Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

23Proposed Model for a Streamlined, Cohesive, andOptimized K-12 STEM Curriculum with a Focus onEngineeringEdward Locke

AbstractThis article presents a proposed model for a

clear description of K-12 age-possible engineer-ing knowledge content, in terms of the selectionof analytic principles and predictive skills forvarious grades, based on the mastery of mathe-matics and science pre-requisites, as mandatedby national or state performance standards; anda streamlined, cohesive, and optimized K-12engineering curriculum, in terms of a continu-ous educational process that starts at kinder-garten and/or elementary schools, intensifies atmiddle schools, differentiates at high schoolsand streamlines into four-year universitiesthrough two-year community colleges, integrat-ing solid mastery of particular analytic skillsand generic engineering design processes. Thisarticle is based upon a “Vision Paper” that waspresented at the International TechnologyEducation Association’s 71st Annual Conferenceheld in Louisville, Kentucky under the sponsor-ship of Dr. John Mativo, from the University ofGeorgia. It is hoped that many ideas explored inthis article could provide answers to the prob-lems in the current practice of K-12 engineeringeducation, as discussed in the authoritativereport issued several months later, on September8, 2009, by the Committee on K-12 EngineeringEducation established by the National Academyof Engineering and the National ResearchCouncil, titled Engineering in K-12 Education:Understanding the Status and Improving theProspects, which included the absence of cohe-sive K-12 engineering curriculum and the lackof well-developed standards.

IntroductionIn the last decade, it has been perceived by

scholars and administrators involved with K-12STEM education as well as concerned businessleaders that the shortage of engineering gradu-ates from U.S. colleges must be resolved. Infact, the numbers of engineering degrees award-ed over the last 20 years by U. S. universitieswas quite small. The National ScienceFoundation Statistics (2008) indicated that, inthe years 1985 - 2005, the number of earnedbachelor’s degrees ranged from approximately60,000 to 80,000; the number of earned master’sdegrees ranged from approximately 20,000 to

34,000; and the number of earned doctoratedegrees ranged from approximately 3,700 to6,000. Wicklein (2006, p. 29) indicated that inthe United States, “currently, engineering educa-tion has close to a 50% attrition rate for stu-dents. […] Georgia currently seeks 50% of theengineering workforce from out-of-statesources.” In an effort to solve this problem, K-12 schools across the United States havebegun to incorporate engineering design intotechnology education curriculum. Hill (2006)indicated that “initiatives to integrate engineer-ing design within the field of technology educa-tion are increasingly evident.” Smith (2007, pp.2-3) affirmed the achievements made so farthroughout U.S. high schools by noting, “theintegration of engineering design into secondarytechnology education classes,” but also indicatedthat the “fragmented focus and lack of a clearcurriculum framework” had been “detrimental tothe potential of the field and have hinderedefforts aimed at achieving the stated goals oftechnological literacy for all students.” Anauthoritative report issued on September 8,2009, by the Committee on K-12 EngineeringEducation established by the National Academyof Engineering and the National ResearchCouncil, titled Engineering in K-12 Education:Understanding the Status and Improving theProspects, confirmed the existence of similarproblems in the current K-12 engineering cur-riculum. To be more specific, the most seriousproblems in K-12 engineering educationexplored in the report by the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education (2009) include (a)absence of cohesive K-12 engineering curricu-lum (“Engineering design, the central activity of engineering, is predominant in most K-12curricular and professional development pro-grams. The treatment of key ideas in engineer-ing, many closely related to engineering design,is much more uneven;” pp. 7-8; p. 151); and (b)lack of well developed standards (“the teachingof engineering in elementary and secondaryschools is still very much a work in progress . . .no national or state-level assessments of studentaccomplishment have been developed;” p. 2).

During the International TechnologyEducation Association’s 71st Annual

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

24

Conference, and under the sponsorship of Dr.John Mativo, from the University of Georgia,this author presented a proposed model for:

• A Clear Description of K-12 Age-Appropriate Engineering KnowledgeContent: Selection of K-12 age-appropri-ate engineering analytic principles andpredictive skills for various grade levelsshould be based on the mastery of mathe-matics and science (notably physics andchemistry) prerequisites, as mandated bynational or state performance standards forprevious or same grade levels.

• A Streamlined, Cohesive, and OptimizedK-12 Engineering Curriculum: A cohesiveand continuous educational process thatstarts at kindergarten and elementary

schools, intensifies at middle schools, dif-ferentiates at high schools, and streamlinesinto four-year universities through two-year community colleges could be a solu-tion to various problems in U. S. engineer-ing education. This principle of streamlin-ing could also apply to various fields ofSTEM (see Figures 1 and 2). The opti-mization of K-12 engineering educationcould be achieved through (a) the integra-tion of particular analytic and predictiveprinciples and skills, with different modesof generic engineering design process,both transferable to collegiate engineering

studies and (b) the integration of tradition-al formula-based analytic computationsand physical laboratory experiments withmodern digital simulation technology. Theproposed curriculum is intended to seam-lessly link K-12 engineering and technolo-gy curricula to university engineering pro-grams, by making engineering knowledgecontent learned at K-12 schools transfer-able to engineering courses taught at theuniversity level; this is the “missing E”(engineering) that has been neglected byexisting models of K-12 STEM curricula.

This proposed model might contribute tothe solution of the problems described in thereport by the Committee on K-12 EngineeringEducation (2009).

Proposed Model for a Clear Description of K-12 Age-Appropriate Engineering Knowledge Content

The key to understanding how to scientifi-cally, rationally, and effectively infuse engineer-ing analytic content knowledge and the designprocess into K-12 curriculum can be related tothe understanding of the following four basictypes of relations:

(1) Relations among mathematics, science,engineering, and technology: Mathematics provides computational tools for the predictiveanalysis in sciences, engineering, and technolo-gy; it is the primary gatekeeper for the inclusion

Figure 1. A streamlined vision for a life-long STEM education.

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

25

or noninclusion of any science, engineering, ortechnology topic into any course taught at anygrade level. Sciences (physics, chemistry, biology,etc.) are concerned with discovery and delivery of knowledge, and they form the foundation for engineering and technology; additionally,sciences (notably physics and chemistry) consti-tute the secondary gatekeeping determinants.Engineers apply knowledge gained through thescientific process in the creative design of prod-ucts and systems to be used in solving everydayproblems, and they are the vital link in theSTEM system that transforms “pure” knowledgeinto usable and financially profitable assets(products and systems), through the process ofinnovation. Technology is the skills of applying,maintaining, and arranging products and sys-tems in the solution of daily problems. Based onthis understanding, the selection of engineeringtopics for any grade level must be based on theprior mastery of prerequisite principles andskills in mathematics and science courses.

(2) Relations between specific engineeringanalytic knowledge content and the genericengineering design process: Mastery of a suffi-cient amount of specific analytic knowledgecontent (principles, concepts, computationalskills using formulas or simulation software, as

well as experimental and research methods) con-stitutes the foundation for meaningful engineer-ing design; in contrast, engineering design givesstudents an opportunity to synthesize knowledgeand skills gained from various branches of engi-neering into workable solutions that help createand maintain usable products and systems.Based on this understanding, the inclusion ofengineering as a meaningful K-12 subject mustbe based on an appropriate balance betweeninstruction of specific engineering analyticknowledge content and the inculcation of theability of using engineering design processes.

(3) Relations between different modes ofdesign and different stages of K-12 students’cognitive developmental level: Design processescould include different modes.

• Creative and Conceptual Design:Examples of this mode include conceptu-al imagination, ideation for simple prod-uct and tools (e.g., everyday items, suchas shopping bags, benches, chairs, tables).Kindergarten and elementary school stu-dents are good at wild imagination withlittle training, but at this age they are justbeginning to learn basic mathematics andsciences; thus, this mode could be used inGrades K-5.

Figure 2. A streamlined model for STEM education.

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

26

• Technology Education Design: This modeof design is based on “trial-and-error” or“hypothesis-and-testing” experiments; and it is an important method of scientificinquiry. An example of this mode couldbe the design, fabrication, and testing of composite materials, based on a rationalhypothesis and its proof or disproofthrough experiments. This mode could be used in Grades 6-8.

• Analytic Reduction: This mode is good for solving well-structured, simple, andusually closed-ended engineering designproblems (e.g., designing a gear set thatchanges speed and direction of rotationalmotions) that are focused on scientific and technological issues. It is suitable forstand-alone engineering foundation orspecialty courses that deal with particularsets of knowledge content. This modecould be used in Grades 9-11.

