Name Change Committee Survey Results
by admin on Feb.27, 2010, under Name Change Investigation, PA Tech Ed News
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
February 28th, 2010 on 12:05 am
I am surprised to see the results suggesting Technology and Engineering Association of Pennsylvania not including education in the title at all.
I also wonder how we can include engineering in our organization’s name when most of the teachers in our field (I cannot speak for everyone) do not possess an engineering degree. I wonder what engineering or being an engineer means. I understand that we are representing the T & E in STEM and that engineering education does not exist yet in PK-12. I realize we are teaching to engineering concepts and that our technological design loop is very similar to the engineering design process.
But, after talking to a colleague who is in an engineering education masters program, they had a very different view of what they call engineering compared to what I call engineering. From what I took away from this conversation was that engineers take many hours of high level mathematics and science courses and are very much apart of the theoretical concepts that we teach in technology education including, analysis, constraints, design, optimization, innovation, systems, etc. but in practice engineers truly only design through digital technologies (CAD) and hand off their finished design or blueprint to a technologist to build and construct their design. The engineer is not nearly as savvy in the hands-on technological aspects as the technologist (or could be translated into technologically literate person).
So technology educators are only required to take a few hours of math even remedial math courses and only a few science courses. How can we call ourselves engineers if we are not qualified in the math and science areas?
I would like to say that in theory technology education teaches to the concepts listed above, but in practice I would guess that most of the time only design, constraints, modeling, visualization, functionality, and maybe innovation are seen in most technology education classroom. If engineers are not exposed to this same list of concepts, (according to friend in engineering education program), and we are not qualified to teach the high level math and science, then how can we include engineering in our title if technology and engineering are not as similar as we may think?
I am not disagreeing with the ideas of STEM education integrative STEM education integrated practices or integrative approaches to teaching. I am all for a STEM infrastructure in all school systems but I do not think that we can call ourselves engineers. I do believe that we can teach to engineering concepts and teach to the similarities among technology and engineering.
I do not mean to offend anyone who may have an engineering degree or engineering education degree on top of their technology education degree.
This is just something that I have been thinking about and wondering what others might have to say.
Rob
February 28th, 2010 on 12:23 am
I do not have at this late hour to give too much of a response to the comment above. In short, have you seen the Engineering by Design curriculum that is available to all teachers in the state of Pennsylvania? Just like any other subject at the K-12 level we will not cover the materials at a collegiate level. We can, however, teach students to design and innovate on a level they can understand by allowing them engineering solutions to problems. My students to a great deal of reverse engineering of objects into their 3D modeling software as well as design and build solutions to problems in my classroom. I am not teaching students to be Engineers as a career choice at the Middle School level, but I am teaching them how to engineer as an action to solve problems.
February 28th, 2010 on 1:06 am
I know of Engineering by Design and have seen it in use. I think it is a great resource (though it would be nice to see some biotechnology). I agree that we can teach students to design and innovate, becoming technologically literate. We can teach them engineering concepts and how to engineer as an action. Students need to become problem solvers.
But, teaching these technological/engineering concepts is different from what engineering is. The big E and the little e. The big E being the profession of engineering and the little e being the engineering concepts.
I think that if we truly are going to call ourselves engineering educators as including engineering in our organizations title, then we need to define which of these, the little e or the big E we are. I feel that if we do not do this then we are calling ourselves something we are not.
February 28th, 2010 on 9:45 am
Albert Einstein once said “To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk”, and he was right. The history of our country and this world is filled with people who invented and engineered items with hardly the higher level math and science understanding of what so many people refer to as ‘Engineers’. Let’s look at the inventors of the first practical personal computer. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. At the time neither of them had completed any level of collegiate education nor would they have had classes in high school concerning computers. The Wright Brothers who designed the first airplane certainly could be called engineers, aerospace engineers in fact. If memory serves me neither of them had higher than a high school diploma.
