[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENGINEERING IN K-12 EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
52-859 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director
MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
October 22, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chair, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Witnesses:
Dr. Linda P.B. Katehi, Chair, Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Research
Council/Center for Education, The National Academies;
Chancellor, University of California, Davis
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 19
Dr. Thomas W. Peterson, Assistant Director, Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation (NSF)
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 21
Biography.................................................... 29
Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis, President and Director, Museum of Science,
Boston; Founding Director, National Center for Technological
Literacy
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Biography.................................................... 42
Dr. Darryll J. Pines, Nariman Farvardin Professor and Dean, A.
James Clark School of Engineering, University of Maryland,
College Park
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Biography.................................................... 49
Mr. Rick Sandlin, Principal, Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics
and Engineering Elementary School, Texarkana Independent School
District
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Biography.................................................... 61
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Linda P.B. Katehi, Chair, Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Research
Council/Center for Education, The National Academies;
Chancellor, University of California, Davis 76
Dr. Thomas W. Peterson, Assistant Director, Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation (NSF) 77
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Letter to the Honorable Daniel Lipinski and the Honorable Vernon
Ehlers from D. Wayne Klotz, President, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), dated October 23, 2009................. 80
ENGINEERING IN K-12 EDUCATION
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel
Lipinski [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
u.s. house of representatives
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
HEARING CHARTER
Engineering in K-12 Education
thursday, october 22, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2325 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
The purpose of this hearing is to examine the potential benefits
of, challenges to, and current models for incorporating engineering
education at the K-12 level.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Linda Katehi, Chair, National Academy of
Engineering Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, and
Chancellor, University of California, Davis
Dr. Thomas Peterson, Assistant Director for
Engineering, National Science Foundation (NSF)
Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis, President and Director, Museum
of Science, Boston and Founder, National Center for
Technological Literacy
Dr. Darryll Pines, Dean and Nariman Farvardin
Professor of Engineering, A. James Clark School of Engineering,
University of Maryland, College Park
Mr. Rick Sandlin, Principal, Martha and Josh Morriss
Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, Texarkana, Texas
3. Overarching Questions
How can engineering concepts be incorporated at the
K-12 level? What are the potential benefits of pre-college
engineering education? Can engineering be added to the
classroom without sacrificing core competencies in math and
science? What are reasonable learning outcomes for engineering
education at the elementary school level? What about middle and
high school?
What are the current models and initiatives for
teaching engineering at the K-12 level? What kind of curricula
have been used and how were such curricula developed? What has
been done in terms of curricula that combine K-12 engineering
with science and math in an integrated approach? To what extent
have these efforts increased student learning and/or interest
in STEM, and what metrics were used to carry out those
assessments of learning and interest? What are the biggest
challenges and barriers to incorporating engineering education
in the elementary or secondary school classroom?
What is the current state of research on engineering
education at K-12? What are the biggest unanswered research
questions? What assessment tools exist for evaluating the
effectiveness of engineering education in primary and secondary
school, and what are the bathers to improving assessment?
4. Background
Over the past decade, a variety of studies have documented the
decline of American students' interest and achievement in science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, as well as the growing
gap between American students' achievement compared to their
international counterparts in these fields. A consensus now exists that
improving STEM education throughout the nation is a necessary condition
for preserving the United States' capacity for innovation and for
ensuring the nation's economic strength and competitiveness. The 2005
National Academies report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' cited
a vast improvement of science and math education as the highest
priority policy recommendation for our nation to maintain its
competitiveness in the 21s' century global economy.
In recent years, a variety of educators and other STEM education
stakeholders have advocated for pre-college engineering education,
arguing that our current STEM education system is out-dated given the
skills needed by today's workforce.
Engineering education has been introduced to a small but growing
number of K-12 classrooms in the United States. The National Academy of
Engineering study committee on K-12 engineering education estimates
that six million elementary and secondary students have been exposed to
engineering-related coursework. However, the implementation of such
engineering education varies greatly in classrooms across the country,
ranging from ad hoc infusion of engineering activities and ideas into
existing science or math classes to stand-alone courses on engineering.
While K-12 engineering education is a relatively new phenomenon,
there is much to suggest it has the potential to have profound
implications for engineering fields as well as STEM education as a
whole. While there is a critical need for more research and data on the
impacts of K-12 engineering education efforts, preliminary research
findings suggest that K-12 engineering education has the potential to
not only increase the awareness of the work of engineers, boost youth
interest in pursuing careers in engineering, and increase the
technological literacy of students, but may also improve student
learning and achievement in science and math.
Since it is such a new field for pre-college students, unlike
science, math, and to a certain extent, technology education, many
questions remain unanswered regarding how engineering education at the
K-12 level is defined, designed, and implemented. At present, there are
no established learning standards for K-12 engineering education, nor
is there much in the way of professional development for teachers.
Furthermore, most K-12 engineering education has been implemented in an
ad hoc fashion and there is very little coordination between the
various programs and curriculum developers, making it more difficult to
compare programs and evaluate impacts.
National Academies Report on Engineering in K-12 Education
In order to begin to address some of these unanswered questions, in
2006, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National
Academies' Center for Education . established the Committee on K-12
Engineering Education to undertake a study regarding the creation and
implementation of K-12 engineering curricula and instructional
practices, focusing on the connections among science, technology, and
mathematics education. In September 2009, the study committee released
a report entitled, ``Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the
Status and Improving the Prospects,'' summarizing the key findings of
the study and providing guidance to key stakeholders regarding future
research and practice. The committee looked at the current scope and
nature of K-12 engineering education and examined available curricula
as well as professional development programs for teachers. Many of the
recommendations stressed the need for continued investment in research
in this area. Another key conclusion of the report was that engineering
education could potentially serve as the catalyst for a less ``siloed''
approach to STEM education. Many have argued that our current STEM
education system does not leverage the natural connections between STEM
subjects. The NAE Committee suggests that engineering could be used as
a tool to develop a more interconnected STEM education system in our
Nation's K-12 schools.
Diversity
The lack of diversity in engineering fields is a well documented
problem in the United States. In July of this year, the Subcommittee
held a hearing to examine the status of participation and achievement
of female students in STEM fields. Witnesses testified on the continued
lack of participation of girls and young women in certain STEM fields,
most notably in the engineering fields. The Subcommittee also plans to
hold a series of hearings on the participation of historically under-
represented minorities in STEM. Research findings suggest that women
and other under-represented groups face unique challenges at multiple
stages of the STEM pipeline, beginning at an early age. By helping to
make STEM learning more tangible and relevant to students, pre-college
engineering education has the potential to attract a more diverse group
of students to STEM fields.
5. K-12 Engineering Education and Research at NSF
STEM education research and activities are funded by a number of
federal agencies, with NSF being the primary source of support for STEM
education research. Historically, NSF's mission has included supporting
and strengthening the nation's STEM research and education activities
at all levels. NSF funds research on K-12 engineering education as well
as a variety of K-12 engineering education activities ranging from
teacher training to curriculum development. Many of the Foundation's
STEM education and research activities are housed in the Directorate
for Education and Human Resources (EHR), but some K-12 engineering
activities are funded out of NSF's Engineering Directorate through the
Engineering Education and Centers (EEC) Division, which funds work that
encourages the integration of engineering research and education with
the goal of improving the quality and diversity of engineering
graduates entering the workforce.
In his testimony, Dr. Peterson will provide more detailed
information regarding the K-12 engineering research and activities
funded by NSF. As an example, the GK-12 program, which provides funding
for graduate students to bring their research practice and findings to
K-12 classrooms, funds a variety of projects that place graduate
engineering students into high schools in their communities to do
hands-on engineering activities. In addition, the Research and
Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering (REESE) program has
funded research on evaluation of pre-college engineering curricula. The
Museum of Science, Boston, represented at the hearing by Dr. Miaoulis,
also received support from NSF for the development of their
``Engineering is Elementary'' Curriculum.
6. Questions for Witnesses
Linda Katehi
1. Please summarize the findings and recommendations of the
recent National Academy of Engineering report, ``Engineering in
K-12 Education: Understanding and Status and Improving the
Prospects.''
2. What is the current state of research on engineering
education at the K-12 level? What do we know about the
influence of early exposure to engineering concepts on student
interest and achievement in STEM fields in the elementary,
middle, and high school years? What are the most important
unanswered research questions?
3. What metrics and methodologies exist for-evaluation and
assessment of K-12 engineering education? What are the bathers
to developing better metrics? Is the current level of support
for research in these areas adequate?
Thomas Peterson
1. How is engineering education incorporated into NSF's K-12
STEM education programs, including the Math and Science
Partnerships Program and K-12 education programs within the
Engineering Directorate?
2. What is the current state of research on engineering
education at the K-12 level? What do we know about the
influence of early exposure to engineering concepts on student
interest and achievement in STEM fields in the elementary,
middle, and high school years? What are the most important
unanswered research questions?
3. What is the current level of support and scope of NSF-
funded research on K-12 engineering education? How much of
NSF's research support in this area is funded out of the
Engineering Directorate? How much research support is funded
through Education and Human Resources Directorate programs? How
do you communicate the findings supported by your division to
your colleagues in the Education and Human Resources
Directorate and vice versa?
4. What metrics and methodologies exist for evaluation and
assessment of K-12 engineering education? What are the barriers
to developing better metrics? What is or should be NSF's role
in developing those metrics?
Ioannis Miaoulis
1. Please describe the mission and work of the Museum of
Science, Boston's National Center for Technological Literacy
(NCTL.) How did NCTL develop its 1(42 engineering curricula?
What have you learned about combining engineering concepts with
science and math in an integrated approach to K-12 STEM
education? To what extent increased student learning and/or
interest in STEM, and what metrics were used to carry out those
assessments of learning and interest?
2. Where has NCTL received its financial support? What types
of federal resources were most valuable in supporting the
development of NCTL's engineering education programming? Has
the NCTL partnered with stakeholders in the private sector and/
or academia for intellectual and financial support? If so, what
is the nature of such partnerships?
3. What do you see as the biggest challenges and barriers to
incorporating engineering education in the elementary or
secondary school classroom?
4. What is the appropriate role of informal learning
environments, such as museums, in educating students and
teachers about engineering design?
Darryll Pines
1. As a dean of an engineering school, what do you consider to
be the necessary skills that make for a successful
undergraduate engineering student? Which of those skills should
students ideally possess upon enrolling in the university?
Which of those skills are better taught and learned at the
undergraduate level?
2. What do you consider to be the potential benefits of pre-
college engineering education, and at what grade level would
you suggest beginning to introduce engineering concepts? What
do you see as potential challenges or disadvantages of pre-
college engineering education?
3. Please describe the University of Maryland's (UMD) K-12
engineering programs and initiatives. Do these programs involve
formal partnerships with local K-12 schools, and if so, what is
the nature of such partnerships? How do you evaluate the
effectiveness of these programs and partnerships? What kind of
engineering related professional development programs does the
University provide for K-12 teachers? Does UMD incorporate
engineering into any of its degree or certification programs
for pre-service STEM teachers?
Rick Sandlin
1. Please describe the establishment of the Martha and Josh
Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School. What was
the impetus for its development? What role did partnerships
with local businesses and institutes of higher education play
in the development of the school?
2. What do you consider to be the benefits of pre-college
engineering education? Can engineering be added to the
classroom without sacrificing core competencies in math and
science? What are reasonable learning outcomes for engineering
education at the elementary school level? What do you consider
to be the biggest challenges and barriers to incorporating
engineering education in the elementary school classroom?
3. What kind of curricula does the school use? What percentage
of your teachers have engineering degrees? What kind of teacher
training and professional development opportunities do you
provide for your teachers?
4. Once a student has completed the elementary grades at your
school, do they have the opportunity to go on to a STEM-focused
middle school? Are there programs in place to ensure these
students maintain an interest in STEM subjects as they
transition to middle school and high school?
Chairman Lipinski. The hearing will now come to order. I am
glad everyone could find the room here. I feel a little bit
different being in this committee room rather than the other
one, so a few things I am just getting used to here. This
microphone sounds very loud to me.
Good morning, and welcome to the Research and Science
Education Subcommittee hearing on Engineering in K-12
Education.
Today we will explore the concept of pre-college
engineering education. Even though I was trained as an
engineer, this is something that is fairly new to me, simply
because it was not formally around when I was in school.
We on the Committee are dedicated to improving STEM
education in this country, and are always exploring new ideas
that have the potential to have a positive impact on student
learning and achievement in STEM fields. This year alone, we
have held three hearings on K-12 STEM education, but those have
focused primarily on science and math, and we have yet to
examine the small but growing movement in K-12 engineering
education.
Today we will hear from witnesses who are involved in
engineering education in a variety of capacities. I look
forward to hearing the witnesses explain the current models and
initiatives for teaching engineering in the K-12 setting, to
what extent these efforts have been successful in teaching
engineering concepts, and perhaps most importantly, how they
might be used to improve student learning in all STEM fields.
We are fortunate to have a new report on this subject from
the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research
Council. I hope discussing this report will help us understand
what questions remain unanswered and what research might need
to be conducted.
Finally, I am interested in learning more today about how
pre-college engineering education might broaden the STEM
pipeline by helping to make STEM learning tangible and exciting
to students from all backgrounds.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for taking the time to
appear before the Subcommittee this morning and I look forward
to your testimony.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ehlers for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Daniel Lipinski
Good morning and welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on Engineering in K-12 Education.
Today we will explore the concept of pre-college engineering
education. Even though I was trained as an engineer, this is something
that's fairly new to me, simply because it was not formally around when
I was in school.
We on the Committee are dedicated to improving STEM education in
this country, and are always exploring new ideas that have the
potential to have a positive impact on student learning and achievement
in STEM fields. This year alone, we have held three hearings on K-12
STEM education, but those have focused primarily on science and math,
and we have yet to examine the small but growing movement in K-12
engineering education.
Today we will hear from witnesses who are involved in engineering
education in a variety of capacities. I look forward to hearing the
witnesses explain the current models and initiatives for teaching
engineering in the K-12 setting, to what extent these efforts have been
successful in teaching engineering concepts, and perhaps most
importantly, how they might be used to improve student learning in all
STEM fields.
We are fortunate to have a new report on this subject from the
National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council. I
hope discussing this report will help us understand what questions
remain unanswered and what research might needed to be conducted.
Finally, I am interested in learning more today about how pre-
college engineering education might broaden the STEM pipeline by
helping to make STEM learning tangible and exciting to students from
all backgrounds.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to appear
before the Subcommittee this morning and I look forward to your
testimony.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and actually I like
this cozy room. We may have to pull in a few extra chairs or
you will have to take people on your lap or something like
that. At any rate, it will be a fun session here.
Today's hearing will look at what we know and what we need
to know about fostering K-12 engineering education, and I have
become known as the great pusher of STEM education here.
Engineering is definitely a part of STEM education. In fact, if
you count the letters, it is one-fourth of the package. But it
faces unique challenges in the classroom, and I am very pleased
that the witnesses are here today that are going to help us
understand what that unique place is and what the unique
challenges are that are faced.
I happen to be a great believer in using engineering in the
elementary schools, and if I had my druthers, the Federal
Government would give a free set of Tinker Toys and Lincoln
Logs to every child born in this country, male or female, and
get them started off right, right from the start.
Engineering is nothing but making things that work, making
things out of materials that are at hand and that you make into
useful devices that work, and I can't think of a more valuable
skill for students to learn in school, regardless of whether or
not they go into engineering. But if they don't explore math,
science and engineering in elementary school, they almost
certainly are not going to take the Advanced Placement courses
in high school. If they don't take the Advanced Placement
courses in high school, they get to the university and they
find well, if they want to become an engineer, they are going
to have to spent at least one extra year there to make up time,
and so what student wants to do that, especially when faced in
their freshman year, and so suddenly we have lost an engineer
just because the elementary schools have not instilled that
excitement of discovery, the excitement of putting things
together and making it work when the students were younger.
I suspect that many innovative teachers have been including
engineering in their classrooms for many years and it is our
job collectively in this committee to tap that knowledge that
is out there, and you are going to be important channels today
in helping us begin that education. It is pretty rare you have
the opportunity to educate Members of Congress. Most Members by
nature assume they know everything already. And so here is a
golden opportunity for you to educate us. I hope that we can
really get something started here. We have so many forward-
thinking ideas on this committee, but if you don't start with a
good idea and you don't push it, you are not going to get
anywhere, and that is our effort here today. Thank you for
participating and thank you for your interest, and I yield
back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Today's hearing will look at what we know and what we need to know
about bolstering K-12 engineering education. Though engineering is a
part of the ``STEM'' acronym, it faces unique challenges not shared by
math and science. Our witnesses today will help us explore how we can
more effectively integrate engineering into our elementary and
secondary schools.
I suspect that many innovative teachers have been including
engineering in their classrooms for years without explicitly calling it
such; however, there is a benefit to students knowing that it is indeed
engineering they are learning and how it may be applied in the
workforce. Furthermore, it is impossible to research the engineering in
the classroom without a common nomenclature. It is critical that we
understand the current types of engineering being taught in order to
have a strong research base supporting future policy actions to
strengthen engineering education.
To advance K-12 engineering education, it will also be necessary to
improve communication and collaboration between the various STEM
disciplines. Knowing that we all share the goal of our students
receiving a high-quality education, I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today about how engineering can be a part of that goal.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. If there are
Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your
statements will be added to the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the Subcommittee is
holding today's hearing on K-12 education in the area of engineering. I
would like to welcome our witness from Texarkana. Mr. Sandlin, we
appreciate you taking time away from your duties at the Martha and Josh
Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School to testify today.
My colleagues may know that middle school is a critical period when
students are forming their opinions about math and science. It is also
a time in which we begin to see an achievement gap between White and
African American students, in terms of math test score performance. In
fact, the disparities are greatest in fifth grade and in seventh grade,
for the math standardized test scores. Today's hearing will cover
witness views on teaching models that have the greatest impact for
engineering education.
We'll also cover some of the challenges that exist to incorporating
engineering education in the elementary or secondary school classroom.
Programs like the Noyce Teacher Scholarship have made great strides in
putting highly qualified teachers in the classrooms. What we need are
more people like them, who are passionate about the subject matter, to
ignite the imaginations of their students.
I also hope that this hearing will include a discussion of the lack
of diversity in the engineering workforce, and how we can address that
from the K-12 education standpoint. We know that minority students
begin to under-achieve at a young age. What we don't understand is the
complex challenges that they face and what specific interventions would
make the greatest difference for them.
Townview is a multi-school complex that is located in Dallas. The
schools are public schools, and they are among the very best in the
Nation. The schools are diverse, and they are competitive. Townview has
received tremendous support from Texas Instruments and other members of
the local community. Students at Townview excel. I would like to see
this model studied further and replicated around the Nation. I want to
invite Members of this subcommittee to come to Dallas and visit
Townview. It really is a special place and a model of educational
excellence.
The National Academy of Engineering has released a report entitled,
``Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding and Status and Improving
the Prospects.'' The report should provide guidance to Congress on how
to best leverage our public resources for the betterment of education
for all. Clearly, the National Science Foundation has a role to play in
this area. Other federal agencies should become more involved in
educational enrichment activities.
Again, I want to welcome today's witnesses to the hearing. This
subject, K-12 engineering education, is one of great interest to me,
and I stand ready to partner with you to guide federal policies toward
a better-educated engineering workforce.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Lipinski. At this time I would like to introduce
our witnesses. First, we have Dr. Linda Katehi, who is the
Chair of the National Academy of Engineering Committee on K-12
Engineering Education and a Chancellor of the University of
California, Davis. Dr. Thomas Peterson is the Assistant
Director for Engineering at the National Science Foundation.
Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis is the President and Director of the
Museum of Science, Boston, and the Founding Director of the
National Center for Technological Literacy. Dr. Darryll Pines
is Dean and Professor of Engineering at the A. James Clark
School of Engineering at the University of Maryland, College
Park. I will now yield to Ranking Member Hall to introduce our
fifth and final witness.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
calling this meeting here today, and Professor Ehlers, thank
you for your good advice. I have always admired the Chairman,
his history of success and leadership that he gives to this
committee. I always admired Professor Ehlers but I never really
liked him. He is the kind of guy that ruined the curve for
ordinary students like me.
But I would like to thank all the witnesses here today, and
my basic job is to introduce my favorite witness and some of my
folks, Mr. Chairman, if I might, that are in the audience, but
I respect all of you for the dedication to strengthening K-12
STEM education and specifically K-12 engineering education. Our
nation has always, as you know, been the leader in cutting-edge
innovation and our young children and grandchildren are the key
to our success. How we inspire them and how we keep them
inspired as they continue their education are very critical
questions.
And I might say on behalf of the Chairman here that don't
have dismay at the lack of Members that are here because we all
have several Committees and there are Committee meetings
everywhere and we are trying to wind up and get away from here,
maybe tonight or first thing in the morning. But everything you
testify to will be put into writing by our court reporter there
and it goes into the books and every Member of Congress will
read it. So you are not just testifying to a good Chairman and
a couple of Members and their groups.
Sometimes it is hard to grasp how a seven- or eight-year-
old can understand engineering, but when you put it in terms of
toys with which they play and see them light up with
excitement, and I was excited to learn that Silly Putty was
invited by a chemical engineer trying to find a rubber
substitute. A mechanical engineer invented the Slinky when he
saw a spring fall off of a table, and a basic water gun was
transformed into the very popular Super Soaker Max D-6000 Giant
Water Blaster, they say, by a NASA mechanical engineer. You
know, during World War II, I flew for the Navy and I landed
probably 50 times right there in Pearl Harbor and I never
really realized anything historical had taken place there,
didn't even get a picture of the Arizona that was still
floating partially and it is down into the mud now. And Mr.
Chairman, to bring it more home, one of my sons cut my garden
hose and had it wrapped around his arm and was ringing it
around like that, and I whipped him with the rest of the garden
hose. Three years later they came out with the hula hoop. I
just don't ever see anything that is successful. I see
successful people here that are testifying for us today and we
are very grateful to them.
I applaud the Subcommittee for taking up this issue, and my
job is to introduce him. He has influenced the lives of
Texarkana children since 1974, first as a teacher, then as an
assistant principal and now as the principal of the Martha and
Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School, and
what great and giving people are the Morrisses. He is a Senior
Administrator for the Texarkana Independent School District. He
along with a lot of others including Texas Independent School
District Superintendent James Henry Russell are here, City
Manager Larry Sullivan, a former Superintendent, and his wife
Roseanne Stripling, Provost of Texas A&M, Texarkana, and the
Morriss family were instrumental in the construction and
development of Morriss Elementary in 2006. Now, Bart Gordon was
with me there when we honored them and recognized that some
time ago and it is good to see my friend, James Henry, in the
audience as well as well as other members of the Texarkana
Independent School District staff, Autumn Thomas Davis, the
Superintendent, and Ronnie Thompson, Assistant Superintendent
for Instructional Services.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Gordon and I were
privileged to visit this very phenomenal campus last year and
see firsthand one of only a very few public model schools
currently in the Nation focused specifically on elementary
engineering and mathematics, and I was pleased to see that the
National Academy study ``Engineering in K-12 Education'' also
recognizes the Morriss School as a model. Hopefully it can be
replicated in other towns suitable for a similar experience.
Mr. Sandlin, welcome to Washington and thank you for being
here and for your willingness to share your Morriss Elementary
experiences with us. I look forward to learning more about it
and believe that my colleagues also find your testimony along
with the testimony of those other very knowledgeable and
respected witnesses to be very beneficial.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to recognize my
favorite group of people.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I yield back my time if I have got any left.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall, you don't
have to worry about me destroying the curve. I did get a B once
in advanced electrodynamics.