• Systems Thinking: This mode of design isgood for solving ill-structured, open-ended, and complex engineering designproblems, which involve not only manybranches of science and engineering, butalso social studies (culture and econom-ics), ecology and arts. It generally couldlead to multiple results that satisfy theoriginal design requirements. This is themost frequently used mode in real-worldengineering design practice. Examples ofthis mode include senior-year design proj-ects in any typical university undergradu-ate engineering program. This modewould be most suitable for Grade 12 orgraduation year “capstone” design cours-es, and it could be used for extracurricu-lar interdisciplinary design projectsthroughout Grades K-12.

Engaging K-12 students in the designprocess is feasible. Previous research conductedby Fleer (2000) and funded by the University ofCanberra and the Curriculum Corporation ofAustralia for the development of a technologycurriculum concluded that children as young as3 to 5 years of age can engage in oral and visualplanning as part of the process of making thingsfrom materials; their planning involved the useof lists and designs of what they intended tomake. Claxton, Pannells, and Rhoads (2005)indicated that the level of developmental maturityoccurred around 5 to 6 years of age; that a

creative peak occurred at 10 to 11 years old; andthat “after age 12, a gradual but steady rise increativity occurred through the rest of adoles-cence until a second peak was reached around16 years of age” (p. 328).

(4) Relations between kindergarten/elemen-tary education and secondary education:Throughout the Grades K-6, students barelylearn the basics of STEM, English language,and other mandated subjects; they have a verylimited set of mathematics skills to carry outengineering analysis and prediction-related com-putations; thus, an integrative STEM approachin general science courses, with broad exposureto a variety of science, engineering, and technol-ogy subjects, would be very age-appropriate. At the secondary level, students either havemastered or are in the process of mastering morein-depth and specialized mathematics skills(algebra, geometry, trigonometry), and they havemastered basic scientific principles that areneeded for understanding engineering analyticprinciples; thus, more extensive engineeringstudies could be implemented; here, depth andspecialty should be emphasized.

Method for the Selection of K-12 Age-AppropriateAnalytic Principles and Skills

Up to this date, “hard-core” engineering content from various subjects, such as statics,dynamics, and fluid mechanics, are generallynot systematically taught until students enroll in university undergraduate courses; however,textbooks used in these courses could be ana-lyzed to determine the mathematics and science(notably physics and chemistry) prerequisites for various topics covered therein. Topics whoseprerequisites are covered at various K-12 gradelevels could be selected for pedagogic experi-ments at higher grade levels, to determine theirage-appropriateness. This author’s research onhigh school age-appropriate statics and fluidmechanics topics, during Spring 2009, at theUniversity of Georgia, incorporated the following steps:

(1) Select textbooks and instructor solutionmanuals that are among the most popu-lar for undergraduate engineering staticsand fluid mechanics courses;

(2) Read carefully every paragraph in thebody text to find and record the prereq-uisite science knowledge content neededfor each topic (notably physics andchemistry);

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

27

(3) Find the relevant computational formulas to determine and record themathematics skills needed; and

(4) Compare the recorded data with the mandates of the Performance Standardsfor Mathematics and Sciences of theDepartment of Education of a selectedstate, to determine the grade level forthe inclusion of the topic.

This previous research indicated that, usingthe mandates of the Performance Standards forMathematics and Sciences of one of the “low-performing” states in the United States, around50% of all topics in the textbooks used in under-graduate statics and fluid mechanics courses arebased on precalculus mathematics skills and onscientific principles that are covered prior to 9thgrade, and therefore, could be taught to 9thGrade high school students. For other founda-tion engineering courses common to all under-graduate programs, such as dynamics, strengthof materials and material science, heat transfer,thermodynamics, engineering economics, andaerodynamics, the percentage figure rangesfrom 30% to 50% based on this author’s roughestimates using similar standards.

Even though high school students couldlearn engineering topics, this does not automati-cally mean that they would have enough energyto proceed. Due to many factors, K-12 schedulesare crowded with many mandated subjects; andthe academic resources for implementing engi-neering curriculum are rather limited. Thus,realistically only the most important engineeringanalytic content knowledge can be attempted tobe infused in the curriculum. Expert opinions ofthe relative importance of various topics can becollected, possibly through a five-point Likertscale, four-round Delphi survey. This surveycould be used to determine the relative impor-tance of various engineering analytic principlesand computational skills for inclusion into apotentially viable K-12 engineering curriculumand eventually to establish a set of national orstate K-12 engineering performance standards.

