Name Change Committee Introduction
by admin on Jan.03, 2010, under Name Change Investigation, Uncategorized
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.
January 4th, 2010 on 10:49 am
I think we need to look at what a majority of the schools are still teaching. (Wood Tech) (Metal Tech). Several school in the area have just completed renovations in which the wood and metal tech was updated. Therefore, we are going to continue to teach wood and metal tech for the next 30+ years or until the next renovation. Examples of schools, Upper Saint Clair 2005, Shaler 2008 Bethel Park 2010 Fox Chapel 2002 North Hills 2008. Pine Richland 2004. School Still Teahing Wood Tech Deer Lakes West Allegheny Seneca Valley North Allegheny, Chartiers Valley, Butler, Cannon Mac, North Gate. These are some of the larger schools in PA. What are we Doing?
January 4th, 2010 on 7:51 pm
Great points Craig. What some of us are Doing and what we should be doing is at the heart of this name change. Keep is mind that engineering concepts can be and are taught very effectively in several wood and metal “shops/labs” across the state. These great new wood and metal facilities will only add to the engineering opportunities for their students. Wood/Metal are materials, not curriculum. Skills and characteristics are material specific, however engineering concepts and methods are universal. Preconceived assumption about what technology education is all about and how “shops/labs” are utilized has created a stigma of vocational and career education within our career field. The question here is whether adding the term engineering helps or hurts the situation.
January 4th, 2010 on 8:32 pm
Good points, Tanner. Technology Education can take place in a variety of settings. I teach in a predominantly computer lab oriented classroom for a good portion of my day and the other in a modular lab. My colleague teaches it in a traditional wood lab, but we have the right philosophy of what needs to be done and use what we have to make that happen. We have been ‘engineering’ solutions to problems for years! There are large portions of this state that have not moved past Industrial Arts, but that is more due to teachers unwilling or unable to change as well as administrators who have not been properly educated in who we are and what we do. I am not positive a name change alone can change that for it would be an association name change and not a name change at the PDE level.
January 4th, 2010 on 8:32 pm
PS… Not that the name change would hurt….
January 4th, 2010 on 10:40 pm
Great start to the discussions guys.
First and foremost, we are required by law to teach to our PA Academic Standards for Science and Technology. These standards are quite broad allowing us to teach in many different curricular areas. This is occurring in many TE/IA programs across the state. There are many programs that transitioned from IA to TE (1986-2009) by adding the term “Technology†after both Wood and Metal courses without changing the curriculum. These programs may or may not be meeting our state standards.
Here is our challenge…we are all concerned with getting and keeping students in our non-required, HS elective programs. In that case, we offer programs that are specific to the area where our school is located, relevant to the student population, and at the same time meeting our state standards. Teachers are also inclined to teach what they know and enjoy. This situation has driven what programs currently exist in our schools.
The new PA Standards for Science & Technology & Engineering Education are in the process of being approved within PDE. These standards are aligned to ITEA’s Standards for Technological Literacy. A teacher or school administrator would be hard pressed to find traditional wood and metal shop programs that meet these standards.
There are multiple reasons why a name change investigation is very important at this time. At both the state and national level, there is a huge push for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. PDE and PA local school districts are starting to look for who is going to deliver the T&E in STEM. ITEA has proclaimed that we are the T&E in STEM (http://www.iteaconnect.org/AboutITEA/STEMProclamation.pdf) and TEAP has added our endorsement to this proclamation. Our new PA Standards for Science & Technology & Engineering Education are in the process of being approved within PDE. And finally, there are huge amounts of funding becoming available for STEM programs. If we are not the ones to lay claim to the T&E in STEM, other programs in schools will. Worst case scenario, programs could be eliminated that are not part of this STEM movement.
I, personally, am in favor of adding “Engineering†beginning with our state association name and then eventually moving to PDE and the degree names at Cal U and Millersville. I would like to see something like the “Pennsylvania Teachers of Technology and Engineering†(PTTE). I credit Dan Engstrom for this title. This association title would put us in line with the other STEM teacher’s associations; PA Science Teacher Association (PSTA) and the Pennsylvania Council of Teachers of Mathematics (PCTM). I believe “Engineering†helps to define “Technology†for the majority of our programs. Most current technology education programs involve problem solving and students “engineering†to solve real-world problems. I do not believe that “Technology†alone defines us as a profession. It has only led to confusion. I do not believe adding the term “engineering†will create programs that are only geared to the top performing students in our schools. Our purpose is still the same, to promote technological literacy for all students. We touch on and get students interested in so many careers fields within our courses, some of which include the many types of engineering careers.
None of this will happen without discussion here, a survey of our members, a recommendation to TEAP’s Executive Board, and an eventual vote by the membership of TEAP.
