Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education: a Modified Delphi Study and Expert Panel Report Marc de Vries Delft University of Technology The Netherlands David Burghardt and Michael Hacker Hofstra University CTL, NY USA ITEEA CONFERENCE Charlotte, NC - March 18, 2010

Context of the study: a continuing concern International development of technology education 100-year transition from a craft-oriented subject to ETE Demands closer relationships with math, science and engineering Demands a sound conceptual base Calling in help from experts Technology Education Philosophy of technology/design methodology History and sociology of technology Engineering Crafts Industrial Arts Industrial Technology Technology Education ETE

UK: many design-dominated flowcharts (but where is the engineering content?) France: industry-dominated flowcharts (limited view of technology) Germany: systems-dominated schemes (but where is the process of technology?) Netherlands, New Zealand and other countries: integration of approaches (often without explicit set of core concepts) Many countries still: lack of coherence USA: Standards for Technological Literacy (very extensive, but without ‘nucleus of essentials’) Earlier efforts in engineering education: temporary successes; too far ahead of their time?) The Man-Made World (Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project, Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, NY: (1971) Principles of Engineering, NYSED (1989) Efforts to develop a conceptual framework

Aim of the CCETE study To identify overarching, unifying core concepts in engineering and technology that can form the basis for a curriculum Generalizable over a wide range of ETE domains Subsume a set of related subconcepts To identify contexts that can be used for teaching and learning those concepts Research shows that concepts should be taught in engaging contexts Earlier beliefs: teach general concepts and learners will be able to apply in any context; learn in one context, generalize and transfer to other contexts. More recent thinking: learn in variety of contexts and gradually general conceptual understanding emerges and can be applied to new contexts Still a debate: What is a ‘context’?

Researchers, timeframe The study was funded by the US National Science Foundation’s MSTP Project Study was done in cooperation by Ammeret Rossouw (Delft University of Technology) Michael Hacker (Hofstra University) Dr. Marc J. de Vries (Delft University of Technology) The study was done in May-July 2009 A panel discussion to reconcile results took place on August 5 and 6, 2009 at Hofstra University

Nature of the study Delphi study Analogous: Osborne et al. (2004) for science education Three rounds of expert consultation Followed by panel meeting (August 5-6, 2009) Experts from a range of disciplines Technology (teacher) education Engineering education/engineering organizations Philosophy and history of technology/design methodology International group of experts Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, USA Concepts and Contexts

Characteristics of a Delphi study Combine experts’ opinions without possibility of bias because of personal dominance in meeting Output of previous round is input for next round: experts see the average scores and can adapt their own scores Strive for consensus (with stability) Usually consensus in three or four rounds If not: seek out differences between sub-groups Methodologically, a bit weak, but not controversial (this was a modified Delphi)

Experts Philosophy and History of Technology, Science Communication 5 Engineering Education and Engineering Organization 8 Technology (Teacher) Education21 Total34

Round 1 List of possible concepts and contexts to show to experts the type of concepts and contexts we aim for Opportunity to generate other concepts and contexts Opportunity for general comments Data processing List separately when two or more experts propose concept/context Try to deal with as many suggestions as possible by adding concepts as sub-categories in concept list Same for contexts, but more loose on listing contexts separately

Final results: concepts

Final result: concepts (cont.)

Remarks Concept of ‘function’ made a drop from round 2 to round 3 Concept ‘working principles’ and ‘modularity’ rejected but not entirely by consensus Strong supportive individual opinions on ‘practical reasoning’, ‘complexity’ and ‘algorithms’ Include as sub-concepts?

Final result: contexts

Final result: contexts (cont.)

Observations Contexts generally gave more rise to disagreement than concepts ‘Medical technologies’ accepted but not entirely by agreement Draws to medical schools rather than to engineering? Disagreement about ‘nanotechnology’ Too difficult to put into practice? Trend among experts to stick with the traditional? Construction, production, transportation, communication Plus biotechnology New trend: seek for ‘big social issues’ Food, water, health, sustainability “Make the world a better place”

Panel discussion Aim Add structure/hierarchy to the concept and context lists Make suggestions for next steps Contexts Panel recognized two types of contexts Traditional: (i.e., construction, production, transportation, communication, biotechnology) Global concerns: energy, water, food, health, security, sustainability Panel proposed one list that comprises both and is based on human needs

Panel discussion (cont.) Concepts Panel identified concepts of primary and secondary level of abstraction Primary: Design (as a verb), systems, modeling, resources, human values Remaining concepts can all be put under these main headings; Higher ones on the Delphi list can be mentioned as examples with higher ‘status’

Food (e.g., agriculture, biotechnology) Shelter (e.g., construction), Water (e.g., supply and quality) Energy (e.g., production, distribution) Mobility (e.g., transportation) Production (e.g., manufacturing) Health (e.g., medical technologies) Security (e.g., firewalls) Communications (e.g., Internet, satellite Next Steps - Contexts Consolidating the contexts in a way that reflects issues relating to personal, societal and global concerns

Next Steps – Curriculum Elaborate into curriculum When developing a curriculum, the contexts should be elaborated in two directions: personal concern (or “daily life practice”) direction global concern direction. Include b oth qualitative and quantative elements

Next Steps – Themes Design (e.g., optimization, trade-offs, specifications) modeling (e.g., representation and prediction) Systems (e.g., function, structure) Resources (e.g., materials, energy, information) Human values (e.g., sustainability, innovation, risk, failure, social interaction).

Next Steps – Framework

Next Steps – Sequencing Instruction There is much to do in terms of deciding what is needed at different grade levels. How does one discuss systems, in the context of water, with a 7-year-old? What is the discussion like with a 15-year-old? Who are the teachers?

Mobility – HS Auto Safety Example ThemeDriverVehicleRoadRegulations DesignDesign a system to activate brakes in if driver falls asleep. Design a system to measure the effect of temperature on brake reliability. Design, build, and test various impact attenuators for model cars hitting a barrier. Design, build, and test improved road signs and systems to monitor/control speed. ModelingGraph driver- caused accidents from real data. Using models of various vehicles, determine CG and effect on stability. Determine the effect of various radii of curvature of turns on car stability. Model a traffic intersection from real data. ResourcesDetermine the kind of information that should be available to drivers while driving Investigate use of clean energy sources, and recyclable materials for use in cars. Choose appropriate road construction materials based on student-established criteria. Discuss what role government has in establishing limits on use of non-renewable resources for cars. SystemsMeasure reaction time needed to provide feedback for braking Explain how backup alarm systems provide r. feedback. Design traffic light system so that yellow light does not result in a dilemma zone. Explain how police radar systems work. Human Values Driver decisions re: drinking and driving Installation of breathalyzers linked to ignition systems Community decides where to install traffic signals. Government regulation of speed limits and MPG requirements.

Thank you for your kind attention Download the full report at: