz (2008), the
authors note that standards that succeed in changing what is taught may do little to change how
classroom instruction is delivered. For this reason, they conclude, the impact of standards is
frequently not as decisive as advocates hope.
Another concern is that we may not know enough about the teaching and learning of
engineering at the K–12 level to develop credible standards. There appears to be a growing
convergence on the central importance of the design process in K–12 engineering education; a
handful of core ideas, such as constraints, systems, optimization, and trade-offs; and the impor-
tance of certain nontechnical skills, such as communication and teamwork. However, almost no
research has been done, and there is relatively little practical experience to guide decisions about
when specific engineering ideas or concepts should be introduced and at what level of
complexity. In addition, opinions differ on how engineering concepts connect with each another
and with concepts in mathematics and science. Indeed, standards that encourage separate
treatment of engineering may make it more difficult to leverage the connections between
engineering, science, and mathematics, potentially reducing the positive effects of engineering
on student interest and learning in these domains.
Finally, the prospects for the successful implementation of content standards for K–12
engineering education must be considered in the context of what most educators believe is an
overfilled curriculum. Obtaining stakeholder buy-in for a separate, new “silo” of content may be
very difficult in this environment, especially because it would probably require eliminating some
existing elements of the curriculum to make time and space for engineering.

Conclusion

As a K–12 school subject, engineering is distinct both in terms of its recent appearance in the
curriculum and its natural connections to other, more established subjects, particularly science,
mathematics, and technology, which already have content standards. Although the main ideas in
K–12 engineering education are largely agreed upon, data based on rigorous research on engi-
neering learning at the K–12 level are still not sufficient to develop learning progressions that
could be reflected in standards. Even if much more were known about engineering learning,
there are legitimate questions about the wisdom of promoting an entirely new silo of content for
the K–12 curriculum.
For these reasons, the committee argues against the development of standards for K–12 engi-
neering education at this time. Instead, we suggest other approaches to increasing the presence
and improving the quality of K–12 engineering education in the United States. These are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3.

References

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1998. Blueprints for Reform:
Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Available online at http://www.project2061.org/
publications/bfr/online/blpintro.htm. (August 4, 2010)

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.