January 4th, 2010 on 10:47 pm
I think the name “Pennsylvania Teachers of Technology and Engineering” because that will simply lead to the half of the same problem that we will be considered by the public to be teachers of computers and engineering. The word ‘technology’ is part of the problem as it is the word that is often miscontrued and many districts call their ‘computer’ department the ‘technology’ departmsnt. We need a way to say ‘technology’ without simply using that word. That is why I lean towards trying to switch it to ‘technological’ in some way that way getting closer to ‘technological literacy’. Small play on words, but what may be an important one in the long run. How about Pennsylvania Engineering and Technological Studies Association (PETSA)
January 4th, 2010 on 10:51 pm
Good point Jared. I agree with the confusion with technology departments in schools that are in charge of the computers, networks, etc. I like your suggestion (PETSA).
January 5th, 2010 on 2:41 pm
I find this topic interesting and frustrating all at the same time. While we are seeking technological literacy among our stakeholders, we still strive to prepare them for high tech “industries†or careers/career trainings. Slapping “technology†on our name created confusion (along with the never-ending “I teach Tech Ed…. It’s what used to be Industrial Arts†statements) and “engineering†will probably compound this issue. In a world where we now have “custodial engineersâ€, I am afraid that we will not do ourselves justice by making it look as though we are trying to be fancy with our name. While I have developed and implemented courses focused around introductory engineering principles and processes, I still feel that the term Engineer is more synonymous with academic titles. Our area of training and certification is so broad that it is difficult to give it a simple name that it easy to say but yet cover everything. If we can confuse them enough, maybe they will ask questions and we will have the opportunity to explain ourselves… just kidding. How about “PA Teachers of Technology & Industrial Engineeringâ€, or PETSA is good too… as long as it is pronounced PIZZA.
January 5th, 2010 on 3:08 pm
I have read all the arguments and this seems to be a good solution to both sides. There has been great confusion involving the Technology and Technology Education departments. I think Jared’s proposal is a good one. Pennsylvania Engineering and Technological Studies Association (PETSA) would encompass all aspects of what we teach.
January 5th, 2010 on 7:23 pm
Yes, I kind of thought the [Pizza] pronounciation would sound nice too. I don’t know that anyone ‘slapped’ the word Technology on our name. If you think about it, at the time computers were not being so confused with ‘technology;, they were computers. The classes were called computers (and not technology), but as time went on and rapid advances happened in computers and so on and so forth everyone (especially in the educational community) loved to talk about computers in the classroom as bringing ‘technology’ into the classrooms and then the computer departments became computer departments. Last year, my district’s Technology Department had a curriculum review, after which our Superintendent wrongfully stated in the paper that the ‘Technology Education Department’ had just finished a review. He knows who we are and what we do but still makes the mistake from time to time. That is why I think ‘Technological’ is just enough of a change to separate us from the Computer=Technology problem yet still fit who we are and what we do. I also do teach engineering (small e…. right Bill!) in my classes though it is hardly high level academic engineering. My learning support kids are often my best at engineering, they are not afraid to take chances like my high honors kids are.
January 6th, 2010 on 1:46 pm
It seems that we as a whole struggle with our identity. I believe that a name change would be detrimental in the progression of our endeavors generally speaking. Perhaps a more concentrated effort in educating people in what we teach rather than something as insignificant as a name change.
January 7th, 2010 on 12:22 am
Well, I guess I’m the dinosaur here. I teach a traditional Middle School Wood program. While I am in the October of my career, I still think what I teach is relevant and important. I have really been a bit disturbed over the years how our own organization keeps telling us that people who resist change are the problem. Change is good, but it doesn’t mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I teach in a blue collar district and the kids love the program, the parents feel it is important and relevant, and the administration supports the program. Before someone tells me I’m off topic, I think adding Engineering to our name might help at the High School for some electives but is the name change really justified? Will we spend the next twenty years trying to teach people what Engineering is, while buying more canned curricula?
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve done a lot of problem solving units and while I believe it develops creativity, it really doesn’t work well without the students having experience learning what different tools and machines are capable of. That is where the traditional courses shine.
Engineers have learned this BTW. I had a long discussion with an Engineer friend of mine about design. He explained that products (aircraft in his case) used to be designed and then “thrown over the fence” to the manufacturing level, only to find that many things had to be redesigned because making them was either difficult or too expensive. Now, he explained that the Manufacturing Engineers are involved from day one of the design stage.
In Mathematics, a subject which I am also certified, problem solving is difficult to teach if your students don’t have some basic skills mastered. The same holds true for Tech Ed problem solving in my opinion.
I personally think if we had chosen the name Applied Technology a lot of our head banging could have been avoided. I suggest including “applied” to whatever new name we choose.
January 7th, 2010 on 9:30 am
Amen, Ron C.! Oh and BTW… I was being sarcastic about the the PIZZA thing… not very professional in my opinion.
January 7th, 2010 on 11:09 am
Josh, I am serious about the pronunciation, although given there are multiple pronunciations of the word you are talking about I am thinking more of the pronunciation [PETE-Sa]. The only other way I could see it being pronounced is [Pets-sa] and I am not much for being referred to as a pet or multiple pets.