Proposed Model for a Streamlined, Cohesive, andOptimized K-12 Engineering Curriculum

Based on the above mechanism for the development of a clear description of K-12 age-appropriate engineering knowledge content,in this article the author proposes a new modelfor a streamlined, cohesive, logical, and

optimized K-12 Engineering Curriculum, whichcould also be used as a general model forSTEM, including mathematics and sciences(Figures 1 and 2). This new model could providea workable framework for organizing andsequencing the essential knowledge and skills tobe developed through K-12 engineering educa-tion in a rigorous or systematic way, making thefuture K-12 Engineering curriculum optimallyconnected to college-level engineering programsand to real world practice, and eventually lead tothe establishment of formal national and statelearning standards or guidelines on K-12Engineering Education.

The Proposed Model would include twocomponents: a Regular Curriculum (Table 1) for all students enrolled in K-12 EngineeringCurriculum or “Career Pathways,” and anExtracurricular Enrichment Program for selectedgroups of students.

First Component - Regular Curriculum

Lewis (2007) indicated that, “to becomemore entrenched in schools, engineering educa-tion will have to take on the features of a schoolsubject and argued in terms of what is good forchildren” (p. 846). In addition, Lewis (2007)discussed the need to (a) establish a “codifiedbody of knowledge that can be ordered andarticulated across the grades” with focusedattempt to systematize the state of the art inengineering in a way that is translatable inschools (instead of short term efforts focused on a particular topic or unit) and (b) make engi-neering education a coherent system with thecreation of content standards for the subjectarea, in line with science and technology education (pp. 846-848).

As shown in Table 1, the Regular Curriculumis designed for all students who are interested inSTEM Career Pathways and could be adequatelytrained in basic mathematics skills; it is aimed atimplementing engineering design process step-by-step, progressing from simple to complex,from easy to difficult, from broad to deep, fromgeneric to special, in an incremental, logical, sys-tematic, and cohesive sequence. This is based onage-appropriateness, with a deep respect for time-proven traditional pedagogy while incorporatingthe positive achievements of the recent decade ininstructional technology, especially in terms ofdigital modeling and simulation technology. This curriculum is divided into several stages, eachcorresponding to the infusion of engineering

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

28

design into a period of K-12 education: (a)kindergarten and elementary schools; (b) middleschools; (c) high schools; and (d) graduationyear.

At Grades K-5 (kindergarten to elementaryschools): All students would be introduced toscience, engineering, and technology, while theybuilt a solid foundation in mathematics.

Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-11 Grade 12(Kindergarten & (Middle School) (High School) (High School

Elementary School) For all students, For all Engineering Graduation Year)For all students especially the STEM- Pathway students For all Engineering

oriented ones Pathway students

Knowledge Content (Course Works)

STEM Courses (2 courses;

throughout Grades K-5):

1st Course (Grades K-5) -Mathematics.

2nd Course (Grades K-5) -Integrated Science, Engineering and Technology:

• General Principles of Science, Engineering and Technology;

• Diverse Topics in Science, Engineering and Technology;

• Ecologically Sustainable Application of Science, Engineering and Technology.

• Careers & Ethics in Science, Engineering and Technology.

Mode of Design ProcessCreative, Conceptual and Engineering & Technology Analytic Reduction” for Ill-structured and light analytic (assignments). Experiment (assignments). “Well-structured problems Systems Thinking”

(“Mini Capstone” or final (“Capstone” graduationdesign or research project project)for each course)

Mathematics & Science(2 courses; throughoutGrades 6-8).

Technology (8 Subjectsorganized into 4 Full YearCourses; 1 Course perGrade/Year):

1st Course (Grade 6) -Product Design &Manufacturing:• Engineering Drafting,

Solid Modeling &Product Design;

• ManufacturingSystems.

2nd Course (Grade 7, anextension to Grade 6Science Course) -Humans & Environment:

• Power & Energy; • Construction Systems.

3rd Course (Grade 8) -Technology Aesthetics & Ergonomics:

• Digital GraphicsDesign & ProductAesthetics;

• Ergonomics, Safety & AppropriateTechnologyDevelopment.

