THE NEXUS
BETWEEN SCIENCE LITERACY & TECHNICAL LITERACY: A STATE BY STATE ANALYSIS OF ENGIN=
EERING
CONTENT IN STATE SCIENCE FRAMEWORKS
Catherine M. Koehler,
Elias W. Faraclas, =
David Giblin,
David M. Moss,
Kazem Kazerounian,,
Abstract
This stu=
dy
explores how engineering concepts are integrated into science curriculum by
examining how a theoretical document titled, Engineering Education Framewor=
ks
(EEF), which simultaneously promotes scientific literacy and technical
literacy, is infused into current state science frameworks. This paper begins the discussion a=
nd
makes suggestions on how scientific and technical literacy can be integrated
into a deeper science experience for all students. The research question elabor=
ates
on the notion of how state science frameworks incorporate engineering conce=
pts
into their secondary science curriculums.&=
nbsp;
Findings reveal that most state science frameworks infuse engineering
concepts into their documents under the umbrella of science, technology and
society (STS) strands. In onl=
y a
few expectations have states (e.g.
Introduction
As the wor= ld becomes more technically oriented, educators have an increasing challenge to keep their curriculums relevant and evolving to maintain pace with globalization. This curriculu= m challenge includes the discipline of science, yet extends beyond that to the marriage= of science and technology. Albeit not a = new endeavor, this union that has been one that was proposed in science educati= on reform documents since the late 1980’s.
As a catal= yst at the forefront of this movement, Sci= ence for All Americans: Project 20= 61 [SFAA] (AAAS, 1989), Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and the National Science Education Standards [NSES] (NRC, 1996) have st= ressed the fundamental goal of scientific literacy. Yet, in addition to scientific lit= eracy, these documents also promote the notion that technology plays an essential = role in this vision. References to technology are made throughout these documents, and the use of technology i= s encouraged as a means to foster scientific literacy. An emphasis on engineering concep= ts is also a theme in at least two chapters in SFAA, The Nature of Technology and The Designed World. Here,= engineering is defined as the systematic application of scientific knowledge. Technology and human activity are = also discussed and references are made to how these influences have shaped the environment and our lives. As= these chapters outline basic technological areas that can promote scientific lite= racy, it also provides a basic technological framework necessary for a person to become technically literate.
As equally important, the NSES stresses technology in two content standards, Science and Technology, and Science in Personal and Social Perspective. Here, the intent to “est= ablish connections between the natural and designed worlds and provide students wi= th opportunities to develop decision making abilities” is professed (NRC, 1996. p. 106). As NSES has recommended, the incorporation of technology into the science curriculum is left up to the individual states, school districts, and teachers to foster = such activities in their classrooms.
Although t= he emphasis of technology is recommended throughout these reform documents, ea= ch explicitly acknowledges that technology does not traditionally h= ave a place in the general science curriculum.= Most often, technology courses fall into the realm of technology education, a discipline that is usually overlooked by college bound academic students interested in pursuing science and mathematics in college.
As mention= ed above, science reform documents drive science education curriculum. It would be remiss to overlook a pinnacle document that sets the content framework for all technology educat= ion classes. As the reform docume= nts mentioned above stress the nexus between science and technology for science education, the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) takes = the next step in addressing standards for technological literacy in the Standards for Technological Literacy:<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Content for the Study of Technolog= y [Technology Content Standards]. This docu= ment defines what a student should know, and be able to do in order to be “technologically literate.”&nb= sp; Similar to Benchmarks (A= AAS, 1993), this document promotes the notion of technological literacy (which includes the introduction of basic engineering concepts), and sets objectiv= es for students in grades K-12 to achieve this goal targeting students who normally enroll in technology education classes. This comprehensive outline contain= s 20 content standards, and is the basis for technology education in most high schools. Unfortunately, these standards rarely transcend into mathematics and science curriculum. Although comprehensive, the ITEA C= ontent Standards have a narrow audience in public education, and are not employed = as extensively as it could as many academically-oriented students fail to take advantage of courses offered with a focus in technology education. As a result, many students fail to= learn the essence of technology with the end result being an inadequate understan= ding to be technically literate. S= ince most technology content has been taught traditionally in technology educati= on classes where the emphasis is vocational studies instead of academics, acad= emic students who take upper level science and mathematics classes often do not = take advantage of courses taught with the emphasis on technology. Perhaps due to this oversight, sci= ence educators often fail to introduce and incorporate engineering concepts and modes of technology in the context of science instruction. This inclusion could, in turn, lea= d to broader scientific understanding.
As science educators develop and revise their science curriculums, the inclusion of technology and engineering concepts, as recommended by these documents, cou= ld augment science curriculums. = We contend that the context of engineering and technology can enhance the way science is taught in the K-12 curriculum, and can not only bring relevance = and interest for the students, but can also promote both technical and scientif= ic literacy. It is this theoreti= cal framework that has set forth a foundation for this study.
Methodology
As a resul= t of our experiences in a NSF funded GK-12 project (NSF Project #DGE-0139307), the authors operationally defined technical literacy as the “ability of an individual to make informed decisions based upon an evolving understanding = of the fundamentals of modern technologies.” (Koehler, Faraclas, Sanchez, Latif & Kazerounian, 2005) As a means to achieve this goal, the Engineering Education Frameworks (EEF) was proposed as a pathway toward attaining technical literacy for high school students. The essence of this document was to facilitate, and promote the simultaneous teaching of multip= le science disciplines, while incorporating engineering concepts and designs, = thus developing a set of guidelines to address and promote technical literacy in secondary science programs. T= he content strands set forth in EEF are suggested as the context to teach scie= nce and engineering concepts simultaneously while promoting the notion of techn= ical literacy. Brown, Collins &= ; Duguid (1989) suggest that methods of teaching “using didactic education ass= umes a separation between knowing and doing, treating knowledge as an integral, self-sufficient substance, theoretically independent of the situations in w= hich it is learned and used (p. 32).”&nbs= p; Using this theoretical framework, the EEF addresses the contextual learning of both science content and engineering concepts, with the ultimate goal of technical and scientific literacy.= Within the context of EEF, we have defined four distinct content are= as and a set of engineering tools that can facilitate this endeavor. Briefly outlined below (Table 1) i= s a description of the content strands and tools necessary for the incorporatio= n of the EEF frameworks into existing science curricula.
Table 1:
Description
of the Engineering Education Frameworks (EEF)
|
Engineering
Education Frameworks =
(EEF) |
Description=
|
Type of Con=
tent |
|
Content Standard |
Describes engineering con= tent areas that can be taught simultaneously with disciplines of science |
· Information and Communication · Sources of Power and Energy · Transportation · Food & Medicine |
|
Engineering Tools |
Describes tools necessary= to teach engineering content strands |
· Engineering Paradigm (a systematic methodo= logy used in engineering) · Science & Mathematics · Social Sciences · Computer Tools |
In this st=
udy, we
extend the use of the EEF frameworks to a broader context asking the resear=
ch
question: How do state science
frameworks incorporate engineering concepts into their secondary science
curricula? Each state’s
current science framework was analyzed for disclosure of its engineering
content standards as defined in EEF.