Ron, I hear your concerns. I talked to many people in my time as President of TEAP who had the same concerns that you do. There are many teaching in Pennsylvania who teach in a ‘Wood Lab’ or ‘Wood Shop’ and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not where you teach, and not even really what you teach. It is how you teach it. If you are teaching design and problem solving rather than the ‘everyone builds the same thing from the same plans’ type of class then you are teaching technology education. I often use the example of birdhouses to explain what I mean. If everyone is given a set of plans for a Robin Birdhouse and told to build that as the plans specify, that is Industrial Arts. If each student is assigned a bird, asked to research the needs of that bird and what houses should be like and then design and build their own then that would be more along the lines of Technology Education. STEM extensions of that activity would involve having the Science classes monitor the houses after they are put in nature, possibly even working with local parks and recreation or places like our schools nature center. Math classes could get involved as well as Art and a variety of other subjects.
I agree though, basic understanding of how to use tools is essential before students can make an object. My question is, does everyone have to make the same thing to accomplish that? We need to set the parameters of the activity so that everyone needs to use the same processes and then still teach the needed processes.
I teach in the middle school, and do many hands on design activities in my Design Lab as well as what will soon be a defunct modular lab. I have very few tools, and am not entirely happy about that. On the other hand I tell the students that we are engineering solutions to problems. They know what engineering is in terms of what I am teaching them and my Principal knows what I do (since I have his son in my class he better). Next year I plan to call my 8th grade course ‘Design and Engineering’ as opposed to my current title “Drafting and Design” because my emphasis on Drafting is only to the extent that they know how to use the software to design their solutions. I accomplish that wit Solidworks in 4 to 5 days.
I am not 100% convinced on a name change. I think if we are going ot do it, that it needs to be well thought out and carefully considered. I do not consider my suggestions way above to be the only way to go, just something to be considered. I would fear that Applied Technology will just mean ‘Applied Computers’ to some people. It is the word ‘technology’ word that is our achilles heal…
January 7th, 2010 on 12:59 pm
Here is some information that we all should look at (below). It is from page 7 of the Innovation America initiative of the National Governors Association report “Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda†that is the driving force behind everything that is happening.
“4. Where Do We Want To Go?
We in the United States now live in a world where individual states, as well as the nation, increasingly must generate their own human capital with the STEM literacies that will allow them to succeed in the knowledge-based work place and community. STEM literacy refers to an individual’s ability to apply his or her understanding of how the world works within and across four interrelated domains.
• Scientific literacy is the ability to use scientific knowledge (in physics, chemistry, biological sciences, and earth/space sciences) and processes not only to understand the natural world but to participate in decisions that affect it (in three main areas — science in life and health, science in Earth and environment, and science in technology).16
• Technological literacy in the modern world means the ability to use, manage, understand, and assess technology. Students should know how to use new technologies, understand how new technologies are developed, and have skills to analyze how new technologies affect us, our nation, and the world. Technology is the innovation, change, or modification of the natural environment to satisfy perceived human needs and
wants.17
• Engineering literacy is the understanding of how technologies are developed via the engineering design process; lessons are project-based and integrate multiple subjects, making difficult concepts relevant and tangible to students and tapping into students’ natural interest in problem-solving. Engineering design is the systematic and creative application of scientific and mathematic principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems.18
• Mathematical literacy means the ability of students to analyze, reason, and communicate ideas effectively as they pose, formulate, solve, and interpret solutions to mathematical problems in a variety of situations.19
STEM literacy is an interdisciplinary area of study that bridges the four areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. STEM literacy does not simply mean achieving literacy in these four strands or silos. Consequently, a STEM classroom shifts students away from learning discrete bits and pieces of phenomenon and rote procedures and toward investigating and questioning the interrelated facets of the world.20
One hallmark of a STEM classroom is an emphasis on design and problem-solving in “intellectually messy†learning situations that weave together the disciplines through topics such as nanotechnology, biomedical engineering, and astrobiology. Thus, for example, a STEM classroom might pose a problem and then require students to do original research inspired by a classwide inquiry project, where they must use technology to gather and analyze data, design, test, and improve upon a proposed solution, and then communicate their findings to their peers in another country. A STEM student might spend after-school time, mentored by a local engineer, building a robot that can walk up stairs. A state with an effective STEM policy agenda uses its power to set academic content standards, required state assessments, high school graduation requirements, and content-rich teacher preparation and certification standards, and to develop new models to support an effective K–12 STEM classroom. Governors have the bully pulpit, convening authority, and the funding levers to help create an aligned and rigorous STEM education system. It is important for governors to use these tools to lead their states to adopt a STEM education agenda that supports their state’s economic future.â€
Endnotes
16 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Scientific Literacy: The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework, (France:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2003).
17 International Technology Education Association, Standards for
Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (Reston,
VA: International Technology Education Association, 2003).
18 Ibid.
19 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
Mathematical Literacy: The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework,
(France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2003).
20 Janice S. Morrison, Attributes of STEM Education: The Students,
The Academy, The Classroom, (Baltimore, MD: TIES STEM
Monograph Series, 2006).
I see Technology Education teaching two of the above, Technological Literacy and Engineering Literacy. I also like the Engineering byDesignâ„¢ explanation of engineering “engineering – little “e†– used as a verb to teach all students to think or learn to engineer or use engineering conceptsâ€. Most of you also are not aware of a national assessment that is coming in 2012, The 2012 National Assessment of Educational Progress on Technological Literacy. The assessment targets are organized into three major areas of technological literacy: Technology and Society, Design and Systems, and Information and Communication Technology. I feel what Technology Education is what this assessment is all about and there is a push to change its name to National Assessment of Educational Progress on Technology and Engineering. So if everyone else is going to be using the “E†word to describe what we do day in and day out shouldn’t we?
January 7th, 2010 on 4:10 pm
Here is something that just came out of the Presidents office “Educate to Innovate” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate). Now if you do not get hugh up on the “S” and “M” and listen to what is really being talked about like “engineering”, “technology”, “innovation”, “problem solving” and the likes. You can see we are at a crossroads and if we do not take advantage of this timing we may loose big time. Please take time to view the video that is at the site provided above.
January 7th, 2010 on 6:44 pm
Since STEM is the acronym buzz word these days that continues gaining significant popularity and is a highly recommended approach for solving problems in our world today and in the future. Our country’s need for innovative solutions is continually being mentioned by our president and is also mentioned often through numerous influences in the news media. We continue to hear that STEM is developing educational support from the community and government while it also creates potential funding resources for our programs. Yet, I sometimes here references in the news where educational advocates are proclaiming “Science, Engineering and Mathematics†to be the key factors in improving the infrastructure of our nation as they forget to mention the significant role that Technology Education has in facilitating critical thinking skills. Are we getting enough credit for the problem solving skills and processes that we teach?
We are striving within our schools to:
• Increase technological literacy for all students
• Align our curriculum with the PA Standards for Science, Technology and Engineering
• Create a learning environment that prepares students for modern day career opportunities to improve the quality of our world.
These goals will hopefully keep our country as a competitive front-runner amongst other nations. Achieving our educational goals should create advanced and technological based employment for more Americans. If we choose to change our Educational Association’s name, I agree with others that we should do it very cautiously. “Brainstorming ideas†is a powerful tool used by many educators (especially Technology Educators).
For every acronym that we choose, I believe that we should develop as many questions possible that we could possibly face and see if the name change is beneficial to our goals and objectives. We all seem to be asking if the general public and PDE will have a better understanding of what we teach? Will they view our discipline more valuable if our name is changed?
Many questions exist in my mind regarding the name change.
PETSA does not stay consistent with the STEM’s order of letters in the acronym. As mentioned above, I wonder if something as small as the inconsistent order of the letters would lose our credit or misconstrue our T and E position in STEM.
Pennsylvania Association of Technology Teachers (PATT) was mentioned by Dr. Wright
I, too like the simplicity of this Acronym with the emphasis remaining on Technology.
Just Brainstorming… but, could we add an S to the end to emphasize Solutions or Systems?
I wanted to throw out an acronym just to add to the discussion:
PFTEP- Pennsylvania Facilitators of Technological and Engineering Processes
The T and E remains in consistent order with
the T and E in STEM.
The pronunciation of TEAP is not lost (TEP)
“Facilitators†and “Processes†describe the action verb describing the learning environment.
I, too agree that we need to remain teaching the fundamental skills necessary for maintaining and operating current industrial systems. Not losing essential skills from the past is extremely important! I also feel that we need to put our current generation of students in the best position to succeed in the advanced world of technological development. I liked Ed’s suggestion of making educator trainings and workshops available by offering enhanced education in suggested areas so that students may receive curriculum beneficial to higher education.
January 9th, 2010 on 8:39 pm
I am a student in Technology Student Association, an active member of the Lower Merion High School chapter. I have had Technology Education at Bala Cynwyd Middle School, in a similar curriculum to the one taught by Ms. Lapinski, a recipient of the TEAP Middle School Teacher Excellence Award in 2008. (Ms. Lapinski was my TSA advisor in middle school although not my Tech Ed teacher.)
I believe that “technology education” is an appropriate name because it is a wider term than “engineering.” Middle school students may be turned off from the idea of continuing technology education if their middle school courses are given names like “engineering.” My high school’s Tech Ed courses have “engineering” in the names, and I think that’s appropriate.
As long as technology is in the name of what is now the Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania, I see no problem. However, I think TEAP is an appropriate name for now.
January 10th, 2010 on 9:03 pm
Thanks for the input, Josh. It is great to hear from the student perspective. You are the future, and your opinion does count! I would like to ask you a question though. If the names of the actual classes in your school would not change, but the subject name on a state and/or association level changed, do you think enrollment in the elective classes would decrease? Does the course selection information give you the name of the subject and the course title or just one of the two. I ask, because where I teach it is only the course title that the students see meaning any change to my Department’s name would not be visible to students.