4th Course (Grade 8, to betaught as a part of ScienceCourse) - Electronics &Control Technology:

• Electrical CircuitryDesign, ComponentSelection & DigitalSimulation;

• Robotics Assembly &Programming.

Mathematics & Sciences (2 courses; throughoutGrades 9-11. For Sciences,Physics and Chemistry aremandatory).

Engineering Foundation(Several Subjects organizedinto 3 Courses; 1 Courseper Semester):

1st Course (Grade 9, 1stSemester) - EngineeringMechanics I:• Statics & Dynamics;

2nd Course (Grade 9, 2ndSemester) - EngineeringMechanics II:• Fluid Mechanics &

Aerodynamics;• Heat Transfer &

Thermodynamics.

3rd Course (Grade 10, 1stSemester) - EngineeringMaterials:• Strength of Materials;• Materials Properties,

Treatment & Selection.

Engineering Pathway (3courses; 1/semester; 2ndSemester of Grade 10, 1st and 2nd Semester ofGrade 11).

Note: For non-EngineeringPathways (Science,Technology and mathemat-ics), the Foundation andPathway courses would bedifferent.

Design “Capstone” (2Courses at Grades 12).1st Course (Grade 12, 1stSemester) - EngineeringDesign Capstone I:

• Mini Lesson: Engineering Economics, and other topics relevant to thedesign project;

• Design activities (teamwork).

2nd Course (Grade 12, 2nd Semester) -Engineering DesignCapstone II:

• Design activities (teamwork).

• Prototyping activities(teamwork).

Note: For non-EngineeringPathways (Science,Technology and mathematics), the Design“Capstone” courses would be changed to Research orManufacturing “Capstone.”

Table 1. Regular K-12 Engineering Curriculum Flow Chart

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

29

Students would be given an opportunity to: (a)have a broad exposure to diverse aspects of science, engineering and technology (the“breadth”); (b) foster ability of creative imagina-tion (the “wild”); and (c) foster a systemic andholistic view of technological systems as inter-active and interconnected. Students would mas-ter similar knowledge content that is traditional-ly required of college engineering and technolo-gy students in the following courses:Introduction to Science, Engineering andTechnology; Engineering Ethics; andAppropriate Engineering and Technology. Thisstage would be similar to what many of U.S. K-12 schools have practiced during the pastdecade. Minimal modifications would be maderegarding infusing age-appropriate engineeringknowledge content through contextual, hands-on, and creative design activities.

At Grades 6-8 (middle schools): Coursesincluded in this stage should be made availableto all students and taken by all STEM-orientedstudents. During this stage, all students wouldconsolidate their mathematics and science foun-dation and explore the basics of traditional andmodern technology with more specialized andstand-alone courses. Students would master thefundamentals of modern technology that areassociated with engineering (e.g., CAD and 3Dmodeling, traditional and CNC manufacturingprocess, and others). This coursework wouldprepare them for a lifelong career related toSTEM. For non-STEM-oriented students, tech-nology courses included in this part of theProposed Model could still help them to gainpractical skills with lifelong benefits. The mathematics and science portions of this part ofthe Proposed Model would still be similar towhat most of U.S. schools have practiced in thepast, except that the content knowledge wouldbe more specialized and intensive, includingsome relevant engineering topics, either as“word problems” or as mini research projects. In addition, specialized and intensive engineer-ing-related technology courses would be offered.

At Grades 9-11 (high schools): Selectivecourses included in this stage should be taken by students enrolled in separate STEM CareerPathways; as shown in Figure 2, these CareerPathways could be any branches of science(biology, chemistry, physics, etc.), technology(CAD, manufacturing, product design, etc.),engineering (mechanical, civil, electrical andelectronics, etc.), depending on changing

national and local needs. During this stage, students would be branched out to differentSTEM “Career Pathways” of their choice, take a sequence of precalculus based, well-connected,and specialized courses. The specialized STEM“Career Pathways” would directly streamlinestudents into relevant STEM majors at collegesor universities through cross-institutional trans-fer and/or articulation agreements, which mightinclude dual high school and college credits (fortechnology courses such as engineering draftingand CAD/CAM) and the High SchoolCertificate Examination in a particular area ofSTEM, for the completion of certain courses(such as Introduction to Science, Engineering,and Technology, Engineering Ethics,Appropriate Technology, etc.) or their precalcu-lus portions. In the future, special examinationsmodeled after Fundamentals of Engineering(FE) could be designed to test the abilities ofhigh school graduates to solve precalculus-levelengineering problems. For students who passthese examinations, special accommodationscould be granted (e.g., they would still beenrolled in undergraduate engineering courses tocontinue studying relevant topics beyond theprecalculus portions they have learned at highschools, but they could be exempt from specifichomework and quizzes related to precalculusportions, allowing them to devote their time tocalculus-based course materials and to engineer-ing design and research projects.