By examining how much engineering is written into the science
frameworks, the extent of engineering theoretically being addressed in the =
high
schools was inferred. The pri=
mary
focus of this analysis was on secondary science education (grades 9-12) as =
this
was the targeted age group addressed in the EEF document. Forty-nine state science framework
documents (including the
This analy= sis was conducted by three graduate students at the University of Connecticut who w= ere funded by a National Science Foundation grant titled, da Vinci Ambassadors = in the Classroom – The Galileo Project (NSF Project #DGE-0139307). Each student’s educational background differed and each was pursuing a Ph.D. in different academic dis= ciplines thus bringing plurality of perspectives in the analysis. Two of the students were pursuing a Ph.D. in engineering (in the departments of mechanical and electrical engineering) and the third recently completed a Ph.D. in science education.= Each student performed an independ= ent and systematic analysis of each state science framework in order to characterize the extent to which EEF content standards were included in the= se documents. Twice a week during the fall 2005 semester, the three researchers met to discuss = 6-7 different state science frameworks and consensus among the researchers was reached as to the appropriate codes assigned. Constant comparative methodology w= as used to systematically examine and redefine variations on the codes (Patton, 2003). Triangulation of the d= ata using the “triangulating analysis’s approach” was a key component in this analysis. U= sing this approach, the independent analysis of graduate student was continually compared to the others, thus reducing the inherent bias, and ensuring valid= ity and inter-rater reliability. = A similar methodology was suggested by Swanson (2005) as one technique when comparing state science education standards with coding schematics which he conducted when exploring science standards and evolution concepts.
The object=
ive of
this analysis was to determine how closely each state science framework ali=
gned
with the EEF document. As the=
EEF
document defines technical literacy, and describes a means to achieve it for
high school students, the codes from EEF were u=
sed as
the framework for this analysis.
The EEF content standards codes are listed in Table 2. Suggestions to include additional =
codes
were made by other engineering fellows in the Galileo project after reviewi=
ng
the EEF document, and these suggestions were included in this analysis. These additional codes included:
Table 2:
EEF
Codes Used for Analyzing
|
EEF Code Name |
EEF Codes |
Description of EEF Code |
|
Power
& Energy |
PE |
Technology
associated with the acquisition, generation, distribution, and various us=
es
of power and energy. |
|
Information
& Communications |
IC |
Delivers
an understanding of how modern communications systems function from the
physical hardware to the theory of communication media as well as hands on
experience with various devices. |
|
Transportation |
TR |
From
physical infrastructure, to the machines responsible for delivery, the
technology behind the transportation of physical products is the cornerst=
one
of modern civilization |
|
Food
& Medicine |
FM |
This
covers the technology behind advances in modern medical diagnostic equipm=
ent
and treatments to the technology responsible for feeding a planet of bill=
ions
of people. |
|
Environmental |
EN |
Concepts
of environmental practices such as water treatment design, effects on the
environment |
|
Structural |
ST |
Concepts
relating to the design of physical structures such as buildings and bridg=
es
as well as micro and nano-scaled structures |
|
Manufacturing |
MN |
Concepts
of mass production, product machinability, material selection, product li=
fe,
metal forming, and cutting technology |
|
Problem
Solving |
PS |
A realm
of science used as the foundation of the PS/DM/EP continuum |
|
Decision
Making |
DM |
The
second tier in the PS/DM/EP continuum.&n=
bsp;
It is problem solving plus constraints applied and considered |
|
Engineering
Paradigm |
EP |
The top
tier of the PS/DM/EP continuum.
Includes PS as well as DM resulting in a product. |
|
Tools |
TL |
Engineering
tools that apply technology to develop simulations, computer modeling,
advanced mathematics, instrumentation, etc. |
|
Systems |
SY |
Concepts
of component need, component interaction, systems interaction, and
feedback. The interaction of
subcomponents to produce a functional system is a common lens used by all
engineering disciplines for understanding, analysis, and design. |
|
Socioeconomic |
STS |
Science,
Technology & Society, concepts relating to technological
advancement/hindrance with societal and economic factors. See explanation in results secti=
on of
this document |
|
Subcodes |
Eth, Ei |
Concepts
relating technological advancement/hindrance with ethical and environment=
al
issues |
Findings
Using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and codes defined by the EEF content standards, the findings indicate that there is a inconsistency in the incid= ence of engineering concepts present in each state science frameworks. To determ= ine the extent to which the EEF content standards were written into science curricula, two criteria were used; the depth of engineering content in the science frameworks, and breadth of engineering content in the science frameworks. It was assumed that no single EEF content standard code was more important than any other.