I have some great young engineers in my classroom who design and implement solutions to problems that I give them. I have students who have created a K’nex ballista that can fire a small projectile 40′ up the hallway and hit a pinpoint target (and I do me a 2″ circle… consistently) and they did so with basic understanding of trajectory, force and effort, and algebra. Our classes do not train every child to be an Engineer by profession, but they can teach them to be engineers in terms of being able to not only use technology but use that technology along with other relevent knowledge to create things and solve problems.
Just to be clear, it we use the word engineering (small e) in our name as opposed to Engineering (big E) in our name do you feel that would make a difference? Who do you think SHOULD teach the Engineering parts of the new STE standards in Pennsylvania?
February 28th, 2010 on 2:07 pm
I am in total agreement with the perspective and explanation of Jared Bitting. I might take this a bit further and explain that in my classes/ activities students have the opportunity to try on different hats if you will. Some discover that the math and physics involved is a blast, while others would rather stay with the machining and fabrication end. As in any other suject area students take away something different from each and every activity. Regardless of their grade students learn something about themselves. I believe that the name Technolgy and Engineering Association of Pennsylvania will serve us well with in-service training and suppport.
February 28th, 2010 on 7:16 pm
In response to Jared’s question, who should teach the E in the STE standards in PA, well of course we are the most qualified compared to science and math. And, yes there are currently no engineering education in K-12 teachers so we technology education teachers are the appropriate fit for now. I think in time, through the Engineering Education (E2) for Innovation Act, there will be support and requirements for teaching engineering in K-12. I think we can be a part of this act and yes, I would agree that having engineering in our name would help with in-service training and support, mentioned by Edward that we could receive from this Act.
So back to Jared’s question. Yes Jared, if we are teaching to the little e and preparing students through technological and engineering concepts then it makes a difference. I don’t know how we explain that to others (engineers in particular) but I think it is safe to say that we are well prepared for teaching these concepts I just want the engineering education community (which at the moment is only exists in higher education) that we are teaching engineering concepts and making ourselves sound more STEMy rather than calling ourselves engineers or engineering educators.
I am still not sure how leaving the word education out of our technology education organizations name is a good idea.
February 28th, 2010 on 7:21 pm
I also wonder if the name change for ITEA to the proposed name, the International Technology and Engineering Educators Association has anything to do with TEAP aligning with our national organization?
February 28th, 2010 on 10:31 pm
Rob, I have multiple former students as well as classmates from high school who are engineers today, or in engineering schools. All are unanimous in saying that their Industrial Arts (in the case of my generation) and Technology Education courses served a great purpose in preparing them for their careers. I think many Engineers already get it. If engineers want to teach Technology Education, then so be it. I would welcome them to the profession with open arms. I do not, however, feel that we are just the profession to teach engineering concepts for the time being but rather the profession to teach engineering, period.
To answer your curiousity, no, our name change initiative it similar to many other states moves to include engineering into their names. We are the T and E in STEM here in Pennsylvania. I personally feel our association name should announce that proudly. I do, however, think we need to make it clear we are educators as part of the name, thus I am not in support of swapping out education with engineering. I think we need to ensure our name also makes clear that we are teachers and educators.
March 1st, 2010 on 10:20 am
Just out of curiousity, Rob, how do we go about making our name sound more ‘STEMy’ without including Engineering into our name? Are you of the opinion that we should add all 3 additional words (Science, Engineering, and Math) to our name?
March 1st, 2010 on 11:22 am
I believe most people will realize that as a K-12 primary/secondary education association, we are not certifying students to become professional engineers (PE). Likewise, the word “Technology” used in our title for years, did not suggest that we were training our students to become technologists. The word “engineering” to me suggests a process, not just a profession “Engineer!” Note the definitions below based on a google seach for “engineering”.
noun
1.the art or science of making practical application of the knowledge of pure sciences, as physics or chemistry, as in the construction of engines, bridges, buildings, mines, ships, and chemical plants.
verb (used with object)
6.to plan, construct, or manage as an engineer: He’s engineered several big industrial projects.