January 11th, 2010 on 10:46 am
I am in support of changing the TEAP name and I think that Len makes some very good points in his essay about our profession. I like the idea of including engineering into the name mainly because the Technology Education name hasnt caught on at all at my school. Technology to my district is the department that will fix the computers, smart boards and take care of our website. (typical) I agree the term engineering is something that almost everyone can identify and should not get the name confused with other departments or skills. Back to Ron C’s comment on being a dinosaur and “old school”, I really think this has a lot to do with the area you live and teach. I am only in year 6 and I believe those “old school” tool and machine operating skills are necessary. I teach in the district I graduated from and I know a good majority of the people who live in this rural area. Their are no high end engineering jobs around here. People would prefer a Cummins, Powerstroke or Duramax over any BMW. Most people work with their hands to pay their bills framing houses, welding, or working as a technician somewhere. I feel that if I dont show kids these skills im not preparing them for their future. Isn’t that what our job is about? I know their are many other places like this in PA and I think we are more than likely in the same boat. I believe their is a way to teach the traditional methods and tie it in with new engineering principles. I personally believe one must undersand the basics before they can go designing something and producing it. Whats the point in having a middle school student run a CNC router when they can’t even put a bit in a cordless drill? As a middle school teacher I consider myself a feeder for our high school electives, so I really need to make sure the kids are enjoying my class, or it may had negative consequences for our program. Its a balance of academics and hands on that makes our job interesting but difficult. So, I am in support of the name change but I’m asking that the small rural schools arent judged negatively or forgotten about because changes around these areas happen very very sslloowwllyy!!
January 11th, 2010 on 11:12 am
Josh, as Jared stated, thank you for posting on the NCI blog.
This committee is only investigating name changes for the Technology Education Association of PA (TEAP). Individual school districts, technology education departments, and teachers typically control the name of programs and courses in their schools, and this currently is occurring. Programs across the state range from Technology Education, Industrial Technologies, Industrial Arts, Applied Engineering and Technology, Engineering and Technology, etc.
Teachers and schools have used program and course names that work well in their schools and communities to represent the curricular focus of their programs and courses. They also use course names to attract students to elective courses.
An association name change can help to position us to be identified as the T&E in STEM education with the Pennsylvania Department of Education, schools districts across the state, and potential funding sources offering grant opportunities. We are investigating to find a name that leads to less confusion of who we currently are and identifies specifically what we do. The hope would be to develop an association name that does this and as a result affect change at PDE on how our discipline is identified. This could trickle down to individual school districts and programs that would decide what name they would use for their programs and courses.
We also have to remember that a name is just a name. Just changing the name without changing the content does not do anything. If teachers across the state are committed to teaching to our new Academic Standards for Science and Technology and Engineering Education, they will be addressing both technology and engineering. As a result, wouldn’t it be appropriate to have both engineering and technology in the name of our state teachers association (TEAP) whose charge is to “promote improvements in the quality of instruction in Technology Education by assisting educators and students with keeping instructional content, and methods current with the rapid changes in industry and technology�
January 12th, 2010 on 7:34 pm
To answer Mr. Bitting’s question, I think middle school students would be turned off from taking technology education/engineering courses in high school if the MIDDLE school subjects have engineering in the name.
I would like to add that Technology Student Association, whose Pennsylvania organization is affiliated with TEAP, incorporates much more than what people would think of as “engineering” into events. Events include Agriculture/Biotechnology Design, Cyberspace Pursuit, Desktop Publishing, Imaging Technology, Scientific and Technical Visualization (SciViz), On Demand Video, Film, Environmental Focus, Technology Bowl (my personal favorite), Chapter Team (my second personal favorite), Music Production, et cetera. Arguably, engineering plays a role in many of these events I just listed because of the Merriam-Webster definition of “engineering,” but many students wouldn’t make the correct association.
Mr. Hutzel, I am seeing your point. Perhaps Shakespeare’s “rose by any other name” theory might apply.
January 14th, 2010 on 1:27 pm
I want to thank each of you for posting your opinions to our blog. This is a very important topic for the future of our profession. Please encourage others to post, too, for we, the committee, will read them all and use them as our guide for the direction that we will recommend to the TEAP Board at the spring meeting.
January 17th, 2010 on 11:27 pm
If you’re feeling a little uneasy about including the term engineering in the association’s name, you may have good reason for that apprehension. The name of any organization should describe who the group is and what they do. The vast majority of Technology Educators are not engineers nor do they have sufficient training in the engineering field, most notably Science and Math, to teach proper Engineering beyond the most basic levels. With additional training, I have no doubt that Tech Ed teachers could teach “Engineering†and true Engineering courses. After all, T.E. teachers have proven themselves to be the most resilient, most adaptable, most versatile teaching professionals of all the disciplines in our public schools.
Some have proposed using this term for political and economic expediency and these may be adequate justifications for a name change. While this may be convenient and possibly even beneficial in the short term, over the long term we realize that Technology is an evolving process and field of study, and terminology may be used and courses modified for a variety of reasons.
In the end, most of us will not adapt curriculum or design new courses due to any transition in our organization’s name change. If this name change enables us to receive more funding or increased status, so be it, but we’ll be doing so with a wink and a nod among colleagues.
January 27th, 2010 on 6:06 pm
There is an old Chinese proverb: a hasty man drinks tea with a fork. For something as momentous as changing our name (after all we have gone through over the years fighting for recognition with the state and with everyone else) changing our name yet again comes with huge ramifications. In tech ed speak: intended and unintended consequences.