Mr. Hall. I never did get a B. One time my dad whipped me.
They said that I made four F's and a D and he whipped me for
spending too much time on one subject.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
I just--at the beginning you were talking about--you know,
you said those nice things about me and then you were
criticizing Dr. Ehlers here, but I noted that you didn't use
the slur of professor with me as you did with Dr. Ehlers, so I
thank you for that. It is always good to have you and always
get a few good stories, so thank you always for your
contributions.
As our witnesses should know, you each will have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When you all have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel.
We will start the testimony here with Dr. Katehi.
STATEMENT OF DR. LINDA P.B. KATEHI, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON K-12
ENGINEERING EDUCATION, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING,
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL/CENTER FOR EDUCATION, THE NATIONAL
ACADEMIES; CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
Dr. Katehi. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Linda Katehi. I am Chancellor at the
University of California, Davis, and I served as the Chair of
the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education of the National
Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council Center
for Education. I am sure you are familiar with the history and
role of the National Academy so I will not say anymore on that
front.
My written testimony goes into some detail about the
Committee's recently released report which is titled
``Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and
Improving the Prospects.''
In my brief remarks today, I am going to focus on our key
findings and recommendations. I would like to start by noting
that our study was motivated by several factors. One was a
desire to get a handle on what is happening nationally
regarding efforts to introduce engineering into K-12
classrooms. For example, how many kids and teachers have taken
part in these initiatives, what impact various programs had on
student learning, what is the relationship between engineering
and the other STEM subjects. Another motivator was the concern
about the uneven quality of our K-12 STEM education system. The
system provides the feedstock for the country's STEM workforce
which in turn fuels the U.S. innovation engine and U.S.
economy. We wanted to better understand the potential of K-12
engineering education to support a broader national interest.
At this point I want to very briefly define engineering so
that the Subcommittee has some sense of what I mean when I use
the term. Whereas science can be thought of as a process of
discovering what is, engineering is a process used to create
something new, something useful, typically a technological
product, process or a service. In our report, we call
engineering design under constraint. These constraints include
the laws of nature. Engineers cannot design anything that
violates those laws but they also include other things such as
research availability, environmental impact, manufacturability,
time deadlines, government regulations, political realities and
ethical considerations. The engineering designing process
relies heavily on science and mathematics, and engineers work
collaboratively with scientists, technicians and many others,
often in dispersed and global teams.
The most intriguing finding from our study in my view is
the idea that K-12 engineering education might become a
catalyst for more integrated and effective STEM education in
the United States. In the real world of research and technology
development, science, technology, engineering and mathematics
are not isolated from one another. Our committee wondered then
why the subjects should continue to be isolated or siloed when
taught at schools. To begin moving down the path toward
integration, the Committee recommends that the National Science
Foundation support research to characterize or define STEM
literacy including how much literacy might develop over the
course of a student's K-12 school experience.
A major element of our study involved reviewing a
representative sample of K-12 engineering education curricula.
Most of these curricula recognize that scientific inquiry and
engineering design are closely related activities that can be
mutually reinforcing, but we found that the connection is not
systematically emphasized to improve learning in both domains.
Similarly, mathematical analysis and modeling are essential to
engineering design but very few curricula or professional
development initiatives we reviewed used mathematics in ways
that support modeling and analysis. To address these
shortcomings, the Committee recommends that the National
Science Foundation or the U.S. Department of Education fund
research to determine how science inquiry and mathematical
reasoning can be better connected to engineering design in K-12
curricula and teacher professional development.
Our study also evaluated a variety of claims that have been
made for the benefit of teaching engineering to K-12 students.
Although only limited reliable data are available to support
these claims, we found that most evidence for benefit relates
to improved student learning and achievement in mathematics and
science. For engineering education to become a more mainstream
component of K-12 education, the Committee believes there will
have to be much more and much higher quality outcome-based
data. To this end, we recommendation that foundations and
federal agencies with an interest in K-12 engineering education
support long-term research to confirm and refine the findings
of earlier studies of the impacts of engineering education.
At this point I would like to note that the Committee was
unanimous that whatever benefit K-12 engineering education
provides, they should be made available to all students--what
we term the mainline, not just to those relatively few students
who wish to pursue a career in engineering or another technical
field, what we normally call the pipeline. Our study determined
that teacher professional development opportunities for K-12
engineering are seriously lacking. The roughly 18,000 teachers
we estimate who have received some training to teach
engineering have almost all participated in service initiatives
associated with existing curricula. We uncovered no pre-service
initiatives that are likely to contribute significantly to the
supply of qualified engineering teachers in the near future.
Given this situation, the Committee recommends that the
American Society of Engineering Education begin a national
dialogue on preparing K-12 engineering teachers to address the
very different needs and circumstances facing elementary and
secondary teachers and the pros and cons of establishing a
formal credentialing process.
The Committee concluded that lack of gender and ethnic
diversity is an issue for K-12 engineering education just as it
is an issue for the engineering workforce. To expand access and
participation, the Committee recommends that K-12 engineering
curricula should be developed with special attention to
features that appeal to girls and students from under-
represented groups and programs that promote K-12 engineering
education should be strategic in their outreach to these
populations.
Many questions remain about the best way to deliver
engineering education in the K-12 classroom. In the Committee's
view, there are at least three options: ad hoc infusion,
standalone courses and interconnected STEM education. These
approaches would fall along a continuum in terms of ease of
implementation as described in greater detail in our report. We
believe that implementation of K-12 engineering education must
be flexible because no single approach is likely to be
acceptable or feasible in every district or school. Ideally, we
believe that all K-12 students in the United States should have
the option of experiencing some form of formal engineering
design. To help reach that goal, the Committee recommends that
philanthropic foundations or federal agencies with an interest
in STEM education and school reform fund research to identify
models of implementation for K-12 engineering education.
Our project did not attempt to calculate the Nation's
investment in K-12 engineering education. It is clear, however,
that the greatest spending over time has been on curriculum
development. A much, much smaller amount has been devoted to
research on comprehension and learning, on assessment and
evaluation and on professional development. K-12 engineering
education could benefit from addressing the research questions
suggested by many of our recommendations.
I want to return briefly to the ideas of integrated STEM
education and STEM literacy. The Committee believes that STEM-
literate students would be better prepared for life in the 21st
century and better able to make career decisions or pursue
post-secondary education. They will also become better citizens
and our country will greatly benefit from them. Integrated STEM
education could include teaching and learning in all four
subjects by reducing excessive expectations for K-12 STEM
teaching and learning. This does not mean that teaching should
be dumbed down, but rather the teaching and learning in fewer
key STEM areas could be deepened and then more time should be
spent on the development of a set of STEM skills that includes
engineering design and scientific inquiry.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the invitation
to speak here today and welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Katehi follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda P.B. Katehi
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Linda Katehi. I am Chancellor at the University of California,
Davis, and served as the Chair of the Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National
Research Council (NRC) Center for Education. The NAE and NRC, along
with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine
(IOM), are part of the National Academies. The National Academies
provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a
congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln that was
originally granted to the NAS in 1863. Under this charter, the NRC was
established in 1916, the NAE in 1964, and the IOM in 1970. My testimony
today focuses on the report of the study committee I chaired. The
report, Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and
Improving the Prospects, was released a little over a month ago. The
bulk of funding for the study came from Mr. Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr., a
member of the NAE. Additional support was provided by the National
Science Foundation and PTC Inc.
Introduction
Although K-12 engineering education has received little attention
from most Americans, including educators and policy makers, it has
slowly been making its way into U.S. K-12 classrooms. Today, several
dozen different engineering programs and curricula are offered in
school districts around the country, and our research suggests about
18,000 teachers have attended professional development sessions to
teach engineering-related course work. In the past 15 years, our
committee estimates, some six million K-12 students have experienced
formal engineering education.
The presence of engineering in K-12 classrooms is an important
phenomenon, not because of the number of students impacted, which is
still small relative to other school subjects, but because of the
implications of engineering education for the future of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education more broadly.
In fact, our committee came to the conclusion that engineering
education could be a catalyst for more integrated, and effective, STEM
education in the United States. I will talk more about this at the end
of my remarks.
In recent years, as you know, educators and policy-makers have come
to a consensus that the teaching of STEM subjects in U.S. schools must
be improved. The focus on STEM topics is closely related to concerns
about U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and about the
development of a workforce with the knowledge and skills to address
technical and technological issues.
However, in contrast to science, mathematics, and even technology
education, all of which have established learning standards and a long
history in the K-12 curriculum, the teaching of engineering in
elementary and secondary schools is still very much a work in progress.
Not only have no learning standards been developed, little is available
in the way of guidance for teacher professional development, and no
national or State-level assessments of student accomplishment have been
developed. In addition, no single organization or central clearinghouse
collects information on K-12 engineering education.
Thus a number of basic questions remain unanswered. How is
engineering taught in grades K-12? What types of instructional
materials and curricula have been used? How does engineering education
``interact'' with other STEM subjects? In particular, how has K-12
engineering instruction incorporated science, technology, and
mathematics concepts, and how has it used these subjects as a context
for exploring engineering concepts? Conversely, how has engineering
been used as a context for exploring science, technology, and
mathematics concepts? And what impact have various initiatives had?
In 2006, the NAE and NRC established the Committee on K-12
Engineering Education to begin to address these and related questions.
The goal of our effort was to provide carefully reasoned guidance to
key stakeholders regarding the creation and implementation of K-12
engineering curricula and instructional practices, focusing especially
on the connections in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education.
Principles for K-12 Engineering Education
In part because there are no standards for K-12 engineering and
also because the specifics of how engineering is taught vary from
school district to school district, the Committee felt it important to
lay out several general principles that could guide all pre-college
engineering education efforts. The first principle is that K-12
engineering education should emphasize engineering design, the approach
engineers use to identify and solve problems. The second principle is
that K-12 engineering education should incorporate important and
developmentally appropriate mathematics, science, and technology
knowledge and skills. And the third principle is that K-12 engineering
education should promote engineering habits of mind, including systems
thinking, creativity, optimism, collaboration, communication, and
attention to ethical considerations. These principles are described
more fully in our report.
Review of Curricula
A major element of our study involved identifying and reviewing a
representative sample of K-12 engineering education curricula. Our
analysis included 31 such curricula and examined 15 in great detail. We
found that engineering design is predominant in most K-12 curricular
and professional development programs. This is encouraging. However, we
also found that the treatment of key ideas in engineering, many closely
related to engineering design, is much more uneven and, in some cases,
suggests a lack of understanding on the part of curriculum developers.
In part, these shortcomings may be the result of the absence of a
clear description of which engineering knowledge, skills, and habits of
mind are most important, how they relate to and build on one another,
and how and when (i.e., at what age) they should be introduced to
students. In fact, it seems that no one has attempted to specify age-
appropriate learning progressions in a rigorous or systematic way; this
lack of specificity or consensus on learning outcomes and progressions
goes a long way toward explaining the variability and unevenness in the
curricula.
Although there are a number of natural connections between
engineering and the three other STEM subjects, we found that existing
curricula in K-12 engineering education do not fully explore them. For
example, scientific investigation and engineering design are closely
related activities that can be mutually reinforcing. Most curricula
include some instances in which this connection is exploited (e.g.,
using scientific inquiry to generate data that can inform engineering
design decisions or using engineering design to provide contextualized
opportunities for science learning), but the connection is not
systematically emphasized to improve learning in both domains.
Similarly, mathematical analysis and modeling are essential to
engineering design, but very few curricula or professional development
initiatives reviewed by the Committee used mathematics in ways that
support modeling and analysis. The Committee believes that K-12
engineering can contribute to improvements in students' performance and
understanding of certain mathematical concepts and skills.
Based on its review of curricula, the Committee recommended that
the National Science Foundation and/or U.S. Department of Education
fund research to determine how science inquiry and mathematical
reasoning can be better connected to engineering design in K-12
curricula and teacher professional development. Our report details a
number of specific areas the research should cover.
Impacts of K-12 Engineering Education
A variety of claims have been made for the benefits of teaching
engineering to K-12 students, ranging from improved performance in
related subjects, such as science and mathematics, and increased
technological literacy to improvements in school attendance and
retention, a better understanding of what engineers do, and an increase
in the number of students who pursue careers in engineering. Although
only limited reliable data are available to support these claims, we
found the most intriguing possible benefit of K-12 engineering
education relates to improved student learning and achievement in
mathematics and science. The Committee believes that for engineering
education to become a mainstream component of K-12 education there will
have to be much more, and much higher quality outcomes-based data. To
this end, the Committee recommended that foundations and federal
agencies with an interest in K-12 engineering education support long-
term research to confirm and refine the findings of earlier studies of
the impacts of engineering education. The Committee additionally
recommended that funders of new efforts to develop and implement
curricula for K-12 engineering education include a research component
that will provide a basis for analyzing how design ideas and practices
develop in students over time and determining the classroom conditions
necessary to support this development. After a solid analytic
foundation has been established, a rigorous evaluation should be
undertaken to determine what works and why.
Professional Development Programs
Compared with professional development opportunities for teaching
other STEM subjects, the opportunities for engineering are few and far
between. Our study found that nearly all in-service initiatives are
associated with a few existing curricula, and many do not have one or
more of the characteristics (e.g., activities that last for at least
one week, ongoing in-classroom or online support following formal
training, and opportunities for continuing education) that have been
proven to promote teacher learning.
The Committee found no pre-service initiatives that are likely to
contribute significantly to the supply of qualified engineering
teachers in the near future. Indeed, the ``qualifications'' for
engineering educators at the K-12 level have not even been described.
Graduates from a handful of teacher preparation programs have strong
backgrounds in STEM subjects, including engineering, but few if any of
them teach engineering classes in K-12 schools.
Given this situation, the Committee recommended that the American
Society of Engineering Education, through its Division of K-12 and Pre-
College Education, begin a national dialogue on preparing K-12
engineering teachers to address the very different needs and
circumstances of elementary and secondary teachers and the pros and
cons of establishing a formal credentialing process. Participants in
the dialogue should include leaders in K-12 teacher education in
mathematics, science, and technology; schools of education and
engineering; State departments of education; teacher licensing and
certification groups; and STEM program accreditors.
Diversity
The lack of gender and ethnic diversity in post-secondary
engineering education and the engineering workforce in the United
States is well documented. Based on evaluation data, analysis of
curriculum materials, anecdotal reports, and personal observation, the
Committee concluded that lack of diversity is probably an issue for K-
12 engineering education as well. This problem is manifested in two
ways. First, the number of girls and under-represented minorities who
participate in K-12 engineering education initiatives is well below
their numbers in the general population. Second, with a few exceptions,
curricular materials do not portray engineering in ways that seem
likely to excite the interest of students from a variety of ethnic and
cultural backgrounds.
For K-12 engineering education to yield the many benefits its
supporters claim, access and participation will have to be expanded
considerably. To this end, the Committee recommended that K-12
engineering curricula should be developed with special attention to
features that appeal to students from under-represented groups, and
programs that promote K-12 engineering education should be strategic in
their outreach to these populations. In doing so, the Committee
suggested, curriculum developers and outreach organizations should take
advantage of recent market research that suggests effective ways of
communicating about engineering to the public, such as the 2008 NAE
publication Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public
Understanding of Engineering.
Policy and Program Issues
Many questions remain to be answered about the best way to deliver
engineering education in the K-12 classroom and its potential on a
variety of parameters of interest, such as science and mathematics
learning, technological literacy, and student interest in engineering
as a career. Despite these uncertainties, engineering is already being
taught in K-12 schools scattered around the country, and the trend
appears to be upward. Given this situation, it is important that we
consider the best way to provide guidance and support to encourage this
trend.
In the Committee's view, there are at least three options for
including engineering education in U.S. K-12 schools--ad hoc infusion,
stand-alone courses, and interconnected STEM education. These
approaches, which fall along a continuum in terms of ease of
implementation, are described in greater detail in the report. Each has
strengths and weaknesses and is not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the
Committee believes that implementation of K-12 engineering education
must be flexible, because no single approach is likely to be acceptable
or feasible in every district or school.
Broader inclusion of engineering studies in the K-12 classroom also
will be influenced by State education standards, which often determine
the content of State assessments and, to a lesser extent, curriculum
used in the classroom. It is worth noting that the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB; P.L. 107-110) puts considerable pressure on schools
and teachers to prepare K-12 students to take annual assessments in
mathematics, reading/language arts, and science, and these assessments
are based on State learning standards. Thus NCLB currently provides
little impetus for teaching engineering.
The Committee believes that plans for implementing engineering
education in a school curriculum at any level must take into account
places and populations (e.g., small rural schools, urban schools with
high proportions of students of low socioeconomic status, etc.) with a
limited capacity to access engineering-education resources. Such plans
also will benefit by approaches that emphasize coherence, that is, the
alignment of standards, curricula, professional development, and
student assessments, and that include support from school leadership.
Finally, the Committee believes that, ideally, all K-12 students in
the United States should have the option of experiencing some form of
formal engineering studies. To help us reach that goal, the Committee
recommended that philanthropic foundations or federal agencies with an
interest in STEM education and school reform fund research to identify
models of implementation for K-12 engineering education that embody the
principles of coherence and can guide decision-making that will work
for widely variable American school systems. The research should
explicitly address school populations that do not currently have access
to engineering studies and take into account the different needs and
circumstances of elementary and secondary school populations.
Integrated STEM Education
After considerable discussion and thought, the Committee came to
the conclusion that the most compelling argument for K-12 engineering
education can be made if it is not thought of as a topic unto itself,
but rather as part of integrated STEM education. After all, in the real
world engineering is not performed in isolation--it inevitably involves
science, technology, and mathematics. The question is why these
subjects should be isolated, or ``silo-ed,'' in schools.
Although the Committee did not target K-12 STEM education
initiatives specifically, we believe that the great majority of efforts
to promote STEM education in the United States to date focus on either
science or mathematics (generally not both) and rarely include
engineering or technology (beyond the use of computers). By contrast,
the Committee's vision of integrated STEM education in U.S. K-12
schools sees all students graduating from high school with a level of
``STEM literacy'' sufficient to (1) ensure their success in employment,
post-secondary education, or both, and (2) prepare them to be
competent, capable citizens in a technology-dependent, democratic
society. Engineering education, because of its natural connections to
science, mathematics, and technology, might serve as a catalyst for
achieving this vision.
To begin to tackle this critical issue, the Committee recommended
that the National Science Foundation should support research to
characterize, or define, ``STEM literacy,'' including how such literacy
might develop over the course of a student's K-12 school experience.
Researchers should consider not only core knowledge and skills in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, but also the ``big
ideas'' that link the four subject areas.
Pursuing a goal of STEM literacy in K-12 will require a paradigm
shift by teachers, administrators, textbook publishers, and policy-
makers, as well as by scientists, technologists, engineers, and
mathematicians involved in K-12 education. Standards of learning,
instructional materials, teacher professional development, and student
assessments will have to be re-examined and, possibly, updated,
revised, and coordinated. Professional societies will have to rethink
their outreach activities to K-12 schools in light of STEM literacy.
Colleges and universities will have to cope with student expectations
that may run counter to traditional departmental stovepipe conceptions
of courses, disciplines, and degrees.
Why do we suggest such a comprehensive change? First, the Committee
believes that STEM-literate students would be better prepared for life
in the 21st century and better able to make career decisions or pursue
post-secondary education. Second, integrated STEM education could
improve teaching and learning in all four subjects by reducing
excessive expectations for K-12 STEM teaching and learning. This does
not mean that teaching should be ``dumbed down,'' but rather that
teaching and learning in fewer key STEM areas should be deepened and
that more time should be spent on the development of a set of STEM
skills that includes engineering design and scientific inquiry.
The Important Role of Research
A major component of our study was the collection and synthesis of
research evidence related to 1) how children learn engineering concepts
and skills and 2) what impact K-12 engineering education has had on a
variety of parameters of interest. In the former case, we learned that
certain experiences can support sophisticated understanding and skill
development, even in young children, but several conditions seem
important: students need sufficient classroom time; there must be
opportunities for iterative, purposeful revisions of designs, ideas,
models; and learning is most successful when ideas are sequenced from
less to more complex. Overall, however, there are still significant
gaps in our understanding of how K-12 students learn and might best be
taught engineering.
In the latter case, as noted previously, the most intriguing
possible benefit of K-12 engineering education relates to improved
student learning, achievement, and interest in mathematics and science.
Interestingly, some of the evidence suggests that learning gains may be
greatest for minorities and low-SES students. Limited data support
other possible benefits, including that engineering experiences can
increase awareness of engineering and engineers, improve understanding
of engineering design, and increase interest in engineering-related
careers. But none of these benefits have been shown to occur
universally, which reinforces the need for more and higher quality
evaluation and assessment research. As my testimony demonstrates, many
of the Committee's recommendations address this need.
One major obstacle to determining whether and how K-12 engineering
education is having an impact is that, in many cases, curriculum
developers do not build in adequate time or resources for this kind of
research. Assessments require advanced planning and viable pre-tests.
Longitudinal research demands even greater planning and financial
support. Another weakness of much of the extent literature on impacts
is a tendency to study self-selected populations. Thus the findings
about effectiveness cannot be generalized to students who choose not to
participate. And a great many impact studies neglect to collect
information on subgroups, such as girls or under-represented
minorities. This kind of disaggregation is only possible, of course, if
the research includes a sufficiently large study population.
We also attempted to uncover what was known from a research and
practice standpoint about the professional development of K-12
engineering teachers. There is a considerable literature on teacher
professional development in other domains, including science education,
and we believe that many of these findings can be applied to
engineering education. However, there is almost no documented pre-
service teacher professional development in K-12 engineering, and only
a small number of qualitative studies have been done that examine in-
service training initiatives.
Our project did not attempt to calculate the amount of investment
in research related to K-12 engineering. It is clear, however, that the
greatest investment over time has been on curriculum development. A
much, much smaller amount has been devoted to research on cognition and
learning, on assessment and evaluation, and on professional
development. K-12 engineering education could benefit from a major
infusion of research dollars, as suggested by many of our
recommendations.
Conclusion
In the course of our efforts to understand and assess the potential
of engineering education for K-12 students, the Committee underwent an
epiphany of sorts. To put it simply, for engineering education to
become more than an afterthought in elementary and secondary schools in
this country, STEM education as a whole must be reconsidered. The
teaching of STEM subjects must move away from its current silo-ed
structure, which may limit student interest and performance, toward a
more integrated whole. The Committee did not plan to come to this
conclusion but reached this point after much thought and deliberation.
We feel confident that our instincts are correct, but other
organizations and individuals will have to translate our findings and
recommendations into action. Meaningful improvements in the learning
and teaching of engineering and movement toward interconnected STEM
education will not come easily or quickly. Progress will be measured in
decades, rather than months or years. The changes will require a
sustained commitment of financial resources, the support of policy-
makers and other leaders, and the efforts of many individuals both in
and outside of K-12 schools. Despite these challenges, the Committee is
hopeful that the changes will be made. The potential for enriching and
improving K-12 STEM education is real, and engineering education can be
the catalyst.
I thank the Subcommittee for the invitation to testify today and
welcome your questions.
Biography for Linda P.B. Katehi
Linda Katehi became the sixth Chancellor of the University of
California, Davis, on August 17, 2009. As Chief Executive Officer, she
oversees all aspects of the University's teaching, research and public
service mission.