7.to design or create using the techniques or methods of engineering: The motor has been engineered to run noiselessly.
I like the use of the word engineering to help describe our organization. I’m tired of explaining to Joe Public that Technology Education is “No”, not teaching computers. However, I do agree that the term “education” should remain in our title to help frame what we are. TEAP received 32.7% support in this survey. However, TEEAP was listed twice. The only difference in the acronyms was the word education vs educators. If you combine the percentages from these two options, it comes out to (16.7% + 26.2%) equalling 42.9%. I personally like (TEEAP)- Technology and Engineering Assocation of PA.
March 1st, 2010 on 11:26 am
Opps! my last post was suppose to say (TEEAP) Technology and Engineering Education Association of PA
March 1st, 2010 on 11:27 am
Here is the link to the PBS 39 special on STEM education: http://www.wlvt.org/TEMPO/TSS/tempoid.htm
You will need to cut and paste the above link into your browser, you will yhen need to look for the show called S.T.E.M., which has the date Feb 25 listed above it.
March 1st, 2010 on 3:29 pm
Jared, I think that adding engineering to our name will make it more STEMy, but yes, wouldn’t it be interesting to form an organization that consisted of science, math, and technology/engineering educators. That would be quite a feet and I am not sure that it will happen in the immediate future. I would hope that organizations would “converge” at some point, though I do believe that each of the STEM disciplines has uniqueness that not one of the other STEM disciplines possesses.
I do agree that we need to have education in our name and I am glad that Bruce spelled out to me that indeed TEEAP overall had a higher ranking.
Now that ITEA is ITEEA I feel that TEEAP would fit more suitably for our organization.
Jared, thank you for informing me that other states are in the process of a similar name change and that now we, PA, may too align better with the standards we are required to teach, both state and nationally, and that we will be more STEMy since we are teaching engineering concepts, as Bruce noted, as an action.
Has anyone heard or know of the Engineering Education to Innovate Act? Do you think we, as an organization or as the field of technology education, could receive some of the funding available from the Act if it were to pass?
March 1st, 2010 on 3:42 pm
Bill, thank you for uploading that video. Bruce, what a classroom! Technology teachers and other STEM educators can definitely benefit from viewing the PBS special and possibly use it as an model to try new ways of including STEM approaches in their classroom as you have done.
March 1st, 2010 on 8:41 pm
Rob, during my time as TEAP President I made some connections with the Science and Mathematics organizations here in Pennsylvania just as had been done by Presidents before me. Brandt Hutzel has also extended open arms to both the Science and Mathematics organizations in the state to the extent that we are even sending a TEAP representative to the State/National Conference in I believe it is Philadelphia in about two weeks. I doubt there will ever be a STEM organization, but I do not see why we can not from time work together to either run a joing conference or at least some joint professional development opportunities. If we are going to make STEM work, we are going to need to work together, and in a much better way than we currently do. I also see extending our reach into the Elementary classrooms is of the utmost importance which is why I added an Elementary Institutional membership to our organization with the approval of the board in 2008 (and taking effect in 2009). It is our plan to have an elementary thread at the conference this November and to extend our hands out to elementary teachers from across the state to come and see how they can incorporate elementary Tech Ed (and engineering) activities into their classrooms. I do know of the Engineering Education to Innovate Act, and have been following it closely for some time. Yes, I do believe we will be able to gain access to those funds, though the how and when I will leave to people like Bill Bertrand to explain at the moment. He is better with acronyms anyway :^)
March 11th, 2010 on 12:56 pm
This was just sent out through ITEEA IdeaGarden listserv. It seems to address what we are considering. “The important thing is this: to be able at any moment to sacrifice what we are for what we could become.‖ Charles Du Bos this was shared by Andy Stephenson from
March 12th, 2010 on 1:26 pm
Now you need to take notice to what is happening here. If you think that you do not teach engineering and that is should not be a part of our name you are dead wrong. This has just been released
