TEEAP News

The Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEAP) has officially become the Technology and Engineering Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEEAP), as a result of the balloting of the association’s voting membership. TEEAP’s Immediate Past President, Peter Wright, received and tabulated 122 valid votes that were sent on or before June 11th, 2010. 92 votes were to change the name of our association to TEEAP (The Technology and Engineering Education Association of Pennsylvania) while 30 votes were to leave the name as TEAP (The Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania). 75.4% of the valid votes were for the name change while 24.6% were against it. TEEAP won by a 3 to 1 margin.

The name change properly positions the association to deal with the ‘T’ & ‘E’ of a strong STEM education and allows the association to begin to address curriculum and professional development that includes both technology and engineering education at the K-12 level. The association’s membership has been comprised of teachers who have been working in both areas with some already having “engineering” in their department or course titles. Additionally, the Technology and Engineering Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEEAP) is now aligned with the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA).

TEEAP’s publication titles and electronic communications have started the transition to new names and addresses to be in line with the association’s new name. The association’s new primary web address is www.teeap.org.

The first USA Science & Engineering Festival, “The Woodstock of Science”, is coming to the National Mall this October.

We would like to invite Pennsylvania schools’ science, technology, digital media, and video production enthusiasts to participate in our student science video contest.   We would love to see what PA students are doing in STEM programs!

The USA Science & Engineering Festival will offer hundreds of hands-on science exhibits, workshops, and performances. Over 400 of the nation’s leading science,engineering, and academic organizations will be participating in the festival and Expo. The national student contest opportunities are open now, and we are recruiting student entries. These contests are being held in advance of festival events during Oct 10-23 and the expo on the National Mall Oct 23-24.

“Why Science is Cool” The K-12 Kavli Science Video Contest. Kavli prizes are well known in the science community. The video competition is structured to offer unlimited opportunities for science teachers to mine their curriculum concepts more deeply while engaging their students to explore science and engineering from a personalized standpoint. We are challenging students to use their love of science to inspire everyone. The winning videos will be broadcast on a large screen at the festival, as well as other venues including potential media partners and websites.  Cash prizes will support science education at your school, and electronics certificates and software will be awarded to the students.  Winners will also win a trip to DC to attend the Expo. The Kavli video contest offers a great way to hone skills in digital story telling, electronic journalism, and media production, while broadening students’ understanding of science, and inspiring an appreciation for science through the art of communication.

This educational video activity pertains specifically to educational technology curriculum, as it aligns with objectives that promote creativity, collaboration,learning enhancement, and using technology for communication and expression.

As such, there may well be student projects already complete or now underway, that can be used for submissions to our science video contest.

This is an opportunity to nationally showcase Pennsylvania students’ accomplishments in innovative STEM programs, while teaching the rest of the nation why “Science is Cool”.

Click Here for Contest Details
Deadline-7/15
 
See the promotional videos:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUeXwkgL_vE
• http://www.schooltube.com/video/75f8ed0dec03694cc385/Do-YOU-think-Science-is-Cool

I would really appreciate your spreading the word about the Kavli science video contest within your communities. This school year’s end is fast approaching, and we are looking to engage wide, active participation in our pre-festival competitions!

Please contact me with any further questions. I appreciate your help, and we look forward to your students’ involvement.

Stacy Jannis
USA Science & Engineering Festival
Student Contests and School Programs Outreach Coordinator
Phone: 301.585.3981

PA House Bill 2460 (pdf Format)

The MESA Initiative has been presented to in the PA State House in order to increase exposure, educational motivation and achievement of students in science, engineering and mathematics and build individual and regional capacity to compete for STEM-based jobs in the global market with a particular emphasis on students, parents, educators and employers from urban and rural groups who have historically had the lowest levels of high school diploma attainment and participation in college and graduate education.

For more information, click on the PDF link above to read the entire house bill. Contact your local politician to encourage them to support this bill.

The International Technology and Engineering Educators Association’s STEM*Center for Teaching and Learning (STEM*CTL) announces collaboration at the Technology Student Association’s Annual National Conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

The STEM*CTL will provide ½ day EbDLabs™ at the National Conference to highlight middle and high school Engineering byDesign™ course offerings.  These ½ day EbDLabs™ will be hands-on workshops that will provide an orientation for teachers on the Courses. The session will be hands-on, minds-on, preparing teachers with the fundamentals necessary to understand the basics for implementing a standards-based course. Teachers will receive an overview of the course as well as experience how to use EbD™ lesson plans at the high school level to engage students of all ability levels. Participants will get a certificate for 5 professional development hours.