Chancellor Katehi also holds UC-Davis faculty appointments in
electrical and computer engineering and in women and gender studies. A
member of the National Academy of Engineering, she chairs the
Presidents Committee for the National Medal of Science and is Chair of
the Secretary of Commerces Committee for the National Medal of
Technology and Innovation. She is a fellow and board member of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science and a member of
many other national boards and committees.
Previously, Chancellor Katehi served as provost and Vice Chancellor
for academic affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
the John A. Edwardson Dean of Engineering and Professor of Electrical
and Computer Engineering at Purdue University; and Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs and Graduate Education in the College of Engineering
and Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the
University of Michigan.
Since her early years as a faculty member, Chancellor Katehi has
focused on expanding research opportunities for undergraduates and
improving the education and professional experience of graduate
students, with an emphasis on under-represented groups. She has
mentored more than 70 post-doctoral fellows, doctoral and Master's
students in electrical and computer engineering. Twenty-one of the 42
doctoral students who graduated under her supervision have become
faculty members in research universities in the United States and
abroad.
Her work in electronic circuit design has led to numerous national
and international awards both as a technical leader and educator, 16
U.S. patents, and an additional six U.S. patent applications. She is
the author or co-author of 10 book chapters and about 600 refereed
publications in journals and symposia proceedings.
She earned her Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from the
National Technical University of Athens, Greece, in 1977, and her
Master's and doctoral degrees in electrical engineering from UCLA in
1981. and 1984, respectively.
The University of California, Davis, is one of 10 UC campuses and
one of a select group of 62 North American universities admitted to
membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities.
For 100 years, UC-Davis has engaged in teaching, research and
public service that matter to California and transform the world.
Located close to the State capital, UC-Davis has 31,000 students, an
annual research budget that exceeds $600 million, a comprehensive
health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university
offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 1.00
undergraduate majors in four colleges--Agricultural and Environmental
Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science--
and advanced degrees from six professional schools--Education, Law,
Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore
School of Nursing.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Katehi.
Dr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS W. PETERSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
Dr. Peterson. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education, I want to thank you for inviting me to
participate in this hearing on engineering and K-12 education.
I am Thomas Peterson, the Assistant Director for Engineering at
the National Science Foundation.
Every student who takes either the SAT or the ACT college
entrance exam is asked to indicate the discipline of study that
they intend to pursue after graduation from high school. The
fraction of total test takers who intend to pursue engineering
declined from 7.7 percent in 1994 to 4.6 percent in 2006. As a
former engineering dean, I along with my colleagues, Dr.
Katehi, Dr. Miaoulis and Dr. Pines, all either current or
former engineering deans themselves, have firsthand experience
with the challenges of finding a diverse and qualified pipeline
of domestic students interested in pursuing the study of
engineering. The introduction to basic engineering concepts in
pre-college curricula, even in the elementary and middle
schools, can be an important factor in addressing these
challenges. Engineering education in the K-12 curriculum holds
promise to encourage student learning in fundamental science
and mathematics, to raise the level of understanding and
awareness of engineering and what engineers do, to stimulate
interest in a rapidly changing demographic population to pursue
careers in engineering and to increase the basic technological
literacy for all of our citizens. In other words, far from
being an additional burden for schools, engineering education
in the K-12 environment is an enabler for motivating students
to learn other aspects of the curriculum as well.
The key to inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum
is the emphasis on the elementary principles of engineering
design. It illustrates the importance and application of the
basic science and mathematics principles. It stimulates
creativity within students. It encourages them to work in
partnership with other students because design is fundamentally
a team-based activity. It helps to develop communication skills
as students work together and describe their work to each
other, and it even promotes a platform for the consideration of
important social, environmental and ethical issues.
At the National Science Foundation, the Engineering and the
Education and Human Resources Directorates have partnered on
numerous K-12 activities. For example, we have teamed to
support a GK-12 fellowship program at the University of
Colorado in Boulder and these fellows work with Skyline High
School in Longmont to bring highly interactive, hands-on
engineering projects into the classroom. Another partnership
supports Design Squad, a PBS reality competition series with an
accompanying outreach campaign and web site designed to inspire
a new generation of engineers. The series is making a special
effort to reach out to girls and minorities, groups that are
critically under-represented in engineering, as we all know.
The Engineering is Elementary Project developed by the National
Center for Technological Literacy with NSF support holds
promise to reach very deeply into elementary schools throughout
the Nation. And it is also noteworthy and reassuring that
support for engineering in K-12 education extends beyond
government agencies like the NSF. In 1992, FIRST Robotics, an
extracurricular program, was launched in New Hampshire under
the visionary leadership of Dean Kamen. While he received
support from NSF in the early stages of that competition, FIRST
Robotics is now supported by industry partners in over 2,000
high schools in the United States, and a significant number of
alumni are now studying in engineering colleges.
In summary, the NSF is not about providing long-term and
sustained funding for programs. We provide the support for new
ideas, new curriculum, new approaches to engineering education
and educational pedagogy. We provide the support for targeted
programs in schools and institutions with new and creative
ideas. The challenge is twofold. First, we must find the
support to continue programs developed under NSF sponsorship
once NSF support is no longer provided, and second, we must
find the means to financially support the dissemination of
these best ideas developed through NSF support to a much
broader range of institutions and schools.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be
happy to answer any questions following the testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas W. Peterson
Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members
of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, thank you for
inviting me to participate in this hearing on ``Engineering in K-12
Education.'' I am Dr. Thomas Peterson, Assistant Director for
Engineering at the National Science Foundation.
Today I will address the challenges we face in attracting and
retaining talented students in engineering education as well as your
questions focusing on: (1) How engineering education is incorporated
into NSF's K-12 STEM education programs; (2) What the current state of
research on engineering education is at the K-12 level; (3) What the
current level of support and scope of NSF-funded research on K-12
engineering education is; and, (4) What metrics and methodologies exist
for evaluation and assessment of K-12 engineering education.
The Challenge We Face
Every student who takes either the SAT\1\ or ACT college entrance
examination is asked to indicate the discipline of study that they
intend to pursue after graduation from high school. An analysis of this
data reveals that the fraction of total test takers (both SAT and ACT)
who intend to pursue engineering declined from 7.7 percent in 1994 to
4.6 percent in 2006. In absolute numbers, Almost 150,000 test takers
expressed a preference for engineering in 1994 compared to fewer than
120,000 in 2006. In 1983 about 1.9 percent of all four-year
baccalaureate degrees received by women were in engineering. Twenty
years later, 1.7 percent of female baccalaureate recipients were
engineers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: Derived from data provided by the College Board.
Copyright 1993-2008 The College Board. www.collegeboard.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a former Engineering Dean I, along with my colleagues Dr. Katehi
and Dr. Miaoulis, also both former Engineering Deans, have first-hand
experience in dealing with the challenges of finding a diverse and
qualified pipeline of domestic students interested in pursuing the
study of engineering. There are many extenuating factors that
contribute to this situation, but I personally believe that the absence
of introducing basic engineering concepts in pre-college curricula,
even down to the elementary and middle school levels, is a dominant
factor in this situation. Not only will the profession of engineering
benefit, but so will society as a whole, if a much larger fraction of
our general populace understands the basic elements of the highly
technological society in which we all live.
I believe that the presence of engineering education in the K-12
curriculum holds promise to encourage student learning in the
fundamental science and mathematics subjects, to raise the level of
understanding and awareness of engineering and what engineers do, to
stimulate interest in a rapidly changing demographic population to
pursue careers in engineering, and to increase the basic technological
literacy for all of our citizens. In other words, far from being an
additional burden that must be shouldered by the already challenged
curriculum, engineering education in the K-12 environment should be
viewed as an enabler for motivating students to learn other aspects in
the curriculum as well.
Engineering Education at the K-12 level--Influence of Early Exposure
Engineering in the K-12 curriculum provides instruction in numerous
basic areas, but the key to inclusion of engineering concepts is the
emphasis on engineering design. Previously, the standard engineering
curriculum at a university culminated in a year-long course in the
concepts and practice of engineering design. Undergraduate engineering
students would see little, if any of the basic elements of engineering
design until they reached that course in the senior year. Engineering
design, after all, is that element, more than any other that separates
and distinguishes engineering from the basic sciences. More recently,
however, Engineering, both the profession and the academic discipline,
has come to realize that this approach of postponing the introduction
of design principles until the last possible moment in one's
educational career is counterproductive and frustrating for many
students. After all, in this previous approach students never really
truly understood the basis for engineering, the joy of discovery and
creative endeavor, until they had almost completed their studies. As a
consequence, a large fraction of students who would otherwise become
productive practicing engineers left the field in favor of other
pursuits.
The modern engineering curriculum, while still maintaining a
capstone design experience, now begins the engineering curriculum with
an introduction to the basic concepts of design. Why? Because this
structure allows us to demonstrate to students very early on what
engineering is all about.
For exactly this same reason, the inclusion of engineering design
principles within the K-12 education system could not only increase the
level of understanding of what engineering is, but it can also provide
a motivation to students for learning basic concepts in science and
mathematics, which will always be the foundational building blocks of
engineering. Obviously, engineering design in its complete
implementation by a professional engineer is an elaborate and complex
process. Nonetheless, there are many elements of the design process
that can easily be illustrated even at elementary school levels. Design
is an iterative process, it is illustrative of the concept that more
than one solution to a problem may exist, and that the major challenge
is to find the best, or optimum solution. Finally, it illustrates the
importance and application of basic science and mathematics principles.
Engineering design also stimulates creativity within students. It
encourages them to work in partnership with other students because
design is fundamentally a team-based activity. It helps to develop
communication skills as students work together and describe their work
to each other, and even provides a platform for the consideration of
important social, environmental and ethical issues.
Support and Scope of NSF-funded research on K-12 Engineering Education
The National Science Foundation plays an important role in
encouraging the development and dissemination of materials for
engineering education in the K-12 environment. In addition to support
provided by the Education and Human Resources (EHR) directorate, the
Engineering directorate, through our division of Engineering Education
and Centers (or EEC), has supported numerous engineering education
programs, the primary purpose of many being to introduce engineering
education into the K-12 curriculum. For example, the Innovations in
Engineering Education, Curriculum, and Infrastructure (IEECI) program
supports research which addresses three basic issues related to
engineering education: (1) how students learn, (2) how to attract a
more talented and diverse student body, and (3), how to evaluate and
assess successful teaching, advising, and mentoring. One of the project
areas we directly solicited ideas for was ``Strategic Supply-Chain
Partnerships for Engineering,'' where we strongly encouraged the
establishment of ``leadership partners'' between Engineering Deans and
K-12 school district Superintendents and Principals. Such partnerships
could improve guidance and cooperation on developing pre-engineering
curricula, career opportunities for students, K-12 faculty development,
and, importantly, provide a stronger image of engineering in local
communities.
Just this past summer, EEC supported an Engineering Education
Summit here in Washington, where we brought together the thought
leaders from those key universities (such as Purdue, Virginia Tech,
Clemson and Utah State) focusing directly on engineering education.
While much of their focus was on improving the engineering curriculum
in universities, these engineering education programs are leading the
profession in establishing partnerships with Colleges of Education to
include engineering content in elementary, middle and high school
teacher preparation. Just as Education colleges turn to colleges of
Science for content preparation in chemistry, physics and biology, we
want them to turn to colleges of engineering for content preparation in
engineering.
Engineering Education and NSF STEM Education programs
The Engineering and EHR directorates have partnered on numerous K-
12 activities. For example, we have teamed to support a GK-12
Fellowship program at the University of Colorado, Boulder. These
Fellows are working with Skyline High School (SHS) in Longmont to bring
highly interactive, hands-on projects into the classroom. The projects
are targeted at moderately at-risk students and allow them to receive
high school credit. SHS has a large Hispanic student population and is
a school where 49 percent of the students qualify for free and reduced
lunches. SHS also has the largest English Language Learners program in
the District.
As a direct result of the funding, the initial new STEM course
offerings introduced include ``WIRED'' (a technology-based course
designed for all 9th grade students), Exploration in STEM, Engineering
Design I, Introduction to Computer Programming, AP Computer Science,
and AP Chemistry. The enrollment demographics in these courses are
encouraging. 40 percent of students accepted into the academies are
minority and 33 percent are female.
Another EHR/ENG partnership supports Design Squad, a PBS reality
competition series-with an accompanying outreach campaign and web site
designed to inspire a new generation of engineers. Over 10 weeks, six
high school and college-aged kids learn to think smart, build fast, and
contend with a wild array of engineering challenges-all for real-life
clients. Targeted to nine- to twelve-year-olds and fun for people of
all ages, this fast-paced TV series is the fuel behind a national,
multimedia initiative designed to attract kids to engineering.
The series is making a special effort to reach out to girls and
minorities, groups that are critically under-represented--comprising
just 11 percent and 21 percent of engineers, respectively. By casting
teens from a range of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (50
percent of the Season I and II cast are female and 56 percent
minority), Design Squad provides positive, diverse role models for
younger viewers. These casting decisions have a measurable impact. 16
percent of the Design Squad audience is comprised of Black or African
American households and 27 percent is comprised of Hispanic households.
Since its premiere in 2007, Design Squad has conducted 71 trainings
for 3,479 engineers and educators, and engaged 89,453 kids and families
with hands-on engineering activities through 263 events and workshops
across the country. 64 engineering and education organizations have
become formal partners, and 2,700 programs have used Design Squad's
educational materials, which include six educators' guides (containing
step-by-step directions and leaders notes for 30 activities) targeted
to after-school providers, engineers, and teachers. Recent data
estimates that approximately 500,000 viewers watch Design Squad each
week. A selected list of current K-12 Engineering projects supported by
EHR is found in the Appendix.
Finally, it is noteworthy, and reassuring, that interest and
support in expanding opportunities in engineering among K-12 students
extends beyond government-related programs. In 1992, FIRST Robotics, an
extra-curricular program, was launched in New Hampshire under the
visionary leadership of Dean Kamen. Dean received support from NSF in
the early stages of his national robotics competition. FIRST Robotics
is now supported in over 2000 high schools in the U.S. and a
significant number of FIRST alumni are now studying in engineering
colleges. Another program, Project Lead the Way, started in New York
State in the early 1990s, is a curricular program with engineering-
based courses now embedded in about 3,000 schools and boasts student
participation of upwards of 300,000 students. Programs like this (and
several others) will hopefully motivate boys and girls of all
ethnicities to become the innovative engineers of the future.
Evaluation and Assessment
Assessment for success in such programs is absolutely critical.
Much of our assessment analysis to date has been anecdotal, and true
successful assessment metrics can only be defined over a fairly long
time horizon. For example, how many students who experience the
excitement of discovery and creativity through simple engineering
projects in the third and fourth grades end up pursuing academic
studies and professional careers in engineering? Obviously longitudinal
analyses over decades are required to quantitatively answer that
question. But we must begin collecting that information now.
The Engineering and Education and Human Resources directorates held
a joint retreat this past summer, for the purpose of delineating the
many opportunities for continued and future collaborations on
engineering education issues of particular interest to both of us. One
topic of discussion was precisely this question of developing better
metrics for assessment and evaluation. Suggested metrics and measures
for evaluating our investments in K-12 engineering education included:
Number of K-12 development intensive projects that
employ appropriate methods to evaluate efficacy and that apply
them rigorously
Number of teachers and students who engage in the
capacity building efforts, including increasing awareness,
interests, and skills in K-12 engineering education.
Summary
The National Science Foundation continues to play a role in this
important task of educating future engineers and society decision-
makers. Moreover, an equally important responsibility is to provide the
intellectual rationale and framework for developing educational tools
that will give all our citizens the basic engineering and technological
skills to live in this complex society. But we must also engage local
school districts and the Department of Education in this endeavor. The
Boston Museum of Science, which received support from NSF for
technological literacy, directs the National Center for Technological
Literacy and is, I believe, one good example of an approach to take in
this regard.
The NSF is not about providing long-term and sustained funding for
programs. We provide the support for new ideas, new curricula, new
approaches to engineering education and educational pedagogy. We
provide that support for targeted programs in schools and institutions
with new and creative ideas. The real challenge is twofold. First, we
must find the support to continue programs developed under NSF
Sponsorship once NSF support is no longer available. Second, and
equally important, is to find the means to financially support the
dissemination of the best ideas developed through NSF support to a much
broader range of institutions and schools. For this, we must rely on
individual school districts throughout our country. I believe that the
Skyline High School in Longmont, Colorado, mentioned above, is one
example that shows promise in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
APPENDIX
Active Engineering Education projects
in the
Education and Human Resources Directorate
National Science Foundation
UTeachEngineering: Training Secondary Teachers to Deliver
Design-Based Engineering Instruction (MSP, 0831811, University of Texas
at Austin)
The University of Texas at Austin's Cockrell School of Engineering
is partnering with the successful UTeach Natural Sciences program and
the Austin Independent School District to develop and deliver
UTeachEngineering, an innovative, design- and challenge-based
curriculum for preparing secondary teachers of engineering. To meet the
growing need for engineering teachers in Texas, and to serve as a model
in engineering education across the Nation, UTeachEngineering has the
following four professional development pathways to teacher
preparedness, two for in-service teachers and two for pre-service
teachers: UTeach Master of Arts in Science and Engineering Education
(MASEE); Engineering Summer Institutes for Teachers (ESIT); Engineering
Certification Track for Physics Majors; and Teacher Preparation Track
for Engineering Majors. UTeachEngineering anticipates reaching 650
teachers (80 pre-service and 570 in-service) over the first five years.
In the future, it is expected that UTeachEngineering will be sustained
as a vital program at the University of Texas at Austin.
UTeachEngineering is firmly rooted in current research in the field of
engineering education and affords a much-needed opportunity to study
the teaching and learning of engineering. While the focused goal of
UTeachEngineering is to train a cadre of secondary teachers, the
project's vision is that all students are ``engineering enabled,''
acquiring the design and interaction skills that would enable them to
be successful in an engineering career should they choose one, while
enhancing their lives and participation as global citizens even if they
do not become engineers.
Partnership for Student Success in Science (MSP, 0315041,
Palo Alto Unified School District)
The Partnership consisting of nine Silicon Valley school districts
and San Jose State University's (SJSU) Colleges of Engineering and
Education is taking a regional approach to improving science education
by building institutional capacity, instructional quality, and student
achievement in a major urban region and providing pre-service
preparation, new teacher induction, on-going in-service and leadership
development for over 1,300 pre-service students and in-service
teachers. Elementary and middle school students experience exemplary
inquiry and laboratory-based lessons linked appropriately to math,
literacy, and technology resulting in higher achievement. Engineering
faculty devote time as consultants in middle schools. While they
contribute scholarship and content background they also learn by
viewing the variety of teaching strategies that serve diverse student
needs. Undergraduate engineering education is improved through close
collaboration between engineers and teachers.
GK-12--Engineering in Practice for a Sustainable Future (GK-
12, 0538655, University of Oklahoma-Norman Campus)
This project builds upon two awards: The Authentic Teaching
Alliance (ATA); and the Adventure Engineering (AE). The outcomes from
the first two grants include: (1) a dual degree program in engineering
education; (2) greater than 50 percent of the undergraduate Fellows
were accepted into STEM graduate programs; (3) four competitive grants
were awarded to the ATA teachers and Fellows; (4) over 100 teaching and
learning modules were developed of which 30 are available through the
Internet on the ATA web site; and (5) improvements in the Fellows
communications and teaching skills. The current work focuses on the
integration of the 100 units referenced to include more utilization of
the engineering processes; conducting summer engineering academies
(SEA) that would serve to disseminate the material and be professional
development opportunities for the teachers; and preparing Future
Faculty through a proposed dual STEM education degree between the
Colleges of Engineering and Education.
NJ Alliance for Engineering Education (GK-12, 0742462,
Stevens Institute of Technology)
The objective of the New Jersey Alliance for Engineering Education
(NJAEE) is to create a partnership that promotes the integration of
problem-solving, innovation and inventiveness within mainstream high
school STEM curricula, while fostering the cross-fertilization of
innovative teaching methods across K-12 and university level education.
A cohort of graduate engineering students (Fellows) is collaborating
with engineering professors, education professionals, and high school
STEM teachers to design, develop, and implement innovative and
motivating educational modules based on the Fellows' research areas.
The modules will be aligned with the NJ science curriculum requirements
and will incorporate themes of engineering design, innovation and
inventiveness within the STEM curriculum. Stevens Institute of
Technology (SIT) faculty, education professionals and Lawrence Hall of
Science staff will collaborate in the creation of a new course
``Communicating Engineering,'' which all Fellows will experience. While
completing their engineering studies, Fellows will also complete a
nine-credit graduate certificate in education from SIT. NJAEE will
enhance STEM learning for approximately 11,700 high school students,
will provide considerable professional development opportunities to 130
participating K-12 teachers, and will immerse the next generation of
engineering professors in innovative teaching methodologies.
Transforming Elementary Science Learning through LEGOTM
Engineering Design (REESE, 0633952, Tufts University)
This project involves development, implementation, and evaluation
of innovative engineering-based science curriculum for grades 3-5. A
major activity is to measure what and how students learn from
engineering design challenges tailored to standards-based science
concepts. Another aim is to establish best practices for designing
engineering curricula that are more effective at promoting students'
fundamental understanding of and interest in science content. The third
objective is to determine whether engineering contexts improve
elementary teachers' practice of science instruction. The research team
seeks to advance theory, design, and practice in the emerging field of
elementary school engineering education, which they believe can
motivate and deepen the learning of science. To accomplish the project
goals, researchers are collaborating closely with participating Boston-
area teachers to develop a series of curriculum modules that pose
engineering design challenges whose solutions require understanding of
specific science content. The learning objectives of these modules will
be aligned with the National Science Education Standards (NSES) for
grades K-4 and the Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering
Curriculum Frameworks for grades 3-5. The instruction and assessments
will be designed according to three sets of requirements: (1) the
concerns and experience of the collaborating classroom teachers, (2)
the Project 2061 criteria for science curriculum set forth by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, and (3) the
analytical, creative, and practical domains of Sternberg's Triarchic
Theory of Intelligence. The curriculum will use the LEGOTM MINDSTORMS
toolset for prototype construction and ROBOLABTM software for algorithm
development. These instructional materials have been proven to be
engaging and authentic tools for children's engineering. The data from
teacher and student studies will be analyzed to answer the following
three driving research questions: (1) Does engineering-based science
instruction improve 3rd-5th grade students' analytical, creative,
practical abilities related to science content, as well as their memory
of science content? (2) How are the attitude, engagement, and self-
efficacy of both teachers and students affected by the use of
engineering design problems to teach science? (3) Does the efficacy of
engineering based science instruction depend on demographic
characteristics of the students? The primary intellectual merit of the
proposed activity includes (1) the contribution of needed systematic
research on the efficacy of elementary-level engineering education for
science instruction, and (2) the development of new and potentially
more effective methods for engineering-based science instruction.
Exploring Content Standards for Engineering Education in K-12
(Discovery Research K-12, 0733584, National Academy of Sciences) and
National Symposium on K-12 Engineering Education (Discovery Research
K-12, 0935879. National Academy of Sciences)
The National Academy of Sciences is assessing the potential value
and feasibility of developing and implementing K-12 content standards
for engineering education. The specific objectives of this exploratory
project, to be carried out by the National Academy of Engineering
(NAE), are (1) to review existing efforts to define what K-12 students
should know, (2) to identify elements of existing standards documents
for K-12 science, mathematics, and technology that could link to
engineering, (3) to consider how the various possible purposes for K-12
engineering education might affect the content and implementation of
standards, and (4) to suggest what changes to educational policies,
programs, and practices at the national and State levels might be
needed to develop and implement K-12 engineering standards. To
accomplish these objectives, the project will conduct literature
reviews, two commissioned background papers, three meetings of the
project committee, and a two-day workshop to solicit expert views on
the subject. The principal product of the project will be a peer-
reviewed workshop summary report, which will be distributed to key
stakeholders and presented in various professional meetings. This
report is expected to set the stage for discussions and future actions
related to the establishment of engineering standards.
