Page 109 - Standards for K-12 Engineering Education

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

94 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

We will investigate the options used in the non-U.S. standards in this study.

The QCA materials in the U.K. do not distinguish between levels, but this can be explained
because the standards indicate only the final exam level. The AQA and the Edexcel materials do
distinguish between levels, apparently to indicate intermediate levels of mastery. These levels
are meant to indicate progression. The AQA Standards have three levels (Bands). Terminology
for the lower levels (simple, basic, limited range) indicates that the “from simple to complex”
option is strongly featured here. The levels are not used for all units; for example, no levels are
defined for Unit 3, Application of Technology.

The Edexcel materials also use levels for only three of four units. Here we see added verbs for
each next level (e.g., “identifies” for Band 1, and “identifies and explains” for higher levels).
We also recognize the same sort of indications of progression as in the AQA materials. In many
cases, the progression is not indicated for each next level in the Edexcel materials, but only for
the transition from Band 2 to Band 3, whereas in the AQA materials the level descriptions were
different for nearly all levels and standards.

Of the Australian standards, only the standards for the Certificate of Education in Western
Australia has levels (3-8, which probably refer to grade levels). In several cases, new verbs
added for each next level indicate progression. For instance, in Outcome 1 (Engineering
Process), the first standard has “investigate” for level 5, “investigate and justify” for level 6, and
“investigate, analyze and justify” for level 7. This is an example of “adding new elements for
each next level.”

Another standard, “graphical representations” for level 4 and “a range of graphical
representations” for level 5, illustrates the principle of “from little to more of the same.” We also
find the “from concrete to abstract” and “from simple to complex” approaches. For instance, one
standard has in level 8 “understand integrated complex multiple staged scientific principles and
mathematical relationships underpinning conservation of energy,” while in all lower levels the
word “complex” does not appear; the “scientific principles and mathematical relationships” are
present only in level 6 and up. Several standards have combinations of the four options for
progression, which makes it difficult to characterize the overall progression in these standards.
There is no common pattern for the whole set of standards for Western Australia.

The South African standards show the same use of multiple types of levels for standards. For
each of standard, the requirement is indicated for grades 10, 11, and 12. It is striking, though,
that the South African materials have no progression for Learning Outcome 2. Technological
Process. The standard document states: “The progression across the grades is reflected in the
degree of complexity of the content in Learning Outcomes 3 and 4.” But those are Knowledge
and Understanding and Application of Knowledge, so evidently no progression is defined for the
process in which the knowledge is learned and/or used. Looking at the whole set of South
African standards, one soon finds that no attempt has been made to formulate progression for
some of the other standards.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.