At Grade 12 (high school graduation year):The mathematics and science portions of thispart of the Proposed Model would still be simi-lar to what most U.S. schools have practicedduring the past decade, leading to graduationfrom high school and entry into college educa-tion. In the last year of K-12 education, studentsenrolled in STEM “Career Pathways” wouldspend two semesters in a research or design“Capstone” project to demonstrate their abilityto synthesize the knowledge content from vari-ous courses taken previously and to solve anopen-ended real-world problem with reasonablecomplexity, in a “System Thinking” mode. Thisproject could constitute the masterpiece of thestudents’ academic portfolio. The instructorswould advise, guide, and evaluate students, andthey would teach additional topics relevant tothe “Capstone” projects.

Core engineering concepts “go beyond toolskills… and beyond the digital skills that havecaptured the interest of the profession over the

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

30

past two decades. Tools will change but evenmore important is the cognitive content andintellectual processes fundamental to effectivetechnological problem solving and literacy”(Sanders, 2008, p. 6). The idea of a precalculusbut “hard-core” high school engineering curricu-lum, the centerpiece of the Proposed Model isfeasible. Most basic scientific principles andanalytic skills related to engineering design thatpractical engineers work with on a regular basisare based on precalculus mathematics(trigonometry, algebra, geometry, and functions)with some needs for beginning calculus (integra-tion and differentiation) and substantial needsfor linear algebra. Traditionally, “hard-core”engineering topics are taught in lower divisioncourses of undergraduate engineering programs.However, because precalculus mathematic isoffered in most U.S. high schools, there is a rea-sonable possibility that some portions of tradi-tional college-level engineering content knowl-edge could be downloaded to high school stu-dents, in order to streamline their pathway toengineering careers. Therefore, it is feasible todevelop and implement a high school engineer-ing curriculum that could be seamlesslyconnected to college engineering programs.

The Proposed Model for K-12 EngineeringCurriculum is designed to solve the problem ofthe chronic shortage of engineering graduates inthe United States, by offering K-12 students abetter preparation for college-level engineering

majors; it can selectively teach high school stu-dents appropriate engineering knowledge con-tent (the “precalculus portions”), which up tothis point, remain the domain of universityundergraduate engineering programs. Adoptingthis model could allow high school graduatesfrom engineering and technology curricula tohave mastered a sufficient amount of engineer-ing analytical skills that are transferable toundergraduate engineering courses, so theycould spend a few weeks reviewing the “precal-culus portions” of the course materials and thenconcentrate on the more difficult calculus-basedportions. This would (a) give academically chal-lenged high school students a better chance topursue engineering studies as “early birds” and thus increase the enrollment of domesticstudents in undergraduate engineering majors;(b) give U.S. undergraduate engineering studentsthe same “early bird” advantage over those inmany other countries; and (c) give college engi-neering professors a better way to managecourse schedules. The students would be moreadequately prepared to handle, the coursework,and this should improve the quality of under-graduate engineering education and reduce thedropout rate.

Second Component - Extracurricular EnrichmentProgram

The Extracurricular Enrichment Programcould be operated in two formats.

Table 2. Commonly Shared Undergraduate Lower-Division EngineeringFoundation Courses Among Various Engineering Programs at the University ofGeorgia, Based on Data from Undergraduate Engineering Program Handouts(Available from Room 120, Driftmier Engineering Center, Athens, Georgia 30602).