The EbDLabsâ„¢ will be facilitated by Dan Caron, EbD Professional Development Associate/Specialist from New Hampshire.

Cost for each EbDLabâ„¢

-ITEEA Members = $50

-Non-ITEEA Members = $75
(Non-members can join ITEEA for $65 and receive special Members Only pricing – go to the URL below and register as a non-member to get this SPECIAL OFFER)

REGISTER HERE:  https://www.regonline.com/tsa_iteea_ebdlabs

FOR MORE INFORMATION:  http://www.tsaweb.org/2010-National-Conference

Engineering byDesignâ„¢
Developing the next generation of technologists, innovators, designers, & engineers

Barry N. Burke, Director
STEM*Center for Teaching & Learning â„¢
International Technology  & Engineering Educators Association
8133 Seneca View Drive | Gaithersburg, MD  20882-3622
Phone:  301-482-1929 | FAX:  301-482-1978
www.engineeringbydesign.org

Click here to view the Survey Results in PDF format.

There were 275 individuals who responded to the TEAP Name Change Investigation Survey that was emailed to members of the TEAP Listserv last week.  Results of the survey were emailed to you or can be obtained at the link above. Please take a few minutes to review the results and provide feedback in the TEAP Name Change Investigation Survey Results section below.

Thank you for your input into this important issue that faces our association.

Sincerely,

Brandt Hutzel, 2010 TEAP President

Joanne Trombley, NCI Committee Chair
TEAP Council for Leadership President

The Name Change Investigation Committee (NCI) was formed on November 7, 2009, at the Saturday TEAP Executive Board meeting.  The committee was formed by myself, 2010 TEAP President Brandt Hutzel, to address the C-2010-5 (Investigation of Association Name Change) resolution.  The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, in 1986 the Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania assumed its current association name to reflect a changing curricular focus, be it therefore

RESOLVED, that the Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania will investigate a name change for our association that would better reflect our curricular focus as the T&E in STEM education.

Joanne Trombley was appointed NCI Committee Chair and the following TEAP members volunteered to serve on the committee:  Tanner Huffman, Len Litowitz, Peter Wright, Bill Bertrand, Dan Vavreck, Dan Engstrom, Jared Bitting, Stan Komacek, and Brandt Hutzel.  The committee conversed via email during November and December and participated in a Skype video conference on December 12, 2009.  Several committee members were charged with writing a series of short articles to express varying positions on the subject of an association name change.  These articles will serve to facilitate discussions by all TEAP members using the NCI blog section of the TEAP website.  The NCI blog will remain open January 6 – February 1, 2010.  The NCI committee will meet again via Skype on Saturday, February 06, 2010 to review the blogs and to develop a survey.  The survey will be made available to all TEAP members from February 8- February 24, 2010.  The NCI Committee will meet in Bedford on February 26, 2010 to review survey results and formulate a recommendation or report to give to the board on 2/27/10.

UPDATE 02/27/2010: Comments have been closed for this thread, please feel free to continue the discussion on the Survey Results thread above.

Submitted By: Dr. Peter Wright

Pennsylvania has one of the strongest technology education systems of any state in the USA.  We are treated as a required general education subject allied with science.  We are required at the middle school level and our subject must be offered at the high school level although it is not requirement for all students.

It took many years and much effort for our Technology Education Advisor to achieve the move off of the vocational floor at PDE and onto the floor where the other general education programs are housed and to get us accepted as part of Science and Technology  and to be part of the future PSSA tests.  Through the efforts of many people, our goal of being a required general education subject for all students has to some extent been realized.  We have partially escaped the pre-vocational trap of being considered only useful for certain students.  The push for technological literacy for all has been rewarded in our state.

While people do have a positive view of engineering, they also view it as an occupation for the top quarter of students.  We use the phrase “to engineer something”, but most of the public views “engineering” as a noun tied to a vocation.  In fact, collegiate engineering education is typified by higher and higher levels of math knowledge (Calculus 1-4) being applied theoretically to physical systems.  If we change our name and claim to represent both Technology Education and Engineering Education we must be ready to answer many questions.  Are these Technology Education and Engineering Education the same thing or is Engineering Education for the top quarter of all students?  Would Technology Education teachers and Engineering Education teachers need the same skills and preparation or should Engineering Education teachers be required to have at least taken one calculus course?  Many other questions and impacts would arise.
 
The engineering societies that are interested in K-12 Education are focused on increasing the supply of engineers in this country.  This is a worthy goal for us no matter what our name is.   However, by adding the name of this vocation to our discipline name, we risk having a vocational engineering track for the top students and a general low-status technology track for all of the others.  If this happens, it will be hard to claim that the study of technology is a general education subject that all students should take.  Names are important and they send out multiple messages both positive and negative.

