Concepts and Contexts in Engineering and Technology Education: a Modified Delphi Study and Expert Panel Report

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

2. Crafts Industrial Arts Industrial Technology Technology Education ETE 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

3. Efforts to develop a conceptual framework • 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)

4. 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’?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. Experts

9. 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

10. Final results:concepts

11. Final result:concepts(cont.)

12. 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?

13. Final result:contexts

14. Final result:contexts (cont.)

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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’

18. Next Steps - Contexts Consolidating the contexts in a way that reflects issues relating to personal, societal and global concerns 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

19. 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 both qualitative and quantative elements Next Steps – Curriculum

20. 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 – Themes

21. Next Steps – Framework

22. 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? Next Steps – Sequencing Instruction

23. Mobility – HS Auto Safety Example

24. Thank you for your kind attention Download the full report at: http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/ctl/CTL_Edu_Initiatives_%20CCETE.pdf