Page 113 - Standards for K-12 Engineering Education

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

98 STANDARDS FOR K–12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION?

4.1 Lessons Learned
One of the problematic issues in formulating standards is the notion of progression through
levels (e.g., in the U.S. Standards for Technological Literacy). As we have seen, of all the non-
U.S. standards in the survey, the South African standards, which are the most similar to the U.S.
Standards for Technological Literacy, are inconsistent in the way they define the differences
between levels. Because several types of progression are mixed, it is very difficult to see what
the overall progression is.

Some of the non-U.S. standards are based on a different approach that is interesting to consider.
This alternative is to formulate the same levels for all standards, as is done in the Hamburg
example. By relating these levels to classic taxonomies, such as Bloom’s, there is at least some
indication that the levels have a certain validity.

A second interesting suggestion based on non-U.S. standards is the separation of standards and
the contexts in which they can be taught and learned. This separation can result in more generic
standards that can be described in less detail and hence are easy to survey. This approach
enables teachers to recognize more easily the essence of what is to be learned and how much
freedom teachers and schools have in conveying that content. Studies like the current Delphi
study by Hofstra and Delft universities can help identify the essence of what is to be learned in
engineering concepts and contexts.

4.2 What Remains to Be Done
The survey shows that some puzzles have not been solved yet and need further research. In
particular, the issue of “outcomes-based” or “non-outcomes-based” standards is something most
developers of standards are evidently struggling with. It appears that it is difficult to be
consistent in formulating all standards in behavioral terminology, and one can question if this
should be aimed for at all. But then we must ask how standards formulated in a non-behavioral
way can be assessed. That is still unclear. Perhaps we just have to accept that some educational
goals, particularly long-term attitudinal goals, cannot be fully assessed.

A second unresolved issue is the relatively small number of examples of non-U.S. standards for
pre-college/university engineering education. By selecting only initiatives that have standards,
we have even fewer examples here than we had in the previous study of curricula. Some
initiatives for pre-college/university engineering education outside the U.S. have material for
classrooms, but these materials do not appear to be based on standards.

Clearly, there is a lack of experience everywhere in drawing up sound standards for pre-college
engineering education. In many ways, the U.S. Standards for Technological Literacy are more
sophisticated and elaborate than standards developed outside the United States, even though the
U.S. standards are not intended solely to support engineering learning. This suggests that the
United States may have the experience base to develop quality engineering education standards
for grades K–12. It would make sense, however, to seek ways of developing these standards in
cooperation with countries that, according to this survey, have some experience and may have
gained some useful insights.

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.