Some other reasons I believe it is a mistake to add the word “engineering” to the name of our association and discipline are the following.

• Loss of communication content to English, drama, and art
  More and more of our teachers are being told that the art department should teach digital photography and the English or drama teachers should teach video production.  Adding “engineering” to our name could make this problem even worse as we will be viewed most often as materials processing.
• Loss of claim to be an academic discipline
  An academic discipline has a unified body of content that can be delineated.  Math. English, and science are academic disciplines and required general education subjects.  Technology is an academic discipline (and so is engineering) but “technology and engineering” is not.  It is like “math and accounting” and may be viewed as more of an elective than a necessity like Family and Consumer Sciences.
• Simplicity lost
  Try saying “Technology and Engineering Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEEAP)” and then explain it to someone.  Any longer association name would cause the same problem.  The simpler and shorter a name is, the better.  All required general education subjects have one word names like math, English and science.  Biology is taught under the umbrella of science just as engineering content should be taught under the umbrella of technology.
• Loss of logical name
  Adding a name (engineering) that is part of the content area of technology so that we sound like we are trying to have “Math and Accounting” declared a general education subject or “English and Journalism”

And as discussed above –

• Addition of the name of a vocation to our general education subject
  Adding the name that the public views as a job category to what should be a required general education subject is a mistake. If we are not aiming to have the study of technology required for all students, then what are we trying to achieve?  Adding the name of an occupation to our subject area further blurs this line and gives ammunition to those who say we should only be for students who desire technical careers.

I believe we should keep our field of study focused on “Technology” as a subject that all students in today’s modern world should take every year.  We can actively position ourselves as the home of the T and E in STEM and individual schools and programs can call themselves whatever they want and use the word engineering as often as they wish.  I just believe that the name of the field (the subject) should remain “Technology” and that we will risk losing the progress we have made and blurring our message by trying to add something else just because a word is currently popular.

One marketing message might be something like the following.

• Technology Education: The home of applied math in the schools
• Technology Education: The home of STEM in the schools
• Technology Education: The home of manufacturing in the schools
• Technology Education: The home of video production technology in the schools
• Technology Education: The home of engineering in the schools

And so on, keep the slogan but keep adding items that we are the home of.

If we must change the name, how about changing it to something that mirrors PA math and science associations and more clearly communicates who we are such as something like the following – Pennsylvania Association of Technology Teachers (PATT).

UPDATE 02/26/2010: Comments have been closed for this thread, please feel free to continue the discussion on the Survey Results thread above.

Submitted by: Len S. Litowitz, Professor & TE Program Coordinator, Millersville University

A Bit of History
In 1986 the Industrial Arts Association of Pennsylvania changed its name to the Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania (TEAP) following the lead of many other state associations and the membership of the American Industrial Arts Association who had voted to change to the International Technology Education Association a few years earlier. At that time the name change was driven in large part by the evolution of the American economy from that of an industrial nature toward a more technological nature.  To the extent that the name change served to challenge our profession to move away from our industrial roots toward more progressive technological content it was the correct thing to do. But those of us with long history in the profession know that the name change resulted in some negative impacts for the association as well.  Some members did not agree with the name change and this resulted in a decline in membership. Many agreed with the name change but would now acknowledge that the term technology and the subject title of technology education have been problematic in that they are frequently misunderstood in any number of ways that you are all likely familiar with. For whatever reasons it is my contention that the present title for our profession has failed to gain traction on a nationwide basis, although we have made considerably more progress throughout Pennsylvania than have many of our sister states. ITEA’s Standards for Technological Literacy (2000) and Pennsylvania Science & Technology Standards (2002) provided an increase in traction around the turn of the century, but eight to ten years later now those gains have been largely offset by budget concerns, A lack of cohesive curriculum, and legislation such as No Child Left Behind that is rapidly turning public education into a two subject curriculum – and I don’t need to tell you that we are not one of those two subjects!

Why Engineering?
So why consider a name change to include engineering? Because we need to rally around some things that will help to reverse these trends and provide us with the traction we have long sought as a profession but that has been so illusive. Will a change in focus toward engineering do the trick? In my opinion it sure couldn’t hurt. Why?