The National Academy of Engineering and the National Research
Council will hold a workshop to disseminate the findings of a
privately-funded, two-year study of the status and nature of efforts to
teach engineering to U.S. K-12 students. The symposium and other
dissemination activities inform key stakeholders about the role and
potential of engineering as an element of K-12 STEM education and also
inform the programmatic activities of organizations and individuals
concerned about engineering education. The report provides a brief
history of engineering, reviews the evidence for the benefits of K-12
engineering education, discusses a large number of curriculum projects
and associated teacher professional development efforts, summarizes the
cognitive science literature related to how students learn engineering
concepts and practices, and concludes with the Committee's findings and
recommendations. The report is of special interest to individuals and
groups interested in improving the quality of K-12 STEM education in
the U.S.: engineering educators, policy-makers, employers, and those
concerned with development of the technical workforce, as well as those
working to boost technological literacy of the general public. For
educational researchers and for cognitive scientists, the report
exposes a rich set of questions related to how and under what
conditions students come to understand engineering and design thinking.
Family Engineering for Parents and Elementary-Aged Children
(ISE, 0741709, Michigan Technological University)
Michigan Technological University is collaborating with David Heil
and Associates to implement the Family Engineering Program, working in
conjunction with student chapters of engineering societies such as the
American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), the Society of
Hispanic Professionals (SHP) and a host of youth and community
organizations. The Family Engineering Program is designed to increase
technological literacy by introducing children ages 5-12 and their
parents/caregivers to the field of engineering using the principles of
design. The project will reach socio-economically diverse audiences in
the upper peninsula of Michigan including Native American, Hispanic,
Asian, and African American families. The secondary audience includes
university STEM majors, informal science educators, and STEM
professionals that are trained to deliver the program to families. A
well-researched five step engineering design process utilized in the
school-based Engineering is Elementary curriculum will be incorporated
into mini design challenges and activities based in a variety of fields
such as agricultural, chemical, environmental, and biomedical
engineering. Deliverables include the Family Engineering event model,
Family Engineering Activity Guide, Family Engineering Nights, project
web site, and facilitator training workshops. It is anticipated that
300 facilitators and 7,000-10,000 parents and children will be directly
impacted by this effort, while facilitator training may result in more
than 27,000 program participants.
A Comprehensive Pathway for K-Gray Engineering Education
(NSDL, 0532684, Colorado School of Mines)
The K-Gray Engineering Education Pathway is the engineering
``wing'' of the National Science Digital Library (NSDL). It provides a
comprehensive engineering portal for high-quality teaching and learning
resources in engineering, computer science, information technology and
engineering technology. Project goals are to: 1) merge NEEDS and
TeachEngineering into a unified K-Gray engineering educational digital
library, 2) significantly grow high quality resources in the NSDL
Engineering Pathway in a sustainable way, 3) align the unified
curricular materials with appropriate undergraduate and K-12
educational standards, 4) grow the participation of content providers
and users, 5) enhance quality control and review protocols for
Engineering Pathway content, and 6) create a nonprofit strategy and
partnership for the sustainability of the Engineering Pathway. This
project also expands the Pathway's gender equity and ethnic diversity
components by cataloging and reviewing curricular resources created by
female-centric and minority-serving organizations. The K-Gray
Engineering Education Pathway is having far-reaching impact by engaging
K-12 communities and institutions of higher education, engineering
professional societies, engineering research centers, NSF K-12
programs, and ABET.
Engineering Equity Extension Service (GSE, 0533520, National
Academy of Sciences)
The Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering
Education of the National Academy of Engineering will, over a five-year
period, implement an Engineering Equity Extension Service (EEES) as a
comprehensive research-based consultative and peer mentoring
infrastructure in support of enhanced gender equity in engineering
education in the U.S. Based on key leverage points identified from the
literature, EEES will focus its efforts on bringing expertise in gender
studies and the research base on science and engineering education to
a) academic preparation for engineering study for students at the
middle school (grade 6) through collegiate sophomore levels, b) the
out-of-class social environment, c) the in-class social environment, c)
curricular content, d) curricular scope and sequence design, e)
curriculum delivery and instructional style. A key part of our strategy
is reaching those teachers and faculty who do not have an a priori
interest in gender equity activities by suffusing attention to gender
equity into other core areas of concern. The study team is developing a
handbook on proposing and managing engineering education projects and
conducting workshops on this topic at national and regional engineering
meetings. The handbook will fuse attention to gender equity,
engineering education, and project management into a seamless whole.
Examining Engineering Perceptions, Aspirations and Identity
among Young Girls (GSE, 0734091, Purdue University)
The primary goal of this research project is to examine girls'
(grades 1-5) conceptions of self and engineering and how these
conceptions are shaped by their engagement and learning in various
engineering activities. More specifically, the study seeks to learn how
girls approach, experience, and interact with engineering activities
and how their learning informs who girls think they are (what community
of practice they participate in) and who they want to be (what
communities of practice they aspire to). The context of this research
study is Purdue University's Institute for P-12 Engineering Research
and Learning (INSPIRE), a new initiative focused on creating an
engineering literate society through P-12 engineering education
research and scholarship. The specific research questions that guide
the study include: 1) What are elementary school children's perceptions
of engineering and career aspirations? How do girls' perceptions and
aspirations compare to boys' perceptions and aspirations? 2) What do
elementary school girls report as who they think they are and who they
want to be? How do girls' self-images compare to boys' self-images? 3)
What new engineering content knowledge do children construct and are
there gender-related differences in the new knowledge children
construct? and 4) What is the relationship between girls' perceptions,
career aspirations, identity development, and learning in engineering?
Using a mixed-methods approach (Engineering Identity Development Scale
[EIDS], Pre/Post Engineering Knowledge Tests, semi-structured
interviews, and document review), the three year study measures
individual differences in relational, school, and occupational
identity; engineering perceptions and aspirations; and engineering
content knowledge construction through problem solving and modeling.
The research team works with elementary school teachers and students
from school sites in Detroit, MI and Lafayette, IN.
Girls Understand, Imagine, and Dream Engineering (GSE,
0735000, Girl Scouts of the USA)
Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) is developing three separate
culturally-relevant parent/girl engineering career toolkits entitled
``GUIDE--Girls Understand, Imagine and Dream Engineering,'' for
dissemination to African American, Native American and Hispanic parents
and their daughters ages 13-17. The goal of this informal education
resource is to inform and engage parents from the three racial/ethnic
groups about engineering in a culturally-relevant manner, so that they
may take an active role in encouraging their daughters to consider
engineering careers. The GUIDE Toolkit will consist of: (1) the GUIDE
Handbook, a customized, culturally-appropriate engineering career
resource for use with both parents and girls; and (2) GUIDE Workshops
to introduce the GUIDE Handbook to parents and girls from the target
racial groups at Girl Scout councils and the larger community.
Biography for Thomas W. Peterson
Thomas W. Peterson is Assistant Director of the National Science
Foundation, for the Engineering Directorate. Prior to joining NSF, he
was Dean of the College of Engineering at the University of Arizona. He
received his B.S. degree from Tufts University, M.S. from the
University of Arizona, and Ph.D. from the California Institute of
Technology, all in Chemical Engineering. He has served on the faculty
of the University of Arizona since 1977, as head of the Chemical and
Environmental Engineering Department from 1990-1998, and as Dean from
1998 until January 2009.
During his service as Dean, Dr. Peterson was a member of the
Executive Board for the Engineering Deans' Council of ASEE, and was
Vice-Chair of EDC from 2007-2008. He has served on the Board of
Directors of the Council for Chemical Research, and on the Engineering
Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET). He was one of the founding members
of the Global Engineering Deans' Council, and at Arizona made global
education experiences a high priority for his engineering students. He
is a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and a
recipient of the Kenneth T. Whitby Award from the American Association
for Aerosol Research.
The Engineering Directorate at NSF provides critical support for
the Nation's engineering research and education activities, and is a
driving force behind the education and development of the Nation's
engineering workforce. With a budget of approximately $640 million, the
directorate supports fundamental and transformative research, the
creation of cutting edge facilities and tools, broad interdisciplinary
collaborations, and through its Centers and Small Business Innovation
Research programs, enhances the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Peterson.
Dr. Miaoulis.
STATEMENT OF DR. IOANNIS MIAOULIS, PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR,
MUSEUM OF SCIENCE, BOSTON; FOUNDING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER
FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY
Dr. Miaoulis. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Ehlers and
Members of the Committee, I would also like to thank you for
calling this hearing and inviting me to share my experiences.
K-12 engineering has been my passion since 1993. I was then the
Dean of the School of Engineering at Tufts University, and now
my passion continues as President and Director of the Museum of
Science in Boston.
We claim that science is a discipline that teaches children
about the world around them, but I would like you to take a
look at this room and tell me how many things you see around
you are natural things and how many are human made, and I would
argue that about 98 percent of the world around us is human
made. If you look at the science curriculum in schools, it is
primarily focused on the natural world, so it captures pretty
much two percent of the world of children, and we leave out 98
percent. So understanding 98 percent of the world around us, I
would argue, is basic literacy, and is not an extra. So
technological literacy is basic literacy. But there are a few
other reasons why engineering should be part of the formal
curriculum.
Engineering offers a wonderful vehicle for problem solving
and project-based learning, pulling all the other disciplines
together and bringing them to life. It brings, in particular,
math and science to life and makes them relevant, and we all
know that relevance in science is what attracts or retains
girls in science. If you look at the science fields that women
gravitate to, they are the ones that truly benefit the world,
like medicine, veterinary medicine, life sciences,
environmental engineering. Also, by introducing engineering
into schools, we will ensure that we have a technologically
literate and diverse workforce. Seven out of 10 U.S. engineers
have had a relative that is an engineer, so it is parents that
mentor the kids to become engineers. And popular television
does not help either, because for all of the wonderful popular
shows that glorify wonderful professions such as law and
medicine, there are no real engineers in popular TV to
encourage kids to go into engineering. Actually, the only
engineer in prime time TV is Homer Simpson from the Simpsons,
the cartoon, which is unfortunate. By introducing engineering
as a main discipline, kids of all ethnic groups would know what
it is and they can choose to pursue it or not.
At the National Center for Technological Literacy, which is
housed within the Museum of Science, we do three things to
promote engineering literacy nationwide, and, please, if I
could have the slide so that we are all looking at it as I am
speaking. I would appreciate it.
[See slide in written statement.]
So we do three things. First, we create curriculum. We
have, I would argue, probably the broadest and most diverse
curriculum development effort for children in engineering in
the world. We have an elementary curriculum that is being used
by over a million children, including the children at Mr.
Sandlin's school, actually, in Texas. They are using our
curriculum. And we have also middle school and high school
engineering curricula. This is all standard-based, research-
based engineering curricula that integrates mathematics and
science. We also have an extensive number of pre-service and
in-service workshops for teachers. Our model is to develop
partnerships nationwide. We have dozens of partners at
university science centers, corporations that do professional
development of teachers in the region. We also work with
universities to assist in developing curriculum for future
teachers, and we also have an extensive advocacy effort both at
the State level--we work with many State legislative bodies and
departments of education--as well as federal entities, such as
the National Governors Association, to introduce engineering
standards, assessments and programs.
There are a few challenges, of course, with this
initiative. There is apprehension and fear. Engineering for
many people is a scary word. Some believe it is not for young
children. I don't agree with that. You can do engineering at
different levels like you can do physics at different levels.
There is a lack of resources. Although there is a lot of talk
and enthusiasm about STEM, all the money goes to the SM of
STEM, the science and the math, and the T and E are left out.
So there is still a lack of resources.
There is concern over lack of time to teach engineering.
Well, our children spend about a month during middle school
learning how a volcano works, and spend no time learning how a
car works. How much time do you have to spend on a volcano
compared to a car in your life, and why should we spend a month
learning about volcanoes and no time learning about cars? And
don't get me wrong; I think volcanoes are a wonderful way to
teach plate tectonics, which is very important for children to
learn, but I would argue that we could make some space to teach
engineering as well.
Here are three recommendations. First, that we increase
funding on professional development of teachers to enable them
to include engineering in their teaching and to enable informal
science organizations such as science museums and science
centers to provide such support. The second recommendation is
to provide resources for development of more curriculum and
materials. And the third is to support legislation that would
provide states planning grants to figure out how they would
introduce engineering in their formal standards and
assessments; implementation grants after they have the plan
down of how they are going to do it, to actually support
funding teacher professional development and curriculum
materials; and also support evaluation studies so that we can
build research that will help us understand how we should
introduce engineering better for children. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Miaoulis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ioannis Miaoulis
On behalf of the Museum of Science, Boston and our National Center
for Technological Literacy (NCTL), I applaud Chairman Lipinski and the
Members of the Subcommittee for holding this hearing on the occurrence
and effect of K-12 engineering education. This has been my passion and
focus for the past 20 years.
The Museum of Science, Boston is one of the world's largest science
centers and New England's most attended cultural institution. We work
to bring science, technology, engineering, and mathematics alive for
about 1.5 million visitors a year through our interactive exhibits and
programs, serving 186,000 students and 100,000 more in traveling and
overnight programs. The goal of the NCTL is to introduce engineering
into K-12 classrooms nationwide.
Why K-12 Engineering?
With an economy in flux and a workforce at risk, educating the
Nation's future engineers and scientists and advancing technological
literacy are more important than ever. We need a strong technical and
engineering workforce to remain competitive and innovative. To maintain
our country's vitality and security, we must expand students'
understanding of technology and engineering and widen the pipeline to
careers in these fields so that a diverse array of talented students
can pursue them.
The key to educating students to thrive in this competitive global
economy is introducing them to the engineering design skills and
concepts that will engage them in applying their math and science
knowledge to solve real problems. This is the way to harness the
creativity of young minds. This is also the process that fuels
innovation of new technologies.
Lately, K-12 math and science education has received a lot of
attention, while K-12 technology and engineering education has been
largely overlooked. The problem is that the school science curricula
still focus more on the natural, not the human-made or technological,
world, and have taught little or no engineering. The beauty of
engineering is that it is the connector that uses science and math to
create the technological innovations that facilitate daily experience.
Our curricula frameworks were established in the nineteenth century
society, when the society was largely agrarian--no phones, automobiles,
or computers. Obviously, our world has changed but most curricula have
not, leaving a huge gap in students' learning. While most people spend
95 percent of their time interacting with technologies of the human-
made world, few know these products are made through engineering. We
need to add technology and engineering as standard subjects in U.S.
schools.
There are many reasons to introduce engineering in K-12 schools:
First, engineering is rich in hands-on experiences. Children are
born engineers, fascinated with building and taking things apart to see
how they work. Describing these activities as engineering can help them
develop positive associations with the field.
Second, engineering brings math and science to life, demonstrating
that they are relevant subjects thereby motivating students to pursue
them. Relevance is particularly significant for girls and other under-
represented groups. Engineering pulls together many other disciplines,
including math, science, language arts, history, and art, engaging
children of differing abilities in problem-based learning, where
teamwork is important.
Third, to create a diverse, technologically literate workforce, we
need to support engineering in K-12 schools. Most engineers will tell
you they were inspired by an engineer in their family. Unfortunately,
the engineering profession is not diverse--we are mostly white men.
Therefore, many children are not exposed to such role models nor have
access to enhancement experiences which will lead them to pursue
engineering careers. To break this cycle, expand opportunities, and
diversify the profession, we must offer engineering education in K-12
classrooms to make those careers more desirable and accessible to all
children from all backgrounds.
The fourth and major reason to start engineering early is that
technological literacy is basic literacy for the 21st century. We live
in a technological world. We need to understand how human-made things
like shoes and band-aids are created, how they work, and how to improve
them.
However, according to, Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need
to Know More About Technology (National Academy of Engineering/National
Research Council, 2002, page 1), ``Although the United States is
increasingly defined by and dependent on technology . . . its citizens
are not equipped to make well-considered decisions or think critically
about technology.'' The report also said, ``Neither the educational
system . . . nor the policy-making apparatus has recognized the
importance of technological literacy.'' Far beyond a facility with
computers, ``technological literacy'' involves understanding what
technology is, how it is created, and how it influences our lives. To
paraphrase from Technically Speaking (page 4), a technologically
literate person should:
recognize technology in its many forms;
understand basic engineering concepts and terms such
as systems, constraints, and trade-offs;
have a range of hands-on skills in using a variety of
technologies;
know that people shape technology and technology
shapes behavior;
know there are risks and benefits in using or not
using technology to solve problems; and,
be able to use math concepts to make informed
decisions about technological risks and benefits.
An important goal of engineering education is to introduce students
to engineering as a profession which takes skill, creativity, and
knowledge of science and mathematics, but which novices can begin to
practice in an intellectually honest way, just as they can practice
scientific inquiry at an amateur level in an intellectually honest way.
We want students to feel that engineering design can be fun, can help
people, and is worth learning to do better. In addition, we want them
to be exposed to the enormous range of technologies in use today, as
well the enormous inheritance they receive of accumulated design know-
how. Engineering is ongoing, and can be used to solve human problems.
These are goals worthy of students' time and effort.
Understanding the importance of technological literacy and the need
for trained engineers, the Museum of Science launched the National
Center for Technological Literacy in 2004 to enhance knowledge of
engineering and technology for people of all ages and to inspire the
next generation of engineers and scientists. A detailed description of
our work follows the Challenges and Recommendations sections.
Challenges
While the NCTL has made tremendous progress in advancing K-12
engineering education in Massachusetts and in an increasing number of
states, we have encountered a number of challenges that can be
overcome.
Because K-12 engineering education is not terribly widespread, the
one challenge lies in the sense of apprehension and misunderstanding by
teachers and administrators. Engineering may frighten some teachers,
especially those uncomfortable with science. However, once they have
received our training, which ranges from a day and a half to three
weeks, most are excited and willing to implement.
Through our professional development training, we explain that the
engineering design process is similar to scientific inquiry that
explores the natural world, except that engineering explores the human-
made world (see comparison chart in appendices). This provides a frame
of reference and comfort level. We do not expect our teachers to teach
something as complex as tribology and finite element analysis. We do
want them to expose students to open-ended problem-solving using
limited resources or designing under constraint.
Lack of appropriate resources is another challenge. Schools and
teachers need access to effective instructional materials and hands-on
kits so students can actually apply their skills.
Some argue there is no time to add a new topic to an already packed
school year. They express concern that adding another subject or topic
will simply extend the content rather than allow deeper exploration.
Our engineering curricula allow students to multi-task--applying
science, math, language arts, and technology in engineering design
challenges thereby covering multiple subjects at once. As one
elementary teacher says, ``it's an add-in, not an add-on.''
Another concern we hear is that there are no separate engineering
education standards for curricula development, teacher preparation,
student achievement, etc. Some advocate for the creation and
implementation of new separate K-12 engineering standards and
assessments. Some advocate the revision of existing standards including
math, science and technology standards to incorporate and integrate
engineering education. The National Academies of Engineering is
currently studying these options and that report is due to be published
next year. We support the integration of engineering in all grades,
particularly in science and math, and separate courses for both middle
and high school students.
It is important to note, on the assessment front, that the National
Assessment of Educational Progress--Science 2009 will include a number
of items that will assess student technological design skills. Further,
the National Assessment Governing Board is currently developing a
Technological Literacy study that will likely assess design and systems
thinking, as well as information and computer technology literacy, and
technology and society.
Another challenge is the lack of recognition by some policy makers
and education leaders that K-12 engineering education is taking place
in classrooms across the Nation and that positive results are
occurring. This is further complicated by the fact that there are no
existing federal programs to specifically support K-12 engineering
education in core academic classrooms. Many agencies espouse support
for STEM programs; however, most focus on science and math to the
exclusion of technology and engineering. While the National Science
Foundation, which has awarded several grants to the Museum and the
NCTL, and other science and engineering agencies support STEM
education, there are no specific programs designed to help all states
pursue K-12 engineering education nor has there been any large scale
research programs to measure the efficacy of the various curricular
programs.
Recommendations
To respond to these challenges, we encourage the Chairman, the
Committee and the Congress to consider legislation that will further
implementation and research of K-12 engineering education. We suggest a
three part grant program that would allow states to plan and to
implement K-12 engineering education more broadly in their schools and
to participate in a large scale evaluation. We suspect this research
will confirm the promising preliminary results uncovered by the
National Academy of Engineering K-12 Engineering Education study group
and provide tremendous guidance to future development and
implementation of K-12 engineering education, student learning and
STEM, career aspirations.
Furthermore, as Congress considers revising the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, we suggest the following:
Allow informal STEM education centers and other non-
profit educational organizations to receive funds for teacher
professional development;
Expand and rename the Math/Science Partnerships to
STEM Partnerships to include technology and engineering
educators in teacher professional development opportunities;
Encourage states to adopt technology and engineering
standards and assessments;
Encourage states to include technology and
engineering in the definition of ``rigorous curricula'' for
high school graduation;
Expand the definition and requirement for
``technology literacy'' to go beyond the use of computers to
include the engineering design process;
Include engineering/technology teachers alongside
math/science teachers in all incentive programs to recruit,
train, mentor, retain, and further educate teachers; and
Support after-school programs that include technology
and engineering activities.
National Center for Technological Literacy: Mission and Function
The NCTL is integrating engineering as a new discipline in schools
via: 1) standards-based, teacher-tested K-12 curricula development; 2)
pre-service and in-service teacher professional development and
leadership training programs; and, 3) advocating for aligned standards,
assessments, and policies promoting K-12 engineering education. The
Museum of Science is the only science museum in the country with a
comprehensive strategy and infrastructure to foster engineering
education and technological literacy in both K-12 schools and science
museums nationwide.
I. Curricula Development
Our curricula follow in large measure the three core principles for
K-12 engineering education recommended in the recent report by the
National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Research Council
(NRC), Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and
Improving the Prospects. Our materials: 1) emphasize the engineering
design process; 2) incorporate important and developmentally
appropriate mathematics, science, and technology knowledge and skills;
and, 3) promote engineering habits of mind including systems thinking,
creativity, collaboration, communication and attention to ethical
considerations.
The curricula we create are not intended to replicate college level
sources. We intend to impart habits of mind that include an engineering
design process, optimization, efficiency and economy. It allows
students to apply their math and science skills to solve community-
based problems. It opens their minds to a variety of technology and
engineering careers they may have never heard of before. It
demonstrates that all students are capable of engineering.
An early project of the NCTL was to examine existing K-12
engineering curricula. Our online Technology and Engineering Curriculum
Review includes instructional materials in a searchable database. The
most promising have been peer reviewed and mapped to national
standards. During this review process, we discovered that very little
was available to address the elementary grades. www.mos.org/TEC
Our philosophy is that children construct a much deeper
understanding of the world around them, including science, technology,
and engineering, when they interact with meaningful, challenging
activities. The NCTL curricula development team performs a detailed
curriculum development process that is based heavily on, Understanding
by Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).