With a name change, will we then be looking at a change in program emphasis? I know that engineering adds a certain cachet to the image of our program, but up here in the wilds of the Pocono Mountains, I don’t see many students who are headed for a career in Engineering. My students (and we have full schedules and full classes of them) are at best headed for careers requiring further technical training or careers in wholly different fields. Perhaps our tech ed courses serve to introduce the process of engineering, but, to imply that this is some form of Engineering curriculum would be a stretch. Besides, as Bill Bond correctly observed on his blog post, the vast majority of technology educators are not engineers nor do they have sufficient training in the engineering field, most notably science and math, to teach proper Engineering beyond the most basic levels.
What particularly bothers me is the need of some writers to introduce specious arguments into the discussion. To even consider that the inclusion of the word “engineering†in our name would be “sexy,†would have “curb appeal,†or be “marketable†is beyond the pale. Likewise, worrying that another organization would steal the name “Engineering†before we get to use it is ridiculous: “technology education†was hijacked years ago by the Educational Technology Associations, and here we are today still slogging on.
So, I don’t feel any great need to race to rename and re-align our profession before we carefully think it through with cool heads. And to try to do it within the course of this next year as the result of limited discussion and a one month comment period on the TEAP website on which about 25 people actually commented. . .? My feeling is that to do it right, you need to allow time to talk it up among our 1200 members by looking them in the eye and letting them develop ownership – and Skype won’t do it! Since this will ultimately become a constitutional issue to be taken before the general membership, I think we should learn the lesson from ITEA when they failed to get the needed votes from their membership to change their name: take your time and do it right.
February 1st, 2010 on 12:22 am
Thank you for posting and expressing your opinion Bill.
I do not believe the decision to investigate an association name change has come in haste. The process was started in November, with my resolution to investigate a name change, which was approved by the TEAP Executive Board that represents each TEAP region in PA and the Delegate Assembly. A committee was formed and a chairperson appointed. I would like to say that we as an association took the lead on investigating a name change before the name for our discipline could be forced upon us by PDE.
I do not believe an association name change will result in a change in program emphasis in individual school districts. However, a change in program emphasis must occur if technology education programs in schools are teaching to the Academic Standards for Science and Technology and Engineering Education, as required by law. If you have read the definition of Technology and Engineering Education that is included in our new standards, it meshes well with what is being offered in many existing technology education programs throughout the state. “Technology and Engineering Education is the use of accumulated knowledge to process resources to meet human needs and improve the quality of life. It includes developing, producing, using and assessing technologies. It is human innovation in action and involves the generation of knowledge and processes to develop systems that solve problems and extend human capabilities. Its goal is to provide technological literacy to all students, including all students who traditionally have not been served by technology and engineering programs.â€
We don’t see a large percentage of students going to college to pursue engineering careers at our school in Johnstown, PA either. However, we use tools, machines, materials, and processes to “engineer†solutions to real-world problems. Students are excited to take our courses that incorporate the engineering design process. Our enrollment has more than doubled since replacing two industrial arts teachers teaching traditional courses. Our goal is to help all students develop technological literacy and introduce them to many careers related to technology, manufacturing, and engineering.
I do believe many of our existing technology education courses serve to introduce engineering principles. Many of the engineers that I personally know were students that took technology education courses while in HS. Professors in engineering programs at the college level have told me that the best engineering students are the ones that can perform all of the math, but they also are able to build something with their hands. That is what we provide for them as technology education teachers.
I agree with Bill Bond that the vast majority of technology educators are not engineers. I do not think they need to be to deliver EbD curriculum or introduce engineering concepts or processes. We are fortunate to also have math and science teachers who can deliver this content in our schools and we can serve to help the students apply math and science to real-world engineering problems.
The majority of HS technology education programs in PA are elective courses. Anything that can help teachers to attract students to our programs is not a bad thing. In addition, the term engineering is more marketable especially with the unprecedented number of grant opportunities becoming available for STEM programs.
“Likewise, worrying that another organization would steal the name “Engineering†before we get to use it is ridiculousâ€. This statement was not so ridiculous Bill. At the state level, science has already been looking at how to address our new Technology & Engineering standards. The Secretary of Education is looking for who can provide the T&E in STEM education.
I do feel that there is a great need to proceed with our investigation process and eventually for the NCI committee to make a recommendation to the TEAP Executive Board either to support moving forward or to stop the process. Every TEAP member was sent two emails encouraging them to discuss using the FYI section of the TEAP website. This was the best option for discussion utilizing our available technology. I wish more people would participate, but I can’t control who responds. Financially, TEAP cannot afford to pay for all members to travel to participate in a face-to-face meeting. If this process moves forward, all TEAP members will have ownership in a potential name change by having the opportunity to vote. FYI, the majority of ITEA members voted for a name change to include engineering in the association title. The vote resulted in ITEA’s name staying the same by a vote of 65% for and 35% against changing the name. A 66% majority is required to make a change to ITEA’s bylaws.