1. Because engineering is a term that people can relate to. Engineering has curb appeal. People are buying engineering. It has become a very marketable term.
2. Because people think they know what engineering is, even if they don’t. People think they know what technology is. Unfortunately, it is Not our definition of technology that they recognize.
3. Because we should be doing more to attract the top 20% of our high school classes when we have and continue to do so much for those on the lower end of the spectrum.
4. Because we should be doing more to offer courses and curricula that are more purposeful and more intentional with regard to math and science.
5. Because we need to start positioning ourselves to be the T&E in the heart of the STEM acronym.
6. Because our newly proposed Science & Technology Standards refer to us as Technology & Engineering as a way of more clearly defining our content.
7. Because, in the words of an association consultant that recently spent time with the ITEA executive board, engineering is sexy.
8. Because such a change has already done world of good for some tech programs that were on the ropes here in PA.
9. Because it will posture our profession to take advantage of all types of STEM legislation that is being proposed as you read this information.
10. Because if we don’t move toward engineering someone else will. The American Society of Engineering Educators (ASEE) has had little historical interest in K-12 education until the last decade. Their motives may be vocational in nature (those espousing engineering education for the purpose of creating more engineers in this country), but they are beginning to develop a following and have an impact on educational policy.

You may disagree with me but many others have already reached this conclusion. A case in point. At the time of the last name change of our parent organization from AIAA to ITEA in 1983 none of ITEA’s affiliate organizations (including TEAP) had changed their name to reflect technology prior to the name change of the parent organization. Could it be said that TEAP would be on the front edge of the curve if we were to contemplate a name change to address engineering in our title at this point in time? Not entirely. Several state technology education associations have already included the term engineering in the title of their association and others are considering such a change at the time of this writing. A handful have also maintained their titles but included engineering in their mission statement. Titles such as the Georgia Engineering & Technology Association or the Engineering/Technology Educators of Indiana are now becoming commonplace. Why? Because these states recognize that we already do as much with the engineering process as any other subject in the public schools. They recognize that the technological method and the engineering method are mutually compatible with one another. They recognize that the definition of engineering and the definition of technology can be quite similar. And they recognize that the term engineering allows them to market in ways they had never thought possible. Lastly, they recognize that it only makes sense to lay claim to both the T and the E in STEM before another subject does.

Questions for the TEAP Membership
Name change is a serious issue that should be debated rigorously, both pro and con. Here are a few questions to ponder if we were to change. If we did change, would it be just a change in name? What type of changes in curriculum would be necessary to support a true technology & engineering education curriculum? Can we bolster our math, science and research skills to deliver an effective T&E curriculum to high school students as a natural outgrowth of middle school technology education programs? Or, is a name change just a marketing gimmick? And if it is just marketing, is that necessarily a bad thing either?

UPDATE 02/26/2010: Comments have been closed for this thread, please feel free to continue the discussion on the Survey Results thread above.

For those of you who were unaware or unable to attend Judy Hawthorn’s Special Interest Session at this year’s TEAP Conference, the Pennsylvania Standards for Science and Technology Education have undergone a revision in the recent past. They are currently working through the approval process at the Pennsylvania Department of Education and are currently planned to be approved in January 2010 with implementation then occurring later in the Spring of 2010. You can view and download these documents here by clicking on the links below.

• Revised PA Standards for Science & Technology & Engineering Education (Elementary)
• Revised PA Standards for Science & Technology & Engineering Education (Secondary)

“Kids in Micro-g!” is a student experiment design challenge geared toward grades 5-8. Its purpose is to give students a hands-on opportunity to design an experiment or simple demonstration that could be performed both in the classroom and aboard the International Space Station.

The winning experiments will have observably different results when the experiments are performed in the “1-gravity” or “1-g” environment of the classroom, compared to when the experiments are performed by astronauts in the “Micro-g” (one-millionth of 1-g) environment of the space station. The apparatus for the demonstration must be constructed using materials from a materials tool kit provided to the astronauts on board the space station. The tool kit consists of materials commonly found in the classroom and used for science demonstrations.

The experiment demonstration must take no more than 30 minutes to set up, run and take down. Experiment challenge winners and runners-up will be selected regionally and nationally by the Education offices of the ten NASA centers. The ten regional winners, one national winner and one national runner-up winner will have their experiments conducted by the astronauts on board the space station in the April-May 2010 timeframe. The experiments will be recorded in HD video and the winners supplied with copies of their video before the end of their school year.

Experiment proposals may be submitted by educators on behalf of their student groups. Proposals may be submitted via e-mail or postal mail during the period from Jan. 4, 2010, through Feb. 19, 2010.

The winning experiment proposals will be announced on April 2, 2010.

For more information about the challenge, including a scoring rubric, proposal requirements and a list of materials available to the astronauts, visit http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/nlab/experimentchallenge.html.

Questions about this challenge should be directed to jsc-iss-payloads-helpline@mail.nasa.gov