For example, each of our elementary units entails more than 3,000
hours of development over the course of two years. In addition to this
development time, units are pilot tested across Massachusetts and field
tested across the United States. A typical unit development cycle
begins with background research and ends with a unit release two years
later.
A major focus of our work is to expand interest in engineering
across all demographics. Our curricular resources emphasize diversity,
including both genders, and people of races, ethnic backgrounds,
physical abilities, and cultures. We also work to integrate with other
topics including science, mathematics and language arts.
The Engineering is Elementary series is closely aligned with
popular elementary science topics and is steeped in language arts. The
middle school series, Building Math, integrates algebra with
engineering design challenges and is typically taught by math teachers
and also used in technology education classes. The new middle grades
series, Engineering Today, is aligned with science subjects.
Engineering the Future is a full year course that is taught by either
technology/engineering educators or physics teachers.
A. Engineering is Elementary
The Engineering is Elementary (EiE) project integrates engineering
and technology with science, language arts, social studies, and
mathematics via storybooks and hands-on design activities. Each unit
begins with an illustrated storybook, in which a child from a different
country uses the engineering design process to solve a community-based
problem, and includes four lessons. Elementary school teachers
nationwide can use these curricular materials to teach technology and
engineering concepts to children in grades 1-5. The development of this
series is funded in large measure by a National Science Foundation
Instructional Materials Development grant as well several corporate
sponsors.
The NAE report, Engineering in K-12 Education, cites EiE as one of
the curricula offering the ``most comprehensive'' resources to support
implementation. Materials ``are clearly written to enrich and
complement existing instruction . . . the emphasis on literacy is
especially noteworthy.'' The EiE series ``illustrates how a wide range
of problems can be overcome through a systematic engineering design
process that involves the application of math, science, and creativity
. . . the idea that engineers combine creativity with their knowledge
of math and science to solve problems is introduced and reinforced.''
As of May 14, 2009, EiE had reached 15,660 teachers (750 in MA) and
1,021,725 students in 50 states and Washington, DC. Of those states, 34
have a significant presence with larger orders and professional
development participants. Sales have also reached over one million
dollars over the five years of sales. The receipts are reinvested into
the enhancement and implementation of the curricula. These units can be
obtained at www.mos.org.eie.
B. Building Math
Building Math, created with Tufts University, provides innovative
practices for integrating engineering with math to help middle school
students develop algebraic thinking. Building Math consists of three
middle school instructional units that uniquely integrate inquiry-based
mathematics investigations and engineering design challenges. The
engineering design challenges provide meaningful and engaging contexts
to learn and use mathematics, and to develop students' teamwork,
communication, and manual skills. The mathematics investigations yield
useful results to help students make informed design decisions.
Building Math was pilot tested in Massachusetts and has sold almost
1,900 units and is estimated to reach almost 95,000 students. Six
states have ordered more than 100 units and the curriculum is placed in
42 states at some level.
According to Engineering in K-12 Education, the units are ``very
deliberative in their use of contextual learning to make the study of
math more interesting, practical, and engaging.'' The math activities
have a ``direct bearing on the solution to the problem.'' The materials
are also ``very consistent'' in using the engineering design process to
``orchestrate learning.'' The ``richest'' portion of the design process
involves doing research and testing the final design and the
``richest'' analysis in the materials involves interpreting data and
discovering ``quantitative patterns and relationships.''
Awarded the 2008 Distinguished Curriculum Award by the Association
of Educational Publishers, the Building Math series for grades 6-8 are
available from Walch Publishing www.walch.com.
C. Engineering Today: New Middle School Series
The NCTL is developing a new series of middle-school supplemental
units that meet engineering and science standards by integrating the
two subjects. Introduced by WGBH Design Squad reality TV shows, the
hands-on units engage students in engineering design challenges that
are informed by the relevant science topics. Students work in teams to
tackle the challenges and learn about engineers and scientists who work
on similar projects in the U.S. Department of Defense laboratories. It
will focus on 10 areas including communications, energy, aerospace,
bioengineering, construction, and transportation. Pilot testing will
begin in Fall 2010.
D. Engineering the Future(r): Science, Technology, and the Design
Process:
This standards-based, full year course engages high school students
in hands-on design and building challenges reflecting real engineering
problems. The textbook, narrated by practicing engineers from various
ethnic and cultural backgrounds, encourages students to explore what
engineering and technology are and how they influence our society.
According Engineering in K-12 Education, one of the most prominent
features of this curriculum is the ``emphasis placed on people and
story telling.'' All the laboratory activities ``are broken down into
very small pieces that build upon one another in a very incremental
manner.'' The ``culminating design problems provide students a lot of
latitude to be creative and to operationalize the problem in a way that
capitalizes on their interests.''
Engineering the Future is currently taught in over 25 states. Over
the past three years, on site and online professional development has
been delivered to more than 500 teachers. Preliminary studies show that
students increase their understanding of engineering in all four
Engineering the Future units. The Engineering the Future textbook and
related materials are available from Key Curriculum Press
www.keypress.com.etf.
E. Efficacy
Our curricula development process incorporates research,
evaluation, and assessment into all aspects of its design and testing.
During the development, pilot and field testing, students complete pre-
and post-assessments that measure pupils' understandings of
engineering, technology, and science or math concepts. Most of our
post-implementation research has focused on EiE and to a lesser extent,
Building Math.
National, controlled studies indicate that children who engage with
engineering and science through EiE learn engineering, technology, and
related science concepts significantly better than students who study
just the science (without engineering). This was true for both sexes
and all racial/ethnic groups. They were also more positive about the
prospect of being an engineer after participating in EiE.
Teachers also report that EiE curricular materials work well,
whether students are low-or high-achieving, including those with
cognitive, linguistic, and behavioral challenges, who are girls,
children of color, or at risk in other ways.
Promising preliminary research indicates that EiE may be narrowing
the achievement gap. In a national controlled study, thousands of
students who participated in an EiE unit and related science
instruction were compared to a control group that studied only the
related science instruction. In two of the three units studied, the
performance gap between low and high socioeconomic students was
significantly smaller after participation in an EiE unit.
In summary, EiE students:
are much more likely to correctly answer science
content questions relating to the unit after completing an EiE
unit;
are much more likely to correctly identify the work
of the field of engineers related to the unit on the post-
assessment after completing an EiE unit;
are much more likely to correctly identify relevant
aspects and types of technologies featured in the unit after
completing an EiE unit;
demonstrate a much clearer understanding of relevant
criteria for a design, as well as how to judge a design against
those criteria, after completing the Designing Plant Packages
or the Evaluating a Landscape unit;
are significantly more likely to choose a more
scientific method for answering a hypothetical question after
completing the Designing Plant Packages unit;
show that they understand what a model is after
completing the Evaluating a Landscape unit;
demonstrate a clearer understanding of materials,
their properties, and their uses in different engineering
design scenarios after completing the EiE unit Designing Maglev
Systems; and
show evidence of increased data analysis skills after
completing the Designing Maglev Systems unit.
EiE professional development is also influencing teachers, who
report large gains in their knowledge and understanding of the range of
engineering disciplines, what engineers do, and the pervasiveness of
engineering. They also report changes in their pedagogy after learning
about EiE and teaching. All EiE research can be found here:
www.mos.org/eie/research-assessment.php#formalfindings
At the Science and Technology Committee field hearing in Texarkana,
then Assistant Director of the NSF, Education & Human Resources
Directorate, Dr. Cora Marrett noted, ``Studies show that children using
the Engineering is Elementary materials gain in their understanding of
engineering and science topics, compared to children not using the
materials. In addition, children in the experimental group come to know
what engineers do and what technology entails . . .. Initial research
suggests that this approach has been successful in helping young
children envision themselves as engineers.''
With the Building Math units, students engage in algebraic
reasoning by modeling physical phenomena, analyzing change in both
linear and non-linear relationships, extrapolate and interpolate data
based on trends, describe the shapes of graphs within meaningful
contexts, represent data in tables and graphs, and generalize patterns.
Our research shows that when engaged in Building Math design
challenges, middle school students at different grade levels use
algebraic reasoning when analyzing changing rates of an exponential
function, interpret slope in a meaningful context, and use a
mathematical model to make reasonable predictions. They then use this
understanding to inform their engineering designs to meet the criteria
and constraints of the challenge. (ASEE, 2008)
Integrating algebra and engineering can be done effectively by
having math be essential to informed engineering decisions. A
contextual approach for the units provides engagement in the activity,
especially when students can learn together in small groups. Through
the Building Math activities, students can find meeting the engineering
design challenges satisfying without being overly competitive. The
findings from this analysis indicate that it is possible to make non-
linear, exponential functions accessible to students of different grade
levels using different approaches.
II. Professional Development
While science centers and museums are known to spark life-long
interest in and understanding of science, engineering, mathematics, and
technology, few appreciate the extent to which these informal science
education organizations impact the formal education setting. Science
centers and museums have resources that many schools do not and offer
interactive, professional development activities that support school
curriculum.
The Museum of Science and the NCTL routinely work with school
districts to bring the excitement of the science, technology and
engineering to the classroom, while providing support and resources for
teachers through field trip workshops, pre-and post-visit activities,
teacher professional development, outreach, and linking resources to
State and national learning standards.
We understand that professional development necessitates
partnership. We work closely with local or State agencies to provide
professional development for teachers about engineering and technology.
We employ a train-the-trainer model, working jointly with teacher
educators to help them better understand core engineering and
technology concepts, how to most effectively communicate these to other
teachers, and how to structure and run workshops about engineering and
technology.
We also work with other educational institutions to offer
professional development opportunities. Two such partnerships are noted
below:
The NCTL is working with three Massachusetts community
colleges to help educate pre-service elementary teachers with a three-
year NSF Advanced Technology Education grant. The Advancing
Technological Literacy and Skills (ATLAS) Project builds their
understanding of technology and engineering content and teaching tools
in community college course work. Faculty engage in engineering design
challenges, connect technology and engineering concepts with science,
mathematics, literacy, and other subjects, learn about technical career
options, and modify courses to include technology and engineering. The
project includes outreach to four-year colleges and high schools
working with the community colleges to ensure continuity and create a
cadre of faculty to introduce this technology and engineering pedagogy
to colleagues across the state. More details can be found here:
www.mos.org/eie/atlas/index.php
To address the national shortage of technology educators,
``Closing the Technology & Engineering Teaching Gap,'' a new K-12
initiative, is integrating NCTL materials into the fully accredited
online technology education programs of Valley City State University
(VCSU), North Dakota. The goal is to improve the technological literacy
of K-12 teachers and prepare qualified teachers. The NCTL is making its
curriculum materials and training available to VCSU via this innovative
online teacher certification program.
The NCTL's train-the-trainer approach to professional development
helps teacher educators understand engineering and technology concepts,
communicate them to other teachers, and run workshops. The NCTL has
worked with teacher educators from over 25 states and Washington, DC,
through institutes and online courses to familiarize them with
engineering and lead professional development workshops in their
region. A list of our educational partners appears in the Appendices.
We also conduct education leadership training for school and
district administrators. The Gateway to Engineering and Technology
Education project builds a community of school and district leaders in
sharing best practices, experiencing hands-on engineering activities,
and helping each other solve problems in order to implement technology
and engineering standards. An Institute of Museum and Library Services
grant allowed us to support 50 school district leadership teams over
the first three years. Participant district leadership teams
collaborated during summer institutes, call-back days and online forums
with other Gateway teams.
In Massachusetts, the Gateway program has reached nearly 300
teachers and administrators and 319,028 students (34.1 percent of MA
public school enrollment). This Gateway model is being used in a
partnership with Maine Math and Maine Mathematics and Science Alliance
and Transformation 2013 in Austin and San Antonio, TX.
The Museum and the NCTL enhance the capacity of teachers to engage
their students in STEM learning. Early evaluation findings suggest
that, in addition to increased knowledge, teachers participating in the
programs report feeling ``renewed enthusiasm'' and ``rejuvenation'' for
teaching and learning about science. Future research could explore the
longitudinal impacts of such programs for teacher interest and
motivation for teaching and learning about science, as well as the
impact on increased teacher retention.
III. Advocacy
Another function of the NCTL is advocacy. We work to develop policy
and programs to support the advancement of K-12 technology and
engineering education. We work at all levels of government to inform
policy makers of the benefits of engineering education and how they can
help promote and sustain it. We also work with like-minded
organizations to further K-12 technology and engineering education
across the Nation.
We have been involved in the following advocacy efforts: 1)
incorporating questions on technological design alongside those on
scientific inquiry in the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) Science Framework for 2009; 2) the National Governors
Association STEM agenda which calls for the adoption of technology and
engineering standards and assessments, among other things; 3) the
America COMPETES Act, which creates opportunities for technology
teachers and engineering instruction at several federal agencies; and
4) the Higher Education Act expands the definition of ``technology
literacy'' to include the engineering design process.
In 2001, I had the privilege of working with the State of
Massachusetts to develop the first statewide K-12 curriculum framework
and assessments for technology and engineering in the Nation. While
forty states address technology education in their standards (often
found I career and technical education standards), several states are
also moving to include engineering in their core academic State
standards. The NCTL has been in contact with people interested in K-12
education in all 50 states and Washington, DC, in various ways. We have
worked specifically with New Hampshire, Minnesota, North Carolina,
Ohio, Florida, Oregon, and Washington in revising State standards to
include engineering in some form.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present our efforts to promote,
develop and implement K-12 engineering education across the Nation. The
National Center for Technological Literacy stands ready to assist in
re-engineering today's schools, inside and out. Please visit our web
site, www.nctl.org. If we can provide any additional information,
please let me know.
Biography for Ioannis Miaoulis
On January 1, 2003, Ioannis (Yannis) N. Miaoulis, became President
and Director of the Museum of Science, Boston. Originally from Greece,
Dr. Miaoulis, now 48, came to the Museum after a distinguished
association with Tufts University. There, he was Dean of the School of
Engineering, Associate Provost, Interim Dean of the University's
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and Professor of Mechanical
Engineering. In addition to helping Tufts raise $100 million for its
engineering school, Miaoulis greatly increased the number of female
students and faculty, designed collaborative programs with industry,
and more than doubled research initiatives. Founding laboratories in
Thermal Analysis for Materials Processing and Comparative Biomechanics,
he also created the Center for Engineering Educational Outreach and the
Entrepreneurial Leadership Program.
An innovative educator with a passion for both science and
engineering, Miaoulis championed the introduction of engineering into
the Massachusetts science and technology public school curriculum. This
made the Commonwealth first in the Nation in 2001 to develop a K-12
curriculum framework and assessments for technology/engineering. At
Tufts, he originated practical courses based on students', and his own,
passions for fishing and cooking: a fluid mechanics course from the
fish's point of view and Gourmet Engineering, where students cook in a
test kitchen, learn about concepts such as heat transfer, and then eat
their experiments.
His dream is to make everyone, both men and women, scientifically
and technologically literate. Miaoulis has seized the opportunity as
the Museum's president to achieve his vision, convinced science museums
can bring together interested parties in government, industry, and
education to foster a scientifically and technologically literate
citizenry. One of the world's largest science centers and Boston's most
attended cultural institution, the Museum of Science is ideally
positioned to lead the nationwide effort.
The Museum drew over 1.5 million visitors in the fiscal period
ending June 30, 2009, including 186,000 school children, and served
over 100,000 more students in traveling and overnight programs.
Receiving the Massachusetts Association of School Committees' 2005
Thomas P. O'Neill Award for Lifetime Service to Public Education, the
Museum was also ranked #3 of the 10 best science centers in 2008 by
Parents Magazine, one of the top two most visited hands-on science
centers on Forbestraveler.com's ``America's 25 most visited museums''
list in 2008, and one of the top two science museums in the Zagat
Survey's ``U.S. Family Travel Guide.''
With the Museum's Boards of Trustees and Overseers, Miaoulis
spearheaded creation of the National Center for Technological Literacy
(NCTL) at the Museum in 2004. Supported by corporate, foundation, and
federal funds, the NCTL aims to enhance knowledge of engineering and
technology for people of all ages and to inspire the next generation of
engineers, inventors, and scientists. The Museum of Science is the
country's only science museum with a comprehensive strategy and
infrastructure to foster technological literacy in both science museums
and schools nationwide. Through the NCTL, the Museum is creating
technology exhibits and programs and integrating engineering as a new
discipline in schools via standards-based K-12 curricular reform. The
NCTL has been in contact with interested parties in 50 states. A 2006
$20 million gift from the Gordon Foundation, established by Sophia and
Bernard M. Gordon, endorses the Museum's vision to transform the
teaching of engineering and technology. The largest single individual
gift in the Museum's 179 years, the Gordon gift will help educate young
people to be engineering leaders. The Museum has also been able to
create the Gordon Wing, headquarters of the NCTL and home of the
Museum's Exhibits and Research & Evaluation teams. Designed to be
``green,'' the wing is the Museum's largest building project since
1987.
Recognizing that a 21st century curriculum must include the human-
made world, the NCTL advances technological literacy in schools by
helping states modify their educational standards and assessments, by
designing K-12 engineering materials, and by offering educators
professional development. The NCTL's Engineering is Elementary
curriculum has reached over 15,600 teachers and one million students in
50 states (and Washington, DC). In 2007, the Museum launched its first
school textbook publishing partnership, introducing the Engineering the
Future high school course and reaching teachers and students in over
25 states. A Building Math middle school course, created with Tufts
University, has reached teachers and almost 95,000 students in 42
states (plus Washington, DC).
Under Miaoulis' leadership, the Museum has strengthened its
financial position, diversifying its revenue sources and increasing its
annual operating budget by 42 percent. In 2005, the Museum of Science,
in partnership with the Science Museum of Minnesota and the
Exploratorium in San Francisco, was selected by the NSF to lead a $20
million effort to form a national Nanoscale Informal Science Education
Network (NISE Network) of science museums and research institutions. In
the fiscal period ending June 30, 2009, the Museum's Annual Fund
exceeded $2.4 million, individual/family/library membership income
surpassed $4.6 million, and member households reached 47,000. Gifts and
pledges for NCTL-led formal and informal technology education
initiatives have surpassed $57 million, underlining the importance of
the Museum's strategy for science, engineering, and technology
education.
Exploring with national leaders how the Museum can help further to
educate students, Miaoulis speaks often on science and technological
literacy. Examples include the U.S. Senate Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) caucus and before the U.S. Senate
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and
Competitiveness, as well as keynoting at numerous education reform
conferences nationwide.
Miaoulis earned Bachelor's and doctorate degrees in mechanical
engineering and a Master's in economics at Tufts, and received a
Master's degree in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He has published over 100 research papers and
holds two patents. He has also been honored with awards for his
research efforts and community service, including the Presidential
Young Investigator award, the Allan MacLeod Cormack Award for
Excellence in Collaborative Research, the William P. Desmond Award for
outstanding contributions to Public Education, the Boston Jaycees
Outstanding Young Leader Award, and a Mellon Fellowship. A former WGBH
Trustee, Miaoulis has co-chaired the Mass. Technology/Engineering
Education Advisory Board. Named in 2006 by President George W. Bush to
the National Museum and Library Services Board, Miaoulis is also on
Mass. Governor Deval Patrick's Commonwealth Readiness Project
Leadership Council, charged with creating a plan to improve statewide
public education. Miaoulis is a member of the Boards of Trustees of
Wellesley College and Tufts University and in 2007 was appointed to the
NASA Advisory Council by NASA Administrator Michael Griffith.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
Dr. Pines.
STATEMENT OF DR. DARRYLL J. PINES, NARIMAN FARVARDIN PROFESSOR
AND DEAN, A. JAMES CLARK SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK
Dr. Pines. Good morning, Chairman Lipinski and Ranking
Member Ehlers and other distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee and all who are concerned about STEM education,
especially in the K-12 area. My name is Darryll Pines and I am
the Nariman Farvadin Professor and Dean of A. James Clark
School of Engineering. I want to thank you for inviting me.
The Clark School attracts a large number of outstanding
young people from the highly regarded Maryland school system
and also the Maryland private school system as well as from
excellent schools across the country and around the world, in
fact. We have created an array of programs to interest these
younger students in engineering and develop insights concerning
the inclusion of engineering concepts and approaches to their
pre-college education. One simple but important insight is the
following fact: In K-12 engineering education, proper pacing
and mentorship are crucial. By engaging students at the proper
level at the proper time with the proper mentors, schools can
ensure that students are neither intimidated by the
difficulties of engineering nor deluded that engineering means
dreaming up ideas about creating, analyzing, testing and
refining a solution using math and science. With proper pacing
and mentors, we can inspire students with engineering potential
for a positive impact in the world while beginning to train
them in the skills they would need to make that impact. To
achieve these goals, the Clark School and other university
programs must do a better job of educating high school and
middle school teachers about the field of engineering, academic
requirements for engineering students as well, and the proper
level of engineering concepts to include in their lesson plans.
To answer the first question that was posed by the
Committee, a successful undergraduate engineering student
should graduate with the following attributes: number one, high
awareness of the areas in which engineering can impact our
quality of life; number two, time spent in direct work in one
or more of the areas through related research, internships or
voluntary service programs; number three, the entrepreneur
skills and confidence to organize and launch an initiative in
one of those areas number four, the ability to solve open-ended
problems by applying engineering methods, mathematics and the
sciences; number five, the ability to focus on a problem and
imagine one or more ways to solve it; number six, a strong work
ethic and the ability to learn autonomously; number seven,
skills in communicating with professionals and laypeople; and
number eight, the ability to work alone or in teams or to lead
when necessary. To ensure that undergraduates possess these
skills and attributes on graduating from college and to
increase the number who do graduate, we must first ensure that
high school students come to us possessing all of these skills
in some part and to some degree and the last five to a high
degree. A useful example of the boundary between high school
and college is a project that is commonly implemented in high
school science or engineering courses--that is, the making of a
truss bridge. In high school, students will build a truss
bridge based on how they think it should look, how they think
they can make it stronger, relying really on their experience
and their intuition. This is appropriate for high school for
middle school. However, in a mechanics class in college,
students will learn the concepts of stress and strain, axle
loading, material properties and other concepts that allow them
to design the truss, then build it rather than simply putting
something together to see how it stands up to a load. This is
expected and appropriate for students that are in college.
In response to Question 2, pre-college engineering
education can inspire students with the potential of
engineering to improve our world and prepare them for the
challenges of the university engineering program. First,
schools must identify students who are proficient in
mathematics and science. Without proficiency, students cannot
succeed in the field of engineering. Next, schools must show
students how they apply that proficiency through engineering in
fields such as energy, cybersecurity, health care,
transportation, homeland security, space flight, communications
and so on. This provides the spark of excitement so that
students begin to know what engineering really matters and what
matters in engineering. It also allows them to be creative, an
important and highly satisfying aspect of engineering. Middle
school is indeed the right time to weave in some of these very
basic applications of engineering, but too early to do more
rigorous engineering-type classes. The four years of high
school are the right time for this type of training. Making an
engineering elective available in each of the four years would
be appropriate for high school.
In response to Question 3, the Clark School delivers K-12
programs during the academic year and the summer. Our Center
for Minorities in Science and Engineering offers two academic-
year programs, and I will just highlight them right now. The
ESTEEM program brings the students together with a faculty
mentor in a yearlong research project through a research
practicum for high school students. Our Maryland Mathematics,
Engineering and Science Achievement program, also referred to
as MESA, engages students in Saturday academies, summer
programs and in-service and after-school enrichment programs.