There has not been another time in history that so much is available to teachers in our field due to the push for STEM education in our schools. We need to take advantage of the opportunities that are becoming available and secure our footing as the T&E in STEM education. Adding engineering to our association title will help to define what many of us are already doing in our courses and open the door for the many opportunities that are becoming available.
February 2nd, 2010 on 9:58 am
Bill, I agree with you. A name change for an organization is a big thing. It requires conversation and consideration. You ask “will we then be looking at a change in program emphasis?” and I think the answer has been given before. The answer is a resounding, No. The Technology Education Association of Pennsylvania has provided funding, along with the two state Universities for Technology Education as well as PDE, to bring the Engineering by Design curriculum from ITEA to our state for I believe it is 3 or 4 years now. These activities are Technology Education activities that involves student engineering solutions to problems. In my ‘Industrial Arts’ classes back in the 80′s, my teacher assigned me to choose an object to build. I choose to build a 6′ park bench and had to engineer many ways to accomplish that with in the time constraints and materials I would have available. The person who built my deck had to engineer a design that would meet the township codes and my preferences for design. Engineering need not be only referred to as the field of Engineering and I think that is what we need to remember.
My other question is, why not teach some actual engineering at the high school level? This would be a great way to actually do the integrated teaching with Science teachers that all of the experts say is the keep to regaining the United States standing as the leaders in Innovation and Invention.
Ultimately, you are right. We need not rush into this. The ‘Skype’ meetings you speak of are so that the committee can discuss the results and the direction of the committee without needing to spend the money of the organization to drive around the state to hold multiple meetings among our small group. I believe this was a fiscally responsible idea of Brandts and I commend him for it. It was also a great use of technology and I enjoyed the last meeting and being able to discuss this with fellow members of the committee from the comfort of my own desk at home. This is a Constitution issue and I believe there will be vigorous debate at the Delegate Assembly this year and I have to ask, is that a bad thing?
February 4th, 2010 on 10:40 am
Here is some information that you all should be aware of. Every year I am asked for “Hot Topic” items just before the state budget is to be presented. Last year here is what I submitted.
Hot Topics in Technology Education
Submitted by: William F. Bertrand, PDE Technology Education Advisor
February 5, 2009
1. Concern regarding the elimination, reduction, and general misunderstanding of technology education as planned instruction in school districts across Pennsylvania.
2. Excitement about Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education.
3. Interest in K-12 engineering education and curiosity about standards.
Supportive Reasoning and Rational
Regulations:
In Chapter 4; § 4.11. Purpose of public education, § 4.12. Academic standards, § 4.21. Elementary education: primary and intermediate levels, § 4.22. Middle level education, and § 4.23. High school education, all address the teaching of technology/engineering.
Standards:
Technology Education is the means by which technology/engineering is taught. On page one of the Pennsylvania Academic Standards for Science and Technology, it states “Technology Education, computer applications and science are separate curricular areas.†There is a specific technology education standard category (3.6) and components of technology/engineering education in the remaining standards (e.g. 3.2 D. Problem Solving in Technology, 3.7 A. Tools, 3.7 B. Instruments, and all of 3.8 Science, Technology and Human Endeavors). Standard 3.4 Physical Science, Chemistry and Physics states at the end of the standard “Refer to Technology Standard Category 3.6 for applied uses of these concepts and principles.†Also as stated in Content Standard E of the National Science Education Standards, “the relationship between science and technology is so close that any presentation of science without developing an understanding of technology would portray an inaccurate picture of science,â€
Assessment:
The Science PSSA was developed using two sets of academic standards: the Science and Technology standards and the Environment and Ecology standards. The Science Assessment Anchors make reference to technological knowledge, technological challenges, human-made systems, technological design, technological concepts, technological patterns, and technological impacts and consequences. All of these concepts are critical to the goal of planned instruction in technology education – technological literacy for all students. Technology education also offers unique opportunities to apply numerous academic concepts through practical, hands-on applications. Research indicates that students learn more and demonstrate a deeper understanding of concepts through these means rather than through traditional educational methods.
Certification:
Technology education is a body of knowledge separate from, but related to the sciences, with specific content, curriculum and specific certification requirements in Pennsylvania (CSPG 65 – Technology Education).
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics:
The following definition is provided by the Science and Technology Education Curriculum Coordinator at Manheim Township School District, Lancaster, PA:
“STEM education is an intentional, meta-disciplinary approach to teaching and learning, in which students uncover and acquire cohesive knowledge, competencies, and attitudes of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics that they transfer and apply to both academic and real-world contexts, in order to be globally competitive in the 21st Century.”
As pointed out by the National Governors Association’s Innovation America initiative, which Pennsylvania is an integral partner of; we need to “focus on improving all aspects of STEM education, including increasing the visibility of the “T&E.†Technology Education is a vital part that addresses the “T&E†of STEM in the education of all students in Pennsylvania.
Value Added Outcomes of Technology Education:
1. A Greater Capacity for Innovation
Innovation is a process that can be taught and learned. Technology Education is the only area of the common school curriculum that achieves this by teaching students about past technological innovations and also creating opportunities for students to design solutions to real world technological problems. This is a chance for practicing the processes of design and innovation.