2014 NAEP will include “Technological and Engineering†content in their assessment.
· Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy On March 6, 2010 the National Assessment Governing Board voted unanimously to approve the 2012 NAEP Technological Literacy Framework. The framework document approved by the Governing Board is available for public download. In addition to approving the framework, the Governing Board also voted to change the title of the assessment and the year in which it will first be administered. The new title for the assessment is the “NAEP Technology and Engineering Literacy Assessment†to be first administered in 2014. Updated versions of the framework and specifications documents incorporating the new assessment title and year will be available for download in the upcoming weeks.
March 12th, 2010 on 1:29 pm
The hyperlink did on take on my last posting below is the http if it does not show as an active link you will need to cut and past it in your address bar.
http://www.edgateway.net/cs/naepsci/view/lib/246/100222NAEPTechLitFrameworkDraft.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d
April 13th, 2010 on 10:23 am
We need to be willing to change with the times but we need to be careful in how we shift the lines between Vocational, Technology and Engineering Education.
I feel that our vocational programs are the programs that provide the curriculum that Industrial Arts provided when I was in High school fifteen years ago. Students interested in learning a trade so they can get a job out of high school need this type of education where the emphasis is on the processes.
Our curriculum in Technology Education has traditionally served as a safe haven for students that display particular interests in problem solving and material processing. Utilizing a systems approach, we are able to expose students to the bigger picture of Technology and expose them to the “processes†as part of a system. This is how the real world works and the more our students understand this, the more technologically literate they become. These students do not always have a strong academic background, but through our courses, they develop an interest and motivation to increase their skill level by increasing their knowledge base. These students make an authentic connection between Technology and Science/ Math classes because they have an opportunity to see the relevance between the disciplines from their experience in the Tech Ed classroom / lab.
We need to be careful in our emphasis on the “Engineering†portion of our curriculum. If we start requiring Mathematics prerequisites or require too much practice in theory and analysis, we risk alienating traditional Tech Ed students from developing an interest in the curriculum.
For instance, if we know we have a student that has an interest in engines, do we begin his education by introducing him to disassembly and reassembly of an engine or do we discuss the exothermic chemical process of combustion? Do we have the time in a traditional school day to discuss both? Do we co-teach with Science?
These are the areas that concern me the most. I strongly agree that Engineering is the foundation of Technology and a big part of what we do. However the emphasis of Engineering should be a strong “part†but not necessarily the “whole†of a Technology / Engineering curriculum.
April 15th, 2010 on 10:00 am
Chansen,
This is in response to your statement about vocational programs and what Industrial Arts provides.
According to Bonser and Mossman, the general education purpose of Industrial Arts is:
The materials, processes, conditions of production, and the purchase and use of the products of the more important industries may be studied for the values which such study affords in one’s everyday life, regardless of his occupation. to realize its purpose we make no attempt to develop any considerable degree of skill in any of the several industries studied. The field includes numerous industries, not limiting itself to one industry as in vocational education.
The purpose or outcomes of the general study are realized in the degree in which it helps one to become efficient in the selection, care, and use of the products of industry, and to become intelligent and humane in the regulation or control of industrial production. this study is from the point of view of the problems, opportunities, and obligations of the consumer and the citizen. it concerns itself with such common, daily needs of life as the selection and use of food, clothing, utensils, household furnishings, and other products of industry; and to such problems of citizenship as call upon us to share in the regulation of industry, so that all employees, employers, and citizens may receive just and fair treatment.
Bonser, F. G. & Mossman, L. C. (1923). Industrial arts for elementary schools.
New York: Macmillan.
I read this and understand that in 1923 the scope of Industrial Arts was to teach all students technological literacy, not a skill or a trade. Students can receive these skills and trades in a vocational education institution. I see the scope of Industrial Arts as written above by Bonser and Mossman as teaching all students, including the elementary levels, technological literacy just as we strive for today in Technology/Engineering Education.