Our additional lead academies are offered through our Women in
Engineering program. They introduce female students to one of
our academic programs such as aerospace engineering or
bioengineering or electrical and computer engineering using
demonstrations and hands-on projects.
Evaluating the program effectiveness is very challenging
for all of our K-12 STEM programs. We do have in fact case-by-
case evidence that students who participate in these particular
programs become more positive about engineering and actually
enroll in our school. Regarding partnerships, we have
identified the top 25 Maryland high schools that send us the
greatest number of engineering students and propose a stronger
partnership with those schools, an opportunity for students to
engage in engineering activities, training for teachers and
availability of merit scholarships. We have also produced
summer programs for high school STEM teachers. They witness
presentations. They do hands-on projects, tour our facilities
and speak with our faculty, all to enhance their understanding
of engineering and encourage them to take their new knowledge
back to their students.
Our next step is to partner with our College of Education
to ensure that teachers can be certified in engineering
education, and parallel, we are meeting with the Maryland State
Department of Education STEM coordinator to explore ways to
establish closer cooperation between our two organizations.
So in concluding, I would like to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to report on Clark School's programs in support
of K-12 education, and I will be happy to answer any additional
questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pines follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darryll J. Pines
Good morning to Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other
Members of the Subcommittee; to fellow witnesses; and to all who share
an interest in and concern for the future of engineering. Thank you for
inviting me to testify on the specific subject of ``Engineering in K-12
Education.'' My name is Darryll Pines and I am the Nariman Farvardin
Professor and Dean of the A. James Clark School of Engineering at the
University of Maryland, College Park.
The Clark School is fortunate to attract a large number of
outstanding young people from the highly regarded Maryland school
system and Maryland private schools, as well as from excellent schools
across the country and around the world. We have developed a strong
sense of the skills and attributes students need to complete our
rigorous curriculum and developed programs that are proving effective
in retaining and graduating more of those students. We have also
developed an array of programs to interest younger students in the
field of engineering and a few insights concerning the inclusion of
engineering concepts and approaches in pre-college education. Chief
among these is the following very simple, but sometimes forgotten,
idea:
In K-12 engineering education, the proper pacing is critical. By
engaging students at the proper level at the proper time, schools can
ensure that students are neither intimidated by the difficulties of
engineering, nor deluded that engineering is essentially dreaming up
ideas without the foundation of creating, analyzing, testing, and
refining a solution using math and science.
If we can achieve proper pacing, we can show students engineering's
potential for positive impact in the world, the great satisfactions
engineers experience in creating that impact, and the rewards and
challenges of doing so, while beginning to train them in the skills
they will need to take on those challenges and succeed in the
university setting.
For proper pacing to occur, those of us in the Clark School and
other university programs must do a better job of educating high school
and middle school teachers about the field of engineering, the academic
capabilities their students must develop to enter the field, and the
right level of engineering concepts teachers can include in their
lessons. By providing such support, we can show students, parents,
teachers, counselors, and administrators that introducing engineering
in K through 12 education is both feasible and of great benefit to the
students themselves and to progress in our nation and our world.
In my testimony I will report on current Clark School activities
and propose a number of new ideas that may be of value.
Let us begin at the end of the educational process for most
engineers: obtaining the bachelor of science degree. The successful
undergraduate engineering student should leave the university with the
following knowledge, skills, characteristics, and experiences:
1. A high awareness of the areas of opportunity and challenge
in which engineering can make a positive difference in our
quality of life.
2. Time spent in direct work in one or more of those areas,
whether through participation in related research, internships,
or volunteer and service programs.
3. The entrepreneurial drive, skills, and confidence to
organize and launch an initiative--even a company--in one of
those areas, where none existed before.
4. Demonstrated ability to solve open-ended problems in those
areas by applying engineering methods, mathematics, and current
knowledge of physics, chemistry, and/or biology.
5. Demonstrated ability to focus on a situation or problem and
imagine one or more ways to improve it or solve it.
6. Evidence of a strong work ethic in pursuing assignments and
activities, and an ability to learn autonomously.
7. The ability to communicate with professionals and lay
people, both to express ideas and listen to and appreciate
feedback.
8. The ability to work alone or in teams, and to lead teams
when required.
To make it more likely that students will possess these skills and
attributes on graduating from college, and indeed to increase the
number of students who achieve that goal, we must ensure that students
come to us from high school possessing all of the skills in some
degree, and the last five in a high degree.
Thus, if the process works correctly, freshmen come to us with the
ability to:
Solve problems using mathematics and science
Focus on an opportunity or challenge and imagine
solutions
Apply themselves at a high level, consistently over
time, and not be deterred by difficulties and failures
Communicate ideas and information through speech and
writing
Work alone or in teams, and lead when required.
If students also know about some of the areas in which engineering
can make a positive difference, and have engaged in low-level aspects
of engineering thinking, they are more likely to consider engineering
as a path, and succeed in that path in college.
An example would be making a truss bridge, a project that many high
school students do in a science or engineering class. They will build a
truss bridge according to how they think it should look, how they think
they can make it stronger, relying largely on experience and intuition.
This is appropriate for high school.
In their mechanics class in college, students will learn the
concepts of stress and strain, axial loading, material properties, and
other concepts that allow them actually to design the truss, then build
it, rather than simply put something together and see how it stands up
to a load. This is appropriate for college.
Pre-college engineering education can make the student aware of and
excited by the potential impact of engineering to improve our world,
and prepare him or her for the challenges of the university engineering
program.
The first step is to identify students who are proficient in
mathematics and science, because without these strengths, it will not
be possible for students to succeed in the field.
Next, introduce students to the many real-world opportunities to
apply that proficiency--from health care to transportation to homeland
security to space flight to communications. This introduction can
provide the spark of excitement so that students know, at least in an
elementary way, what engineering is all about. Challenging students to
apply their proficiency also allows them to be creative, an important
and highly satisfying aspect of engineering, which they might not have
the opportunity to do except in these classes.
Throughout, pacing must be part of the process. Young students must
have a firm grasp of fundamentals, especially mathematics, before they
are introduced to substantial engineering concepts. Middle school is
probably the right time to weave in some of the basic applications of
engineering, but too early to do any rigorous engineering-type classes.
The four years of high school are the right time for this. The typical
high school curriculum is fairly packed, but having engineering
electives available in each of the four years could be appropriate.
These should be coordinated with what the students are learning in math
and science.
Students must not be overwhelmed. They must have the firm grasp of
the basics. If they do not, they end up not really understanding what
they are doing beyond a superficial level.
The Clark School delivers an extensive variety of K through 12
programs and initiatives.
Our summer programs target students from elementary school to
rising high school seniors. They include residential and non-
residential offerings, and typically are one week in length. Each
program allows students to explore engineering in a variety of
different ways, including hands-on projects, design problems, lab
tours, and presentations by faculty members. We also offer our
Introduction to Engineering Design course to high school students
(typically rising seniors). They obtain college credit for the course
and a more in-depth engineering hands-on experience.
We deliver a number of programs throughout the academic year as
well. Our Center for Minorities in Science and Engineering offers two:
The ESTEEM Program brings students to campus in the
summer, and arranges for them to begin a research project with
a faculty mentor. Students will continue to work on the project
with the mentor during the school year.
The Maryland MESA program, meaning Mathematics,
Engineering and Science Achievement, engages students from a
large number of Prince George's County Public Schools in
Saturday Academies, summer programs, and in-service and after
school enrichment programs to prepare them for university
science and math. Our Center for Minorities is a regional MESA
center.
Another academic year K-12 offering is the Lead Academies offered
through our Women In Engineering program. The academies introduce
students to one of the Clark School's academic programs, such as
aerospace engineering or bioengineering, again using demonstrations,
hands-on projects, and so forth.
Evaluation of these programs' effectiveness can be a challenge,
especially for the younger students. We have case by case evidence that
students who participate, and their parents, become more positive about
engineering and the students go on to apply to the Clark School.
Regarding formal partnerships, we have identified the twenty-five
Maryland high schools that send us the greatest number of students, and
sent them letters proposing closer relationships involving information
exchange, opportunities for students to engage in engineering
activities at the Clark School, training for teachers, and the
availability of merit scholarships. We hope that this is the beginning
of strong partnerships that increase awareness and involvement in
engineering, and bring still more great students to the Clark School.
Historically, we have worked closely with a small number of local high
schools. The Top 25 program should expand this process to a much wider
field.
We have produced a number of different summer programs for high
school STEM teachers. They have received presentations from faculty,
done hands-on projects, toured our facilities, spoken with faculty, all
to enhance their understanding of engineering, and encourage them to
take their new knowledge back into their classrooms. We have submitted
NSF proposals (which weren't funded) for a summer educational program
which, as a key element, includes high school teachers who would work
closely with STEM faculty (math and engineering) and incoming at-risk
university freshmen. We also work individually with teachers on
request.
We do not at present incorporate engineering into College of
Education programs, although these discussions have been initiated. We
have arranged a meeting with the Maryland State Department of
Education's STEM coordinator to explore ways to establish closer
cooperation between our two organizations. We hope through this process
to make a presentation about engineering education to Maryland high
school math and science chairs in the summer of 2010. Through a
discussion of their interests and needs, we hope to create a more
extensive program that will not only assist current teachers but become
the basis for including engineering in our College of Education degree
and pre-service certification programs.
I would like to add a few ideas on future programs that would be
pertinent to this discussion--ideas that could have a highly positive
impact on our current Clark School students and current high school
students.
First: ``Students Without Borders.'' The idea is to establish a
program for Clark School students of mandatory community service (40
hours per academic year) to earn credit through mentoring, tutoring,
judging science competitions, and other activities with middle and high
school students. We find that today's Gen Y student is excited to do
something useful to help society and add social value experiences to
his or her education.
Second: Online STEM Education System. Here we would use existing TV
communications systems and the Internet to bring the best high school
and middle school STEM teachers into the areas where they are in short
supply, whether in the form of complete courses or highlight sessions
that add excitement to local courses.
Third: University-Based STEM Governor's Schools. Modeling our
existing and highly successful living/learning programs, create STEM
living/learning programs on university campuses for academically
talented and mature students who have completed 11th or even 10th
grade. This would enable them to complete their university degrees
early and obtain early access to internship and employment
opportunities with partnering corporations and government agencies.
Fourth: Nationwide Keystone Professors Program. Modeling the Clark
School's highly successful Keystone Professors Program, create an
expanded, nationwide university-based program that brings the best
teachers into the most elementary university STEM courses and thus
improves retention of students over four years. Keystone provides funds
to increase the base salaries of participating professors and to
support technicians and equipment used in the courses.
Fifth: Articulated Agreements with Community Colleges. Develop
agreements with community colleges to ensure that their courses align
with university requirements. This will enable students automatically
to transfer all credits after two years rather than require evaluation
of each course for transfer.
My thanks to the Subcommittee for the opportunity to report on the
Clark School's experience with K-12 engineering education and suggest a
few ideas for expanded use. I will be happy to answer any additional
questions, and to make myself available to work out these ideas as
deemed appropriate.
Biography for Darryll J. Pines
Dr. Darryll Pines became Dean of the Clark School on January 5,
2009. He came to the University of Maryland in 1995 as an Assistant
Professor in the Clark School and has served as Chair of the Department
of Aerospace Engineering since 2006.
Under his leadership, the Department was ranked 8th overall among
U.S. universities, and 5th among public schools in the U.S. News and
World Report graduate school rankings. In addition, during his tenure
as Chair, the Department has ranked in the top five in Aviation Week
and Space Technology's workforce undergraduate and graduate student
placement study. The undergraduate program was ranked 9th during that
time. Pines has been Director of the Sloan Scholars Program since 1996
and Director of the GEM Program since 1999, and he also served as Chair
of the Engineering Council, Director of the NASA CUIP Program, and
Director of the SAMPEX flight experiment. Last year, he served on the
University's Strategic Planning Steering Committee.
During a leave of absence from the University (2003-2006), Pines
served as Program Manager for the Tactical Technology Office and
Defense Sciences Office of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency). While at DARPA, Pines initiated five new programs primarily
related to the development of aerospace technologies for which he
received a Distinguished Service Medal. He also held positions at the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Chevron Corporation, and
Space Tethers Inc. At LLNL, Pines worked on the Clementine Spacecraft
program, which discovered water near the south pole of the Moon. A
replica of the spacecraft now sits in the National Air and Space
Museum.
Pines' current research focuses on structural dynamics, including
structural health monitoring and prognosis, smart sensors, and
adaptive, morphing and biologically-inspired structures as well as the
guidance, navigation, and control of aerospace vehicles. He is a Fellow
of the Institute of Physics and an Associate Fellow of AIAA, and he has
received an NSF Career Award.
Pines received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University
of California, Berkeley. He earned M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical
engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Pines.
Mr. Sandlin.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICK SANDLIN, PRINCIPAL, MARTHA AND JOSH
MORRISS MATHEMATICS AND ENGINEERING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
TEXARKANA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Mr. Sandlin. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and
Congressman Hall and other Members of the Research and Science
Subcommittee, I am certainly honored today and privileged to be
here today to share with you what is taking place at Martha and
Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School as
we attempt to implement an integrated engineering. Morriss
Elementary is part of the Texarkana Independent School District
(TISD) located in Texarkana, Texas. During this oral report,
there will be some slides playing to show you what our campus
looks like and the activities taking place.
The idea for the school began when a group of citizens,
educators, engineers and business leaders under the leadership
of then-Superintendent Dr. Larry Sullivan and the President of
Texas A&M University-Texarkana, Dr. Stephen Hensley, determined
that a high priority for the Texarkana area was to somehow
close the gap between supply and demand for professionals in
engineering and mathematics careers. So was born the
collaboration between Texas A&M University-Texarkana and
Texarkana ISD to develop a K-16 pipeline which would expose
children to engineering concepts and careers at an early age.
We attempt to raise the bar of excellence by requiring higher
standards for our students and our teachers. Students attend
Morriss on a first-come, first-served, open enrollment basis,
but once enrolled, the students must meet certain academic
behavior and attendance standards to remain enrolled. All
teachers at Morriss must either have a Master's degree or be
willing to complete a Master's degree. Our district provides
the funds for the coursework and there is no cost to the
teacher as long as the teacher remains with the district for
four years after completing the coursework. Teachers who
already have a Master's degree must also complete four
additional courses of math along with two curriculum design and
delivery courses. Teachers are then qualified to take the
Master of Mathematics teacher certification examination.
TISD provides continuous professional development in STEM
education through workshops offered through its instructional
services department; plus, the American Society of Engineering
Education offers a free workshop to STEM educators each year.
Some of our teachers attended in Austin in 2009 and plan on
returning in the summer of 2010 in Louisville, Kentucky. Our
curriculum coach meets with our teachers on a regular basis in
planning sessions.
With much input from the educators and engineers along with
the donation of 10.6 acres of land by the Morriss family, the
construction of a new elementary school became a reality. We
have been very fortunate that we have been able to design a
physical plant which enhances the delivery of our engineering
curriculum by offering some unique features not normally found
in elementary schools. Some of these unique features include
exposed color coded pipes, clear wall panels and clear ceiling
tiles, which allow students to view ductwork, wiring and other
pipes to show them that there is a path for everything that
comes to them. Somebody had to design it, put it in place and
maintain it. Also, we use irregular-shaped classrooms located
in a pod setting that also has a common area. The data cabinets
also with wiring is exposed. In each classroom we have a clear-
case computer. There is a clear tile area in the entrance to
each pod that shows pipes and rebar, and it is located in the
foundation. We design each class like a lab instead of just
having one lab per pod. We use tables instead of desks in order
to provide hands-on activity space for teachers to use. We also
have students work in groups, cooperative groups to work
together. A research and design center is used to promote
research in robotics. The school's file server also has an open
design.
So although we are very proud of our physical plant, it is
our curriculum that sets us apart from the other elementary
schools. Instruction at Morriss Elementary is a student-
centered, hands-on and concept-based instruction. Teachers
facilitate inquiry-based learning which they tap into students'
natural interest in problem solving. Classrooms are equipped
with state-of-the-art technology and equipment and teachers
create a learning environment where learners assume the
responsibility of their own learning where student autonomy and
initiative are encouraged. We are trying to raise the bar
through the thrill of discovery.
Our curriculum coach plays a vital role in making sure we
are implementing the engineering curriculum in the classroom
daily. Each morning all grades have an engineering period first
period and then we integrate the engineering concepts of that
period into the other subjects whenever possible. In attempt to
avoid the science fair mentality where the parents do the
projects at home and then send them to school for everyone to
admire, we hold at least three engineering encounters per year.
These engineering encounters give parents the opportunity to
view and participate in the engineering activities with the
students.
Our students love robotics. In addition to daily robotics
activities, our students like to compete in robotic
competitions. So far we have competed at the University of
Texas-Dallas and also the University of Texas at Tyler.
We strive to share the arena with our other schools and
school districts by giving tours of facilities and by inviting
educators to visit our classrooms. We also believe in the
ripple or spillover effect which means that we are willing to
share strategies that work at Morriss with teachers at our
other campuses in our district.
In reality, we realize that not all 400 students at Morriss
will choose careers in engineering. However, we feel that if
they can learn the process of learning like an engineer, then
they can use this process of learning regardless of which field
they go into. This process includes the steps of imagine, plan,
design, improve and share, which we adapted from Engineering is
Elementary. Our students are encouraged to continue their study
of engineering and mathematics after they leave Morriss by
enrolling in the engineering and mathematics academy at our
Texas Middle School and then they can take engineering courses
at our high school at Texas High and then to go on to Texas A&M
University-Texarkana to major in engineering, completing the K-
16 journey.
Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics and Engineering
Elementary School is a great place for kids to explore and
learn. We don't have all the answers but we do feel like the
bicycle has begun to move. We certainly would extend an open
invitation to anyone to visit our campus at any time. We
certainly want to thank Congressman Hall for an opportunity to
come today and his strong support of STEM education and also
his support of Morriss Elementary.
I would like to conclude our testimony with a short video
that shows the activities at Morriss and the learning process.
Once again, I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity
and I will be glad to answer any questions.
[Video.]
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandlin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rick Sandlin
1. Please describe the establishment of the Martha and Josh Morriss
Mathematics and Engineering Elementary School. What was the impetus for
its development?
A growing gap between the supply and demand for professionals in
engineering and mathematics careers has alerted stakeholders across the
Nation. At the national level, resolution of this dilemma has been
identified as a federal priority via appropriation of the Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) project and the
American Competitiveness Initiative unveiled by President Bush in his
January 2006 State of the Union Address. Texas Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison publicly recognized the growing need for engineering
education and research in Texas when she announced the creation of the
Texas Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine in San Antonio in
January 2004. The regional need for more engineers was documented in
the late 1990s when Texarkana area businesses (e.g., International
Paper, Domtar Paper Mill, and Alcoa) identified the need for an
engineering program at Texas A&M-Texarkana as the number one community
priority. The need for more regionally available engineers, coupled
with the need for an increase in the quantity and quality of United
States grown and educated engineers, sparked the development of the
Texas A&M University-Texarkana--Texarkana ISD K-16 Engineering
Collaborative.
Although the effectiveness of a K-16 engineering collaborative as a
means of improving the supply and demand gap of engineers is a very
logical, research-based approach, a comprehensive search has not
identified another partnership of this kind across the United States.
The Texas A&M University-Texarkana--Texarkana ISD K-16 Engineering
Collaborative is a unique, sustainable, and replicable model that sets
a gold standard for public schools and universities.
What role did partnerships with local businesses and institutions play
in the development of the school?
In January 2005, Texarkana ISD convened the first meeting of the
Blue Ribbon Committee, a group of parents, community and business
leaders, and school district representatives. This panel's purpose was
to review the school district's facilities, finances, and curriculum,
and to make recommendations concerning future plans for the district.
Following a series of planning sessions, the Committee recommended the
establishment of a new elementary school, a school that would become a
national model for K-16 collaboration in how young children can become
engaged in and educated for STEM careers.
The first concrete step to this concept becoming a reality occurred
in spring 2006 when the Josh Morriss, Jr. family donated 10.6 acres of
land near the new 375 acre Texas A&M-Texarkana campus site for the new
elementary school.
Along with the contributions of the Blue Ribbon Committee and the
Josh Morriss, Jr. family, Texas A&M University-Texarkana became an
integral partner in the school's development. The University's
involvement included consultation in the floor plan and architectural
design, in integrated curriculum development, and in professional
development for teachers.
Local business leaders have found it increasingly more difficult to
find and recruit highly skilled people with a strong background in
Science, Engineering, and Mathematics. They recognized and supported a
strong STEM competency that can only be enhanced through the local
school system and University.
2. What do you consider to be benefits of pre-college engineering
education?
Benefits of a pre-college engineering education are produced
through the delivery of an integrated STEM curriculum. When the
curriculum is delivered through an inquiry based hands-on approach,
students become the benefactors of becoming Critical Thinkers. A key
component to delivering the curriculum at Morriss elementary, is
teaching students to utilize the engineering design process (see
Appendix A). By imbedding the engineering design process as part of a
project based learning concept, students learn to synthesize
information and continually improve on their cognitive abilities.
The number of engineers that are being produced in this country has
decreased drastically over the past few decades. Less than fifty years
ago over half of all engineers in the world were produced in the United
States, in 1999, America produced 12 percent of all engineers globally.
This preparation for the world in which our students will be expected
to compete must be held to a more rigorous standard. We are meeting
that challenge at the Martha and Josh Morriss Mathematics & Engineering
Elementary School.
Can Engineering be added to the classroom without sacrificing core
competencies in math and science?
Engineering is the perfect accompaniment to math and science and we
must also make sure that technology is included in the statement
because STEM education is a ``meta discipline.'' When people hear the
acronym, STEM, they immediately focus on the four separate disciplines.
STEM is actually an integration of the four disciplines thus producing
a ``meta discipline.'' Integrated STEM education refers to a new name
for the traditional approach to teaching science and mathematics.
Integrated STEM education is not just the grafting of ``technology''
and ``engineering'' layers onto standard science and mathematics
curricula. Instead, integrated STEM education is an approach to
teaching that is larger than its academic parts.
The following statement from the National High School Alliance on
STEM education describes the ``meta-discipline'' as one that ``removes
the traditional barriers erected between the four disciplines by
integrating the four subjects into one cohesive means of teaching and
learning. The engineering component puts emphasis on the process and
design of solutions instead of the solutions themselves. This approach
allows students to explore mathematics and science in a more
personalized context, while helping them to develop the critical
thinking skills that can be applied to all facets of their work and
academic lives. Engineering is the method that students utilize for
discovery, exploration, and problem-solving.''
Morriss elementary employs a self-contained concept for the
classroom setting. In other words each teacher is responsible for
teaching all core subjects to the 22 students in their classroom. An
example of a third grade schedule is shown below:
The daily schedule for Morriss Elementary reflects all grade levels
starting out the morning with one hour of engineering. Engineering is
not a typical course taught at the elementary level and thus is unique
to Morriss Elementary; thus the engineering course is considered part
of the core curriculum for the school. While the course schedule also
reflects a normal block of time for the other core content areas, it is
the instructional methods employed by the teachers that are uniquely
different.
What are reasonable learning outcomes for engineering education at the
elementary school level?
Engineering curriculum in the elementary classroom setting
incorporates the Engineering Design Process which includes the steps:
Imagine Plan, Design, Improve and Share. This five step system allows
students to work through open-ended, hands on and project-based
learning experiences that develop higher-order thinking skills in
students. Following the methods delineated by Bloom's Taxonomy,
students are able to identify problems that are to be solved, determine
possible solutions, and evaluate their own work for improvements.