2. Higher Achievement in Mathematics, Science, and Language Arts
Early research in this area shows that experiences in technology education have a positive impact on achievement in math, science, and language arts including higher scores on standardized tests. Technology Education stresses “hands-on, minds-on†learning and provides answers to the common student question: Why do we need to know this?
3. Strong Support for the Workforce
The business community continues to stress that they need students entering the workforce that have the ability to be flexible in the business environment, solve problems, and demonstrate greater ability to work with a group, as well as independently. Technology learning activities are set up in such a way that students can learn these “soft skills.â€
4. Sound Support for Engineering and Other Design Professions
Technology education directly supports specific design related professions, especially engineering, architecture, and industrial design. Advanced study in Technology Education can provide an appropriate orientation and transition to design fields. Students in Technology Education learn what Engineers, Architects and other Designers do in their day-to-day profession and how they solve problems, create technology, and help people.
5. Technological Literacy
Technological literacy is the ability to use, manage, evaluate, and understand technology. As the primary purpose and outcome of Technology Education programs, general technological literacy can facilitate decision making through a developed understanding of the societal and social impacts, both positive and negative of technological development.
February 18th, 2010 on 10:40 am
I was asked by Secretary Zahorchak recently to put together in 500 words or less what Technology/engineering is in Pennsylvania. I use the word engineering as a verb meaning to teach all students to think or learn to engineer or use engineering concepts. I explained to him that we should not focus just on Engineers but need to include Technologists and Technicians also because these are the skilled workers needed for the 21st century workforce. This was not an easy task because there is so much I wanted to say but I gave it my best shot. I know that I only listed about 12 school districts as moving in the correct direction but these are the schools that I have first hand knowledge of but there are a lot of schools out there doing great things. Below is what was submitted any feedback is appreciated.
Technology/engineering Education in Pennsylvania
Technology Education is the means by which the teaching of technology/engineering occurs in Pennsylvania which is found in the Academic Standards for Science and Technology (2002) and the revised Academic Standards for Science and Technology and Engineering Education (2009). It is also a component of the Science Assessment Anchors Content Standards and should be a part of the Science PSSA. Technology Education is a body of knowledge separate from but related to the sciences, with specific content, curriculum and specific certification requirements (CSPG #65). It is the application of tools, materials, processes and systems by humans to solve problems and provide benefits to humankind. The relationship between science and technology is one where science builds principles or theories and technology provides the practical application of those principles or theories which results in products and processes (inventions and innovations). It also offers unique opportunities to apply numerous other academic concepts through practical minds-on/hands-on applications giving relevance to the content. Technology Education has progressed from Industrial Arts which was focused on developing hand-tool and machine skills, with an emphasis on safety, along with developing the knowledge and understanding of quality and craftsmanship. With the switch to Technology Education (1985) the focus switched to teaching all students engineering “habits of mindâ€, to understand and be able to utilize engineering concepts, which includes the engineering design process, how systems work, and the impact of technology on society as a whole. This is referred to as technological literacy. Many believe these teachings are essential skills for citizens in the 21st century.
In Pennsylvania it is estimated that 20% of programs have switched to full technology/engineering offerings while 40% are offering a blended program of Industrial Arts and Technology Education with the remaining 40% stuck in the Industrial Arts focus. Some districts have no real understanding of Technology Education and have been eliminating or cutting the offerings of these programs, that are required by Chapter 4, over the last ten years. Districts thought of as moving in the correct direction are Bloomsburg Area, Canon-McMillan, Lower Merion, Manheim Township, Mars Area, Milton Area, North Penn, Northern Bedford County, Parkland, Penns Valley Area, Richland, South Park, Southern York County, State College Area, Tulpehocken Area, and Twin Valley just to name a few.
In 2006 Pennsylvania started exploring work that the International Technology Education Association was doing with a few states thought its Center to Advance the Teaching of Technology & Science, now known as STEM±Center for Teaching and Learning™ , through the development of a standards based model program known as Engineering byDesign™ (EbD). Pennsylvania became a consortium member in 2007 and has been a leader in the consortium which has grown to 22 states today. In Pennsylvania over 220 school districts have accessed EbD with 12 signing on to pilot various components. Over 300 teachers K-12 have received professional development on EbD as a part of the Governor’s Institute for Technology Education (2006 & 2007) and the Governor’s Institute for STEM (2008). The Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL), of which EbD is largely based upon, was a resource utilized in the revision of the Academic Standards for Science and Technology and Engineering Education and the development of the Technology/engineering component of the Curriculum Framework for the Standards Align System.
With a 10% inclusion of technological design in the 2009 Science National Assessment on Educational Progress (NAEP) and the development of the 2012 NAEP solely on Technological Literacy (which may be called Technology and Engineering Literacy). Plus the national push for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and a focus on Engineering Education. Pennsylvania finds its self in a positive position as long as Technology Education (technology/engineering) continues to move forward any hindrance in progress could prove catastrophic to the students of the Commonwealth and the nation as a whole.