The depth of engineering content is de= fined as the total number of times each EEF code (Table 2) was identified in each strand of state science framework. The number of times each EEF code c= an be used in the depth category can vary. This value represents the idealized theory and technology behind engineering concepts built into the frameworks. This analysis also included the impact or influence that socioeconomics (STS codes) had on the frameworks. The inclusion and exclusion of this code is noted in the tables and figures in this analysis.=
The breadth of engineering content is
defined as the total number of EEF content standard codes found per state.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> As there are 13 EEF codes identifi=
ed,
each code would be identified only once. For example, consider a state that =
had a
total of 4 EEF codes identified: 3 standards that were categorized as EN (e=
ngineering
content standard code), and 1 categorized as STS. The value of the depth (exclusive of STS) for that state would be 3 or 4 if STS =
was
included; the value of the breadth<=
/i>
would be 2 (codes being EN and STS).
The analysis presented in Table 3 identifies and ranks each state by=
the
depth of engineering content (w=
ith
and without STS codes included) and the breath
of engineering content found. The rankings included DC and
excluded
Table 3:
State by State Analysis =
and Rank
Order of the Depth and Breadth of Engineering Content in State Science
Frameworks
|
|
Depth (w/o STS) |
|
|
|
Depth (with STS) |
|
|
|
Breadth |
|
|
|
Rank |
Values |
|
|
Rank |
Value |
|
|
Rank |
Value |
|
PA |
1 |
16 |
|
PA |
1 |
18 |
|
PA |
1 |
11 |
|
MA |
2 |
13 |
|
DE |
2 |
16 |
|
DE |
3 |
7 |
|
NY |
4 |
9 |
|
MA |
3 |
14 |
|
NY |
3 |
7 |
|
VT |
4 |
9 |
|
NY |
4 |
12 |
|
OH |
6 |
6 |
|
DE |
5 |
8 |
|
VT |
5 |
10 |
|
VT |
6 |
6 |
|
WV |
6 |
7 |
|
CT |
9 |
9 |
|
WV |
6 |
6 |
|
CT |
7 |
6 |
|
OH |
9 |
9 |
|
CT |
11 |
5 |
|
NH |
10 |
5 |
|
RI |
9 |
9 |
|
MA |
11 |
5 |
|
OH |
10 |
5 |
|
WV |
9 |
9 |
|
MD |
11 |
5 |
|
RI |
10 |
5 |
|
NH |
10 |
8 |
|
NH |
11 |
5 |
|
AK |
15 |
4 |
|
MD |
11 |
7 |
|
RI |
11 |
5 |
|
ME |
15 |
4 |
|
FL |
14 |
6 |
|
AK |
20 |
4 |
|
NJ |
15 |
4 |
|
IN |
14 |
6 |
|
IN |
20 |
4 |
|
TX |
15 |
4 |
|
TX |
14 |
6 |
|
ME |
20 |
4 |
|
WA |
15 |
4 |
|
AK |
20 |
5 |
|
MI |
20 |
4 |
|
ID |
18 |
3 |
|
ID |
20 |
5 |
|
MO |
20 |
4 |
|
MO |
18 |
3 |
|
MO |
20 |
5 |
|
ND |
20 |
4 |
|
NM |
18 |
3 |
|
NC |
20 |
5 |
|
NM |
20 |
4 |
|
IL |
24 |
2 |
|
NM |
20 |
5 |
|
SC |
20 |
4 |
|
KY |
24 |
2 |
|
WA |
20 |
5 |
|
WA |
20 |
4 |
|
LA |
24 |
2 |
|
AZ |
29 |
4 |
|
AZ |
29 |
3 |
|
MI |
24 |
2 |
|
IL |
29 |
4 |
|
ID |
29 |
3 |
|
ND |
24 |
2 |
|
KY |
29 |
4 |