Students will be able to:
Reflect on attitudes toward engineers and engineering
Develop professional relationships with engineers
Teamwork through cooperative-learning
Understand the tools, equipment, technology and
procedures used in the design process
Identify the problem
Research scientific principles
Brainstorm solutions
Draw a diagram or schematic
Decide which materials to use
Create a cost-analysis based on a rubric
Use mathematical problem-solving techniques
Follow the plan to create a design
Test their design
Apply statistical analysis to data
Modify and improve the design
Evaluate Design and retest
Apply statistical analysis to data
Communicate their achievements
What do you consider to be the biggest challenges and barriers to
incorporating engineering education in the elementary school classroom?
Quality Integrated STEM education professional
development
Elementary education teacher preparation programs
lack of math and science content
Funding to help support professional development at
the elementary level (beginning of the STEM pipeline)
Buy-in of public and educators in preparing students
for careers in engineering
Females entering mathematical and engineering careers
Student exposure to technological advances
3. What kind of curricula does the school use?
Morriss Elementary curriculum is standards-based, integrated and
connected to the lives of learners. The curriculum is designed to be
compelling-to move beyond information and support the transfer of
learning. The goal of Morriss Elementary is to facilitate integrated,
higher level critical thinking which promotes STEM education. Resources
utilized in the curriculum: Engineering is Elementary from the Museum
of Science in Boston, Sci-Tek, Scan-Tek, along with state-of-the-art
technology and equipment. NASA engineering projects are also employed.
NXT Mindstorm robotics are implemented to enhance the engineering
program as well as compete in State competitions. Engineering is
spiraled through a six weeks matrix that provides exposure to
engineering concepts in areas of environmental, civil, Earth & space,
bioengineering, electrical & mechanical and manufacturing. In order to
follow the Link-Learn-Extend model, students are guided through
accelerated mathematics that extend into the next grade level. Envision
mathematics is the State adopted curriculum, but that is a resource
that is used along with other materials such as Hands-on Equations to
advance the mathematics curriculum. Materials usage is supported
through the Texarkana ISD's dedication to development of STEM education
as well as support from local businesses and parents.
What percentages of your teachers have engineering degrees?
Although none of the teachers at Morriss Elementary have an
engineering degree, they all have an understanding of what engineers do
because of a quality professional development model developed between
the school district and Texas A&M University-Texarkana. Immersion was
the key to understanding the engineering concepts that needed to be
taught at the elementary level. Much like learning a new language,
teachers were immersed in the culture of engineering through research
and consulting with area engineers. Local engineers served as a
sounding board during panel discussions to determine how to teach
engineering at the elementary level. Many of the local engineers could
not articulate what to teach at the elementary level, but were able to
convey some simple concepts such as, more math and solving puzzles.
Teachers quickly learned that the curriculum would have to be developed
by working together in a collaborative atmosphere. By listening to
engineers, Morriss was able to develop and accelerated math concept
using a link-learn-extend model (see appendix A) which helped teachers
push mathematics forward by a full grade level by the time a student
reaches the 5th grade. The accelerated mathematics will help us fulfill
the pipeline of students who need to have calculus by the 11th grade so
they can enroll in the dual credit engineering courses currently taught
by Texas A&M University-Texarkana.
The teachers completed four Graduate level mathematics courses and
completed the Master Mathematics Teacher certification. The remainders
of the three required elective courses in their Master's Degree program
were science electives designed by the University to meet the needs of
engineering implementation. The curriculum coach participated in a
summer program (2006) through Texas A&M-College Station funded by the
National Science Foundation (EBAT) that developed educator knowledge in
biomedical engineering through live-animal research. She also served
the National Science Foundation as a Science and Mathematics Specialist
through the Texas Rural Systemic Initiative. In the summer of 2009, six
teachers from Texarkana ISD attended the American Society for
Engineering Education annual conference in Austin Texas and will attend
the 2010 conference in Louisville, Kentucky. The Curriculum Coach and
Counselor from Morriss Elementary attended the Engineering is
Elementary Training for Trainers Fall 2008 to create a professional
development opportunity for Morriss Elementary teachers.
Maintaining membership in professional learning communities allows
Morriss teachers to share experiences and expertise with others
pursuing STEM education.
What kind of teacher training and professional development
opportunities do you provide for your teachers?
Providing a quality teacher professional development program for an
integrated STEM curriculum was essential to establishing Morriss
Elementary. The essential foundation and approach to professional
development for the Morriss teachers had been established through a
district led commitment to seeking methods and strategies to support
changing the way students learn, and to producing students who possess
critical thinking and problem solving skills and abilities. Utilizing
integrated STEM education to promote this shift in teaching values and
teaching methods provided the district with the necessary framework for
implementing a dramatically different approach to teaching. This has
resulted in creating a school culture that embraces teachers as
facilitators. The result has been the acceptance of integrated STEM
education and an expectation of achievement and renewed commitment to
educational excellence shared by the Morriss teachers. The following
information describes the expectations for professional development
through required course work in order to be employed at the Morriss
school.
Teachers with a Master's Degree (K-5)
Teachers who already had a Master's degree were required to take
eighteen (18) hours of specific graduate level course work with Texas
A&M University/Texarkana within the first two years of assignment at
the school. Graduate level course work consisted of two courses in
curriculum and instruction, and four courses in mathematics. The
specified course work lead to a Master Teacher Certification in
Mathematics (EC-4).
Teachers without a Master's Degree (K-5)
Teachers who do not currently have a Master's Degree were required
to complete a Master's Degree in Curriculum and Instruction within the
first three years. Teachers without a Master's degree were required to
take eighteen (18) hours of specific graduate level course work with
Texas A&M University/Texarkana within the first two years of
assignment. The course work consisted of two courses in curriculum and
instruction, and four courses in mathematics. Finally, teachers had to
complete the remaining 18 hours of graduate course work needed to
complete a Master's Degree in Curriculum and Instruction from TAMUT.
The specified course work led to a Master Teacher Certification in
Mathematics (EC-4).
Two key courses were identified as being imperative to the teacher
professional development program, Curriculum Design and Curriculum
Delivery. The syllabus for each course presented new STEM teachers with
a variety of tasks and exercises that included research and information
gathering, exploration of curriculum and instruction methods, project-
based classroom instruction, and self-evaluation. The courses were team
taught, utilizing the expertise of the Curriculum Coordinator, Ronda
Jameson, who is a former secondary mathematics teacher, along with the
Curriculum Specialist, Lori Ulmer, who is a former elementary math
teacher who brought experience and knowledge from outside the district
to support the curriculum and instruction design process. The four-week
course work was structured to foster team-work and collaborative
curriculum development through the project-based outcomes designed for
the course, and through modeling of these practices by the course
instructors.
Emphasis on research and self-evaluation as a method for constant
improvement are also an important dimension of the course work that
prepare teachers to actively use technology in the classroom to access
new information and ideas. Additionally, the course instructors built
the course upon the combined experience of both instructors in
classroom teaching. Together with their experiences in providing
teacher professional development to a broad range of teachers over a
number of years, essentially fostering an approach that relied on the
course instructors ``to think like a classroom teacher.'' Utilizing a
research-based approach, course instructors were able to provide
answers and information to support the premise of integrated STEM
education, and also provided modeling of this approach through the
method of instruction. The resulting buy-in of the new teaching
methods, and of the premise of STEM's focus on engineering and
mathematics, provided a solid foundation for effective curriculum
development during the first year of the Morriss school.
The teacher professional development produced some non-negotiables
that were to be inherent in the integrated STEM culture when designing
and delivering the curriculum. The non-negotiables are:
Hands on learning
Constructivism
Leadership and articulation
Daily engineering instruction
Alternative forms of assessment
Concept-based instruction
Algebraic thinking
Cooperative learning
Accelerated mathematics
Another key component is the monitoring and review process
established to ensure the teacher professional development components
are being supported. Through peer review, and collaboration during
common planning time, feedback is provided on an on-going basis. This
process is led by a curriculum coach, Denise Skinner, for the Morriss
school. The curriculum coach is responsible for meeting with the
Morriss teachers on a regular basis to continually tweak the design and
delivery of the curriculum. Through classroom observations and
research, the curriculum coach is able to adequately provide teacher
support.
Because of the successful integrated STEM education professional
development model with the Morriss teachers, it was replicated with the
more recent secondary STEM Academy teachers which started in the summer
2009. Again the expertises of current ISD staff were utilized. Director
of Curriculum and Instruction, Lori Ables, and Curriculum Coordinator,
Ronda Jameson, delivered the content for the University based course
work. Working with Texas A&M University-Texarkana was a vital component
as they provided the adjunct status for the instructors. The University
realized the need for more staff with practicum experiences. The
professional development model was captured in recent study on the
Morriss school by Dr. Monica Hunter from the PAST foundation. A full
copy of the study can be obtained by following the link below.
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/morriss-math-and-
enginerring-elementaryschool-a-case-study-of-k-5-stem-education-
program-development/7488985
4. Once a student has completed the elementary grades at your school,
do they have the opportunity to go on to a STEM-focused middle school?
Are these programs in place to ensure these students maintain an
interest in STEM subjects as they transition to middle school and high
school?
Texas A&M University-Texarkana and Texarkana Independent School
District have established a vertically aligned kindergarten-16
engineering education collaborative that will be executed at four
levels:
1) A K-5 public elementary school (Martha and Josh Morriss
Mathematics & Engineering Elementary School) that provides a
mathematics and pre-engineering integrated curriculum,
Engineering Encounters (student-led, hands-on experiences
shared with parents and the community), and pre-engineering
thematic units (i.e., structures, forces, and gears) at each
grade level (opened in fall 2007)
2) The Math, Science, and Engineering Academy, a pre-
engineering school-within-a-school at Texas Middle School
opened in fall 2008. Currently the STEM Academy services
interested students in grades 6 and 7 with plans to expand to
8th grade in 2010.
3) Texas High School currently offers selected mathematics and
science courses with pre-engineering content enrichment and
dual credit engineering courses at Texas High School. A STEM
Academy has recently been added to Texas High School in 2009 to
service 9th grade students with plans to expand through 12th
grade by 2012. The high school expansion of STEM Academies has
been made possible through a grant sponsored by the Texas High
School Project (THSP).
4) A choice of three engineering related programs of study at
Texas A&M-Texarkana: BS in Computer and Information Sciences,
BS in Electrical Engineering, and BS in Mechanical Engineering.
Texas A&M-Texarkana will be accepting their first freshman
class into the college of engineering in 2010.
APPENDIX A
Biography for Rick Sandlin
Rick Sandlin serves as Principal of the Martha and Josh Morriss
Mathematics & Engineering Elementary School and is a Senior
Administrator for Texarkana Independent School District (TISD) in
Texarkana, Texas.
He began his career with TISD in 1974 as an elementary teacher at
Highland Park and Kennedy Elementary Schools. He became Assistant
Principal of Wake Village Elementary School in 1992, served as
Principal of Highland Park Elementary School from 1993-1996, Principal
of Nash Elementary School from 1996-2003 and was Principal of Wake
Village Elementary School from 2003-2006.
In 2006, he was asked to lead the construction and development of
TISD's newest state-of-the-art elementary campus--Martha and Josh
Morriss Mathematics & Engineering Elementary School--which opened in
August 2007. This new and innovative campus has instructional
opportunities specifically in the areas of math, engineering and
technology and is the foundation of TISD's collaborative effort in the
development of a nationally recognized K-16 educational plan with
direct ties to Texas A&M University-Texarkana College of Arts &
Sciences and Education and College of Engineering.
Rick is a distinguished member of the Tiger Family and is a proven
and experienced principal. He brings wisdom and a strong desire for the
educational betterment of children to the district that serves as an
asset for students, parents and faculty.
Rick graduated from East Texas State University at Texarkana which
is now Texas A&M University at Texarkana with a B.S. in 1973 and a MBA
in 1977. He is also an Adjunct Faculty member for Texarkana College
where he teaches Accounting.
Rick is a member of First Baptist Church Texarkana where he serves
as a Deacon.
He has been married to Kay, also an educator, for thirty-four years
and they have two sons--Taylor who is the Pastor of Southland Baptist
Church in San Angelo, Texas and Erick who is an attorney with the law
firm of Bracewell and Giuliani located in Houston, Texas. He has two
grandchildren, Sophie, age 4, and John Curtis, age 2.
Discussion
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Sandlin.
At this point we will begin our first round of questions,
and the Chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Right now we are working--beginning to work on the NSF
reauthorization and determine what is working, what could work
better, so really focusing on NSF funding. So I wanted to start
out by asking Dr. Peterson in this hearing here, what is the
current level of support of NSF-funded research in other
activities in K-12 engineering education, and how much of NSF's
research support in this area is funded out of the engineering
directorate and how much is funded through the education and
human resources directorate?
Dr. Peterson. Let me first of all begin, Chairman Lipinski,
by talking about the investment that the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources (EHR) has made. In 2008, about $9
million, and in 2009, about $23 million in K-12 engineering
projects were supported by EHR. These came in a variety of
programs, and I can provide you those specific details with
exact dollar amounts, but generally speaking, they were the GK-
12 Program, the NICE Program, the Math-Science Partnership
Program, the Discovery for Research in K-12 and small amounts
in other programs. Within the engineering directorate in 2008,
we invested approximately $13 million, and in 2009, about $15
million in K-12 engineering education products. And some of
these were in partnership with EHR. Primarily three areas of
support provided this level of support for engineering
education: the RET, or Research Experience for Teachers
Program; the GK-12 Program, which provides opportunities for
engineering graduate students to interact with local schools;
and the educational component for our Engineering Research
Program. I think sometimes people who aren't very familiar--who
are only superficially familiar with our Engineering Research
Centers think that their primary focus and sole focus is on
engineering research, but an important component of all of
these centers is an outreach and education, and they often
involve interactions with teachers and local school districts
and provide them mechanisms to bring engineering concepts into
their classroom. So approximately $8 million or $9 million over
those two years was supported through the RET Program, about
$7.5 million from the GK-12 Program and about $7 million from
the Engineering Research Centers. And again, I can provide you
other details on the smaller programs for the record.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. And to follow up, is there a
comprehensive approach to the funding in these different
programs?
Dr. Peterson. We obviously try to coordinate the support
that is provided and, as I said, we do partner in a number of
projects. I think this is a bit of a generalization but the
support that comes from EHR primarily focuses on issues related
to pedagogy and the support that comes from the engineering
directorate focuses more on the specific engineering content
aspects.
Chairman Lipinski. I have--one thing I threw out there, I
am not going to--I will wait until the second round to get into
questions, but I just wanted to sort of put this out there to
think about and maybe this will come up and I will get back to
it--the definition of engineering, which is sort of where I
started when thinking about this hearing because I remember
when I got an undergrad degree in mechanical engineering, got a
Master's at Stanford, a program called engineering economic
systems, and when I was in this program at Stanford--and I had
never thought about what is the definition of engineering. I
just thought about the multiple different fields and how they
are applied, how methods are applied, but at that point I was
taught engineering is problem solving. But I think what you
define as what engineering is has an impact on what we are
talking about, engineering in K-12 or what can be done, what is
defined as teaching engineering there. So I am just going to
leave it at that and I am going to come back to it on the
second round of questions, but my time is up so I am going to
recognize Dr. Ehlers for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have lots of
questions and not enough time for all of them.
Let me start with Dr. Miaoulis. First of all, thank you for
your work in the museum. I happen to think museums are one of
the most effective adjuncts to elementary schools that this
nation can have, and in particular your museum has achieved a
pinnacle in this nation along with the Exploratorium and the
Chicago Museum of Science and Industry and so forth. They play
a very important role, and I assume you get busloads of
students in from all over your state. We do have, or I do have
a little resentment against you for stealing Patti Curtis away
from us and making her spend part of her time in Boston, but
she has been very effective in our STEM efforts here and we
appreciate her serving on the board that we put together.
Also, a quick comment on Homer Simpson. Probably the reason
that Homer is an engineer, at least I have been told by
physicist friends, is that the Simpsons were started by two
physicists, and it sort of fits the mentality of physicists, I
think. I have never watched a complete program so I have no
idea what it is all about but it certainly seems imaginative.
You mentioned expanding and allowing math and science
partnership grants to apply to engineering, and first of all,
we have two types of math and science partnership grants here.
The National Science Foundation has one type and the Department
of Education has another type, more in the interest of getting
out into the classrooms and developmental teaching. But I
wasn't aware that these grants excluded engineering. Did I
misunderstand you on that?
Dr. Miaoulis. These grants--this is a general challenge we
have with initiatives. There is usually language, initial
language in legislation or this particular grant program, which
starts in favoring STEM education, but then as you go reading
further, they focus specifically on math and science teachers
and math and science, so the T and E get dropped out, most
times unintentionally. But once they are not in the rules,
then, as the monies go to the states, the states allocate the
money only for math and science programs and not for technology
and engineering programs. So one of my recommendations is to
direct, to be explicit in allocating funds such as through
these programs to technology and engineering as well as math
and science. So in new legislation, specifically spell out that
curriculum in technology and engineering should be supported,
as well as professional development of technology education
teachers and, hopefully in the future, engineering teachers.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. I presumed that was the case. But I was
instrumental in putting these programs together, and if we are
missing something, then we have to work on that, and at this
time it is difficult to get another bill passed but we might be
able to do something through the appropriations process. Thank
you for your comment on that.
And then also just a quick response from each of the
witnesses, I just wonder how--this idea of technological
literacy is often discussed. How would you see that as relating
to the K-12 engineering education that we are talking about
here today? We will just go down the line very briefly, please,
from each of you.
Dr. Katehi. The ability to learn engineering and design,
specifically in a younger age, and experiences that allow the
kids to learn how to make things that are useful will help them
also develop respect in understanding of technology and how
technology affects quality of life and also understand the
various aspects of it. And that is what we call technology
literacy, the ability to use this information and--correct
information--and use it to make important decisions. That, we
believe, the Committee believes that that skill is fundamental
to the ability of any citizen to make correct decisions, and
then of course for our country to benefit from those decisions.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Peterson.
Dr. Peterson. I agree very much with what Dr. Katehi said.
I think if you focus on, again, the primary elements of
engineering as folded into an elementary and middle school
curriculum focusing on design, the basic concept is to teach
problem-solving skills and with a focus in the engineering case
on design aspects, but I think it is something that is
applicable to anyone and helps them understand technological
aspects. So whether they are going into engineering or not, I
think that using that curricular approach would be beneficial.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Miaoulis.
Dr. Miaoulis. What brings science to life in the classroom
is engaging the kids in the way that scientists think, the
inquiry process. In order to engage them in the technology area
and make them technologically literate, we should also guide
them to behave like engineers do, to go through the design
process. So engineering in K-12 would bring to life
technologies which are the result of the engineering process
and significantly improve technological literacy.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Dr. Pines.
Dr. Pines. In my opinion, you first start off with asking
the question, for example, this particular mobile wireless
device for a kid, they use it every day. My daughter is an 8th
grader and my son is a 6th grader. They know more about
technology than I do, or they know how to use it, at least, but
they don't know where it came from. So first is asking the hard
question, how was this made. As Dr. Miaoulis mentioned, 98
percent of the things in this room were made by, in some sense,
engineers or design, and it is really by making that connection
that they can actually do that. They ask the first question,
this thing that you are using, which is a mobile wireless
device, how was it made, what are the issues that actually lead
to making this, just fundamentally connecting something to the
Gen Y generation that actually uses this device very feverishly
today and doesn't know how it is made. And I think that is part
of just the first step of technological literacy. And then,
yes, the process, the analysis, the design tools and how you
think about solving the problem to get to that type of device.
I think we have to ask the first basic question.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Mr. Sandlin.
Mr. Sandlin. I can certainly say in experience in 30 years
that today's students--we call them the digital natives, we are
the digital immigrants. They teach us. But anything that we can
do that is hands-on and involves anything to do with
technology, they are just like fish in the water. When they
learn about robotics, that there is nothing magic about that
robot, that it has to do with sensors, sound and different
sensors, motion, then they have a better understanding of
working together, and just as Dr. Pines said, you know, they
understand that when we talk about bridges and buildings and
roads, that is one thing, but when we talk about iPods and all
their electronics, they get really excited about it.
Mr. Ehlers. You really hit on something and let me just
briefly comment on that. My wife is an excellent cook, an
excellent baker. She had to assume those duties in her home
when she was 12 years old because her mother passed away early,
and she taught all of our children to learn that, and I would
like to point out that that is really a type of engineering
too, taking components, putting them together, experimenting.
My wife, she doesn't look at recipes very often. She just likes
to experiment. And she is very good at it. I can give you some
brownies that would make you come back for more. I think that
attitude, if we can convey that to kids, experiment, try
different things, whether it is in the kitchen or in the
basement or whatever. That is what we are really getting at
here. Let the kids learn how to experiment at an early age and
build things constructively out of the materials available.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and I think you
hit on some of the things that I had been thinking about.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Johnson for five minutes.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, I
need to apologize for being late. I had to do a speech on the
Hill. And secondly, I would ask for unanimous consent to put my
statement in the record.
Chairman Lipinski. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. And let me thank all of the
witnesses for coming. This has been a passion of mine for a
long time now, and I am not sure how well we are doing. A
school in Dallas, Texas, in my district is doing very well, but
that is only about 20 percent of the students in the Dallas
Independent School District. So I guess what I need all of you
to comment on is how you get kids past the 5th or 6th grade and
keep that interest in these areas. I know that early on they
seem to be easy to attract, but going through the 6th and the
7th grade, the interest seems to wane.
Ms. Katehi. Our committee discussed that very extensively,
and we came to believe that there is great opportunity in
starting the kids early thinking about problem solving and
about design, and they can do that with simple things. When you
start talking about design, you can build simple stuff that may
make you do things that you could not do before at a very early
age before they go to kindergarten. They can learn how to build
things and they can learn how to optimize. They can learn how
to solve a problem. And then you can layer on that the learning
of math and science so then math and science become relevant
because they become the tools towards solving something,
towards doing something that works, and that direct feedback
helps kids learn and then makes them like technology and then
eventually a lot of these kids will select math and science as
a profession. But the learning should start early, not at 5th
grade. It is too late. Many of the girls----
Dr. Peterson. Representative Johnson, I think this is a
very important question, and it illustrates, I think, the
challenge that we have in folding engineering concepts into the
curriculum of finding material that is appropriate at each
grade level. As Dr. Katehi mentioned, types of projects that
would interest and encourage students in the elementary and
middle schools would be different from one grade level to the
next. So the challenge really is to find those types of
projects that would appeal to students in each grade level to
maintain their interest.
Dr. Miaoulis. I also believe that relevance is the key. If
you look at the science curricula and the math curricula at the
middle school, they have nothing to do with the day-to-day life
of children, and if you can connect them with the real problems
that they work in teams to solve, then it all becomes relevant.
I would argue that engineering should not be the last science
discipline to be taught in high school. I would argue it should
be the first, so in 9th grade everybody starts with
engineering, realizing how you need math and science to solve
the problems, and then getting hooked on math and science.
I would like to comment on Dr. Ehlers' cooking example.
When I was at Tufts, we created a whole curriculum to retain
engineering students which stemmed out of their personal
hobbies and interests, and I used to teach a cooking class we
used to call Gourmet Engineering, where I would teach
principles through cooking, and the experiments were in a real
kitchen laboratory and it was a very popular class. Because of
this curriculum that we developed, Tufts became and still is
probably the only engineering school where more students
transfer from liberal arts into engineering than the other way
around, with excellent retention.
Mr. Ehlers. If I may just comment, my assistant, who is a
Ph.D. chemist, sent me a note saying it is really chemistry, it
is not engineering. So we quickly compromised on chemical
engineering.
Dr. Pines. Representative Johnson, I think one of our
challenges in engineering is that we have a marketing challenge
to the kids of today and the kids of the future. I would like
to argue with your definition of engineering. I like to always
tell kids in high school and middle school that engineers
create a world that never has been for the benefit of society.
Scientists study the world as it is to help understand the
society but engineers create a world that never has been. So I
try to link that to how kids can get excited in engineering, so
one of the challenges as I mentioned in my remarks is that I
believe we need to make the links for them, make it very
simple. Another way to do it is to link middle school kids with
elementary schools as mentors, high school kids as mentors to
middle school kids, provide the continuum of what they may see
in high school, what they may see in middle school, why they
should stay interested in math and science, how it relates to
real-world problems. Making those links and letting our young
people work for us as they work for our future is what we need.
We do not have such a mentoring national program that we could
easily leverage and make it happen. Remember, our best human
capital are our kids, our kids in college and our kids in
middle school to help the lower levels. So I think those links
are important to make the connections.
Mr. Sandlin. Ms. Johnson, that is a question that we asked
three or four years ago when we had a blue-ribbon committee,
you know, how we can get, how can we have that supply of
engineers. Industry was asking us here in Texarkana, Alcoa and
International Paper, you know, we don't have local students
that are going into engineering, we are hiring people that
don't live in our area and we don't have that good supply. And
then A&M wanted to know how can we make sure we have students
coming up through the pipeline where they can have those
courses and be enough students to take the courses in
engineering. So we started, we said, well, we need to beef it
up in middle school and high school but we already had two
courses in high school where students could get dual credit and
college credit for it, so we decided to go down to the
elementary and introduce them. So we are hoping that we are
making it so exciting at the elementary age that there will be
an interest in it. Our two groups have left us now and gone on
to the middle school, and one thing that has taken place in our
middle school, we have beefed up our robotics because we
weren't offering that at the middle school two years ago, and
then our children are going over there that were in this
program, they are kind of demanding that. So it is a challenge
that we try to work on every day, and it is an interest, and it
is making kids aware of the different fields that they can go
into.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. My time is expired. But I
want to say that the rest of these people had accents but I
understood what you said very well.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I want to
comment on Dr. Pines' characterization of science and
engineering, scientists and engineers. We engineers are always
trying to figure out ways to put ourselves above the
scientists, so I will always remember that one.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hall for five minutes.
Mr. Hall. I guess my first question will be directed to Mr.
Sandlin. I think you recollected Chairman Gordon, who chairs
the big Committee that we are all Subcommittee Members on, and
I got a glimpse of the Morriss Elementary School before our
field hearing out there last year. I think Mike Ross was there,
who participated. I had a guy named Thomas B. Pickens. I later
learned that is Boone Pickens, III. I didn't know that was him
or I would have asked him for some money for a campaign
contribution. We got a glimpse of the Morriss Elementary School
before our school hearing last time but I think the Committee
might be interested in what a third grader's schedule is like.
You touched on it in your testimony but kind of tell us what
they may be doing in a typical 45-minute engineering time
block. Now, I note in the morning they start with, I think, 45
minutes or an hour of engineering and then on your schedule,
Morriss third grade schedule, you show an hour and a half on
EL, that's English, I suppose, and some kind of language, 45
minutes on science and a 45-minute lunch and then 55-minute
activity period and then an hour and a half on mathematics and
then social studies. Give us an idea of that typical 45 minutes
of engineering time block that is focused on civil engineering
and how that relates to their other subjects that day. You have
to tie it to them, I don't mean to be brutal, but to keep them
from being nerds.
Mr. Sandlin. Well, we do play basketball at Morriss. But
that was a question that parents were asking, you know, as we
were in the planning process, are you only going to teach math
and science all day and engineering, are you going to have
recess, are you going to have, you know, what are you going to
do. And so we teach all the subjects that you find in any
elementary school. We do teach a specific period of engineering
in the mornings. We have it first period because the kids work
on a team and they like to be there on the projects, especially
when they get to the point when they are putting the projects
together to share, and so they kind of have pressure to be
there on time, so that has cut down on our tardies a little
bit, and that is a good thing, you know, hurry up, Mom, get me
to school. So we do take the template and lay it down on the
other subjects throughout the school day. For example, this six
weeks we are in civil engineering. In kindergarten they are
making some tunnels out of cardboard boxes. They also get a
paper towel cone and we put it in a plastic tub like a shoebox
container, and they have to create a tunnel that the car can go
through, a toy car can go through just like you mentioned
Tinker Tots or Tinker Toys, well, Legos are the big thing now,
and so they have to design it where they can drive that little
car through. We pour water in the container and if water comes
out into the tunnel, then they have to go back on the improve
stage and put more duct tape on it, they say. So we things like
that. Second grade, I mean, first grade, they are creating
walls like the Great Wall of China. Third grade, they are
making towers. Fourth grade is doing parking garage right now.
Fifth grade is doing tar pools. So in third grade they are
building towers so they might first of all do some research on
towers, what are towers, where are some in the United States,
where are the tallest ones, you know, where are the most famous
ones, what materials do they use to build them, things like
that in that first period. And then as they move on through the
day in math class when the teacher goes over geometric shapes,
they might recall that the triangular shape was probably the
strongest of the shapes they used. They understand what a right
angle is. They understand that an acute angle is shorter than
the--smaller than the right angle and obtuse is greater. So
they get that hands-on and that process of learning through the
project. They might do grasping by taking the tallest tower to
the shortest or vice versa. They use that information in their
math, what was done in engineering for the six weeks. They also
might have to create a budget for the tower, you know, make
sure they are in the budget of building it. So they have to
worry about, you know, decimals, you know, working with
decimals. They might be teaching decimals that day and working
with money. In science they might talk about the nature and the
forces of wind, earthquake, movement of the ground----
Mr. Hall. All that in that 45 minutes?
Mr. Sandlin. No, sir, I have been going through the rest of
the day now.
Mr. Hall. We don't want to get on with the rest of the day
because this chairman just gave me five minutes.
Mr. Sandlin. But then one last thing----
Mr. Hall. I have to be somewhere at 4:00.
Mr. Sandlin. One last thing, and then I will be quiet about
this. I was in a first-grade classroom the other day and the
teachers had taken the different building materials, and they
had sands and soil and granite, concrete, and she was doing a
webbing, a writing exercise, and they were learning how to do
adjectives and descriptive words so they were webbing off of
those materials. So that is just an idea of how you can
integrate the engineering concepts in the rest of your subjects
during the school day, and the child kind of ties it all
together and hears it again in a different way instead of just
trying to repeat it and drill and kill.
Mr. Hall. I wanted to ask you something about, you shared
the qualifications of your teachers. What about the students
and how are they selected to attend this institution that is a
new thrust or breakthrough? Just tell us a little about the
demographics of the student population. I would like to know
more about cost and lack of funding. We hear that up here all
the time, hear it from NASA. Norm Augustine is on the Hill
today to tell us about money, about NASA, what they need. AIG
can't get enough, and we don't have enough to do everything you
guys want to do, but just give us an idea about how do you
select these students? I see a red light over there so be
pretty quick because----
Mr. Sandlin. Well, everybody makes application to come.
Three years ago when we were planning, we didn't know who was
going to come or if anybody was going to be willing to leave
their elementary school. We didn't want to go in and recruit
kids or the principals would be highly mad at me. They would
think I was trying to take all their good kids, all their good
teachers. You know how competitive they are. So we didn't
really know how many we were going to have. We signed up
everyone from K through five that first year, the year prior to
opening in 2007. We went out three years to register our
kindergarten children because we wanted to make sure we had
enough in the pipeline, and we had plenty. So this is our third
year. We just started 2009. This is our last year of the
students we registered a few years back. So this year we are
going to a lottery system to where they had two weeks to sign
up, about two and a half weeks to sign up from October 1st to
October 16th, and their names would go into a lottery and we
pull out a number according to that. We have--as far as our
makeup of our students, we have about--our male and female
ratio is amazing. You know, we didn't go in and try to do this,
but we have 203 females and 197 males, and there is a stat
right there that just fell 50/50 right down the line just
about. We have about 23 percent, or 15 percent economic
disadvantage. We have--we found, though, this is a way that we
get more students back into our district. The middle class that
was leaving our district, the urban district, are now coming
back in because of what we are offering, and then we put all of
our students together at grade six, so it is really building
our diversity well at the middle school and the high school.
Mr. Hall. Are we getting a second shot, Mr. Chairman? We
are going to have a second----
Chairman Lipinski. We will but we are supposed to start
voting somewhere around 11:30, so we are not going to have much
more time for the hearing.
Mr. Hall. Dr. Peterson answered some of the things I wanted
but I did want to ask Dr. Pines some, but I will take my
chances.
Chairman Lipinski. All right. We will do that, Mr. Hall.
Let me quickly start a second round of questions here, and
the Chair will recognize himself for five minutes. I just
wanted to ask a lot of the things that I was leading up at the
end of the first round of questions, Dr. Ehlers had touched
upon it and asked there. One thing I wanted to ask is, what
about teaching professional development? Do we need to have a
different way of doing professional development for
engineering, different from what we have now for science and
math? Is it something that we have to newly develop? So I want
to throw that question out there. Who wants to--we will start
with Dr. Katehi.
Dr. Katehi. Thank you. Yes, we need to have a different set
of programs that will prepare teachers for teaching engineering
design in the classroom, and engineering colleges need to take
ownership in this regard. So our committee identified the need
and also requested that the American Association for
Engineering Schools start a national dialogue to that effect,
and then trying to find ways to get engineering colleges
involved.
Dr. Peterson. I think that this is--just as the science
colleges have taken ownership of the science curriculum in
partnership with colleges of education, the engineering
colleges really need to be able to step up and help in
partnership with colleges of education to provide the course
content, technical content for the engineering.
Chairman Lipinski. Dr. Miaoulis.
Dr. Miaoulis. At the elementary school level, I believe
that schools of education should collaborate with engineering
schools to introduce at least one course in engineering design
for all prospective elementary teachers so they are familiar
with the process; and for the middle school and high school,
again, I think engineering schools should take the lead. Also,
funding for professional development should be focused in
engineering as well as math and science. And since Mr. Hall
mentioned NASA, I served on the NASA Advisory Committee for two
years under the previous Administrator, and now the new one
invited me to be a member of the new education committee. I
believe that we are going to miss an opportunity if NASA does
not use its wonderful and powerful engineering presence in
championing engineering education nationwide. NASA should be
the one that boosts K-12 engineering. It is wonderful and
magical what they do. It is inspirational. And I believe that
NASA should increase its educational budget and focus it on
this initiative.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. Are you just saying that for
the Texans up here on the dais?
Dr. Pines, did you have anything to add?
Dr. Pines. I just wanted to say that in colleges of
engineering around the United States, there are at least four
colleges, as it currently stands, that have programs in
engineering education. They are Virginia Tech, Iowa State and
Purdue, and I can't remember the last one--Clemson. Thank you.
And they have instituted graduate programs in engineering
education, of which they are in some cases interfacing with
colleges of education, so that some of the people that come out
of these programs will not necessarily become faculty at
universities but actually will go into K-12 education to help
stimulate educating teachers in the field to get them in
engineering, which I think is great. But I think more needs to
be done. So in terms of answering your question, the answer is
yes, we do need a separate program for engineering educators
that encourages colleges of engineering to interface with
colleges of education to get more certified teachers in
engineering, of the E in the STEM word. Because we do the
science and the math really well but we are not doing the E
very well.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
Mr. Sandlin, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Sandlin. Just at the elementary level, we have found
over the years that most of our teachers are well versed in the
language arts and the reading area but not so well in the
mathematics, and most engineers, we ask them what we can do at
the elementary level to help with engineering and they say
teach as much math as you can. So we would like to see
mathematics in the teacher preparation program. We certainly
would be interested in any type of engineer in the teacher
program. We would say on professional development, we have
found the best model for us is to make sure it is something
that is sustainable, ongoing and that is accountable, that we
have to go back in and make sure that we are doing what we said
we are going to do.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you. We have heard the bells.
Votes have started but I think that means we have probably only
seven or eight minutes here so I recognize Dr. Ehlers for five
minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to be
brief.
Dr. Katehi, your committee recommended that the American
Society of Engineering Education, better known as ASEE, should
begin a national dialogue on preparing K-12 engineering
teachers to address the very different needs and circumstances
of elementary and secondary teachers, and the pros and cons of
establishing a formal credentialing process. My question is
simple. Has ASEE been receptive of this, and what is the
current status?
Dr. Katehi. Yes, they have been and from what I understand,
they have already started the dialogue. But they need to be
encouraged, and the engineering colleges--ASEE is an
organization and this organization can develop a plan and can
develop a framework, but the colleges, the individual colleges
and the universities need to take ownership of that as well.
Otherwise it is not going to happen.
Mr. Ehlers. I spoke to a group of university presidents
several years ago and one of them asked the question, what can
we do as presidents of universities, and I said the most
important thing is to get your departments of education to talk
to your departments of science and math, technology,
engineering, et cetera. My experience has been, visiting a
number of campuses and residing on a couple, that there has
been disdain between both departments, and we have just got to
get them together. Thank you.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
The Chair will--we don't have any questions down here? I
just want to make sure. Okay. The Chair recognizes Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will make this brief so
that Mr. Hall can get his question in. But I know there is a
lot of focus on middle school and high school for developing
the engineering connection, but my opinion as an engineer in
both mechanical and industrial engineering majors is that you
have to start earlier than that in the elementary setting, and
the expertise of math is critically important. And how do we
build, not only the human infrastructure, but how do we design
the construct of education so that there is teamwork done in
building projects, which is the workplace of today and
certainly of the future, and how do we inspire that whole
response of mathematics in the elementary setting that gets
past fractions as a fear factor and gets past equations? There
are fun things, I think, we can do in the elementary setting.
If we don't start there, the fear of math and science, if you
avoid it, the silent fear is just going to continue. How we can
put a greater emphasis on elementary settings? Dr. Miaoulis.
Dr. Miaoulis. Our broadest curriculum for K-12 is focusing
on elementary schools. We have a curriculum which consists of
18 now and 20 at the end of the project--NSF has funded this
project--books, and each book focuses on a child from a
different part of the world. The child talks about her
community and the challenge the community faces. So the little
girl from India, who is the hero of one of the books, talks
about quality of drinking water and the challenge of quality of
drinking water in her town and how an environmental engineer in
the town saved the town by building a filtration system. Then
we gave the kids with the teacher help in building a filtration
system in the classroom. So through storytelling, world
culture, connecting math and science through engineering, we
bring the whole process to life. It is used in all 50 states,
our curriculum. It has reached 1.2 million children, and a
recent study showed not only that kids that use the curriculum
perform better than kids that did not, but also that we closed
the achievement gap because we engaged children that typically
didn't get engaged in math and science through real
engineering.
Mr. Tonko. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? Yes, Dr.
Katehi.
Dr. Katehi. I would like to say that the Committee spoke
about this. Obviously there is a great opportunity when we
start this early, and there is something else we need to take
into account: that the brain learns in a very sensitive way
when the kids are very young, and then we abandon that and we
go to very abstract learning and we start memorizing tables,
and we leave away the reasons we do that and the kids cannot
make the connection. So if we go back to a very early age, even
before kindergarten, and start thinking about how to continue
with that sensory learning and add to it a second layer of the
more abstract, I think the combination of the two--which in
fact can be done wonderfully through the solution of
engineering problems through design--can help kids learn, and
can help kids appreciate math and science as relevant tools.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Sandlin. We would--I would certainly say that we--that
is right on target with what we are attempting to do, which is
have cooperative groups all the way through from kindergarten
up and we give them--everybody has an opportunity, a job to
perform and everybody has a responsibility, and we give them an
open-ended problem, and they go about solving it and they learn
by discovery basically. So we want to continue that as much we
can, and that is an area that we really need help on from
getting that training for our staff.
Mr. Tonko. But your setting is particularly focused on math
and engineering, your elementary school?
Mr. Sandlin. No, it is focused on engineering and
mathematics but we tie it into all the subject areas of the
school.
Mr. Tonko. Because I think we need it across the board at
all schools, at elementary schools for a number of reasons: to
encourage engineering perhaps as a career, but more
importantly, to develop those analytical skills, those problem-
solving skills that all of society needs no matter what
discipline you are going to follow in life.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. I can never say no
to a Polish mechanical engineer over there.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to think of
a way they could have ever got me interested in math when I was
in school. The three years I took Math 1 were very tough years.
And by the way, Mr. Miaoulis, Martha and Josh Morriss Middle
School is a NASA Explorer School. Thank you for your--because
NASA is in a bind now, as Norm Augustine just released in his
report today, and that is going to hit the papers through the
day as to what recommendations he has made. And NASA, everybody
else I know needs more money but schools really do and that is
where we ought to be looking first, probably second and third.
Dr. Pines, I noticed that you testified that, quote,
``middle school is probably the right time to weave in some of
the basic engineering but too early to do any rigorous
engineering-type classes.'' If middle school is probably the
right time, are you suggesting that elementary level is too
early for students to grasp the basics of engineering?
Dr. Pines. By no means.
Mr. Hall. Oh, okay. I didn't think so but I wanted to give
you a chance because that is in your testimony.
Dr. Pines. I am essentialy saying that more of the
structure would probably show up in middle school, that is
simply my comment, but absolutely, many of our kids that are in
third, fourth and fifth grade that are elementary, those that
are very much interested in mathematics also need to be exposed
to the concepts of engineering at the very basic level. That
really would be my statement. But more structure can show up in
middle school where they really can connect and actually start
doing some level of analysis because by that time they are
learning algebra. When they are in elementary school, they are
not. They are dealing with fractions and decimals and very
simplistic things. You can bring out some general concepts. But
as they transition into middle school, our experience, at least
at the Clark School, is that they make that connection fairly
strongly. We have programs for third, fourth and fifth graders
that still is a little bit of struggle to make the connections
for them and see what they are looking at in terms of
engineering, but they are interested. We want to keep that
continuum as we go into middle school.
Mr. Hall. Anyone else want to comment on that?
Mr. Sandlin. I will just make one comment, that, you know,
we strive with--sometimes the teachers will say, well, they are
just not developmentally ready for that or they are just not
interested in it, but it is amazing what young children will do
if you give them the opportunity to do it, and we are learning
ourselves that they can go a long ways without us realizing
what they can do if we just afford them the opportunity to
explore, and we certainly--you know, we want to make sure when
we get to the middle school that we have students that are able
to take a pre-algebra, an algebra in the seventh grade, are
going to take calculus in tenth and then be ready to take the
engineering courses at grades 11 and 12.
Mr. Hall. I thank you, and I yield back my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Hall. And before we bring
this hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for
testifying before the Committee today and also thank you for
all the good work that you are doing at the Museum of Science
in Boston. The Subcommittee has done a lot of work here on
informal science education and I know you are doing a great job
there, and Mr. Sandlin, I have to say, I wish I had been able
to go to your school when I was in elementary school.
Mr. Sandlin. We have had that comment, so you are welcome
to visit, anyway.
Chairman Lipinski. Thank you.
The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up
questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
The witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Linda P.B. Katehi, Chair, Committee on K-12 Engineering
Education, National Academy of Engineering, National Research
Council/Center for Education, The National Academies;
Chancellor, University of California, Davis
Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge
Q1. In my district, we have experienced great success in partnering
the first STEM school in the Nation within a corporate complex. In
General Electric's Nela Park campus in East Cleveland we housed our
first freshman class this past year. The students were able to shadow
and be mentored by GE employees. This has shown to be very beneficial
to both the corporation and the students. While our success is limited
to only our first year's worth of data, do you think it would be
valuable to raise awareness among our corporate engineering
stakeholders to encourage them to also be advocates of STEM programs
within their community school systems? Has there been any focus on your
part to this approach? If not, how best can this type of corporate
campaign be accomplished?
A1. The active participation of industry in the development and
delivery of educational programs that support STEM literacy is
absolutely critical and should be encouraged. Industry should be
engaged visibly but this should be done in a way that 1) is sustainable
(i.e., does not result in one-off initiatives that disappear once
funding is gone), 2) takes into account what is known about the
complex, systems nature of school reform, 3) builds on and strengthens
existing networks and coalitions of higher education, industry, K-12,
and 4) includes from the very beginning a plan and money for collecting
outcomes data, so that the impact of interventions can be determined
and programs can be modified to be more effective.
Our committee did not focus on this type of industry participation
but we extensively discussed how to utilize scientists and engineers to
support teachers in teaching the STEM subjects. A campaign to encourage
corporations in investing in these types of activities could be done in
the form of a public-private collaboration and could be encouraged via
State or federal initiatives.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Thomas W. Peterson, Assistant Director, Engineering
Directorate, National Science Foundation (NSF)
Questions submitted by Representative Marcia L. Fudge
Q1. In my district, we have experienced great success in partnering
the first STEM school in the Nation within a corporate complex. In
General Electric's Nela Park campus in East Cleveland we housed our
first freshman class this past year. The students were able to shadow
and be mentored by GE employees. This has shown to be very beneficial
to both the corporation and the students. While our success is limited
to only our first year's worth of data, do you think it would be
valuable to raise awareness among our corporate engineering
stakeholders to encourage them to also be advocates of STEM programs
within their community school systems? Has there been any focus on your
part to this approach? If not, how best can this type of corporate
campaign be accomplished?
A1. The MC2 STEM High School an the Nela Park campus in East Cleveland,
headquarters to General Electric's lighting and industrial unit, is
truly a wonderful example of corporate involvement in education
programs focused an science and engineering. I am in total agreement
with her that this type of corporate engagement is crucial to the
success of STEM education. This involvement serves many purposes.
Certainly, corporate partners can provide critical financial
support to augment support for education coming through conventional
channels. These corporate partners can also advocate far STEM programs
within their communities. They can touch student's imaginations by
showing them the power of innovation and creativity using real world
examples from their companies. Finally, they employ the creative
engineers who can be positive role models and mentors far students.
At the National Science Foundation, we encourage company
involvement in all of our NSF education programs, because in addition
to the points mentioned above, they wilt be employers of our students.
We have many examples of educational partnerships between NSF and
industry, both in the Engineering Directorate and in the Education and
Human Resources Directorate.
Here are two examples of corporate involvement in STEM programs
which NSF funded.
1. ``Engineer Your Life'' which encourages young women to
pursue engineering. Its` backbone is a Coalition of over 50
companies (including GE), universities (including Ohio Slate),
and engineering professional societies. Companies contribute
rate models and mentors far students and teachers. See
www.engineeryourlife.org.
2. ``UTEACH Engineering'' which is preparing a new high school
engineering course and the teachers to deliver it. The program
builds upon the success of UTEACH Natural Sciences, which was
just named one of the Top 50 Innovations in American Government
today by Harvard's Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and
Innovation, Company involvement is key to the operation and
impact of the program. Also the Industrial Advisory Boards to
the 34 engineering schools in Texas are active in UTEACH as
advocates, role models and mentors.
I would be happy to provide many more examples if there is an
interest, but the direct answer to the question is yes, we strongly
encourage and support corporate involvement in our K-12 STEM activities
and have experienced many productive partnerships between NSF and
regard.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record