University ofGeorgia

EngineeringProgram

University of Georgia Engineering Foundation Courses

ENGR2120

Statics

ENGR1120

Graphics& Design

ENGR2130

Dynamics

ENGR2140

Strengthof

Materials

ENGRFluid

Mechanics

ENGR3140

Thermo-dynamics

ENGR3150Heat

Transfer

ENGR2920

ElectricalCircuits

ENGR2110

EngineeringDecisionMaking

B.S. in Agricultural EngineeringElectrical &Electronic SystemsMechanicalSystemsNatural ResourceManagementStructural SystemsProcess OperationsB. S. in Biological EngineeringEnvironmentalArea of EmphasisBiochemicalArea of EmphasisBiomedical Area of Emphasis• Biomechanics Track• Instrmentation Track

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

31

Infusing Engineering Topics Into K-12 Mathematicsand Science Courses.

In addition to teaching engineering analysisand design through special Career Pathwaycourses, suitable engineering content could beincorporated into regular middle school andhigh school mathematics, chemistry, and physicscourses, as extra teaching materials, word prob-lems, and simple design projects. For example,in a geometry course, the engineering applica-tion of the triangular shapes could be explainedto students, such as a triangle is “indestructible,”unless the side lengths are changed, the shapewould stay intact. In addition, triangular mem-bers are widely used in structural design; bridgedesign projects could be incorporated, withlearning materials from the Internet, to study thesubject of force equilibrium, to simulate bridgedesign with West Point Bridge Design software(http://bridgecontest.usma.edu/), and to build ascale model. Moreover, because triangles haveone straight edge opposite a sharp corner, theycan accommodate different shapes in three-dimensional space and are used in the develop-ment of irregular or curved surfaces; thus, sometopics of engineering sheet-metal design couldbe taught, giving the students an opportunity todesign a transition piece, as shown in Figure 3.In a chemistry course, subjects of material selec-tions could be incorporated. Other appropriateengineering topics could be identified by engi-neering and technology faculty and graduatestudents using well-established criteria, andgradually added to regular K-12 mathematics,physics, and chemistry courses as extra learningmaterials, through a process of pilot study orother mechanism of pedagogic experiment. Thisapproach is simple, easy to implement, and vir-tually risk-free. It would not likely cause anydisturbance to routine K-12 mathematics andscience instruction.

Interdisciplinary Design Projects

Engineering design projects involvingknowledge and skills from a variety of subjectscould be implemented through after-school clubactivities or through training sessions duringsummer vacations. Such enrichment programscould provide students enrolled in STEM path-ways an opportunity to (a) review previouslylearned scientific principles and skills whilelearning new ones that are relevant to the designprojects; (b) integrate principles and skills fromvarious STEM subjects and non-STEM subjects(e.g., social study, arts.), into practical design

solutions; and (c) foster the ability to combineboth “analytic reduction” and “system thinking”modes of the engineering design process, forsolving real-world problems in a real-worldmanner. Mativo and Sirinterlikci (2005) devel-oped an “animatronics” design project for stu-dent (Grades 7-12) It included an open-endedand creative project for the design of lifelikeentertainment robots or dynamic and interactiveanimated toys with a mechatronic blob, penguin,robotic trash can, and a human-monster hybrid.These could cruise, wave swords, flip wings,and light eyes, in fun and creative team environ-ments. They combined analytic and design skillsfrom the following different but interconnectedfields: (a) mechanical engineering (material andmanufacturing process selection, including met-als, ceramics, plastics and composites; mecha-nism design and assembly of levers and cranks,etc.); (b) electronics (actuators, sensors, con-trols); (c) microcontrollers’ structure and pro-gramming; (d) emerging technologies, such asmuscle wires, air muscles, micro- and nanocon-trollers; (e) two- and three-dimensional art (cos-tuming from fabrics to rubber Latex, and model-ing), and (f) industrial product design. Theimplementation of this project indicated that stu-dents’ academic performance improved throughinterdisciplinary engineering design activities.See figure 4. In summary, in addition to aRegular Curriculum, an ExtracurricularEnrichment Program would be an effective supplement to help consolidate students’mastery of fundamental knowledge and creativedesign ability.

Potentially Realistic Students’ Learning Outcomes

For students enrolled in K-12 EngineeringCurriculum, when they graduate from high

Figure 3. Examples of circle-to-squaretransition pieces (sheet-metal connector and restaurant take-homefood container).

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

32

schools, they could realistically be expected tohave (a) built a solid foundation in precalculusmathematics and sciences; (b) learned the basicsof engineering-related industrial arts and digitalmodeling and simulation technology; (c) mas-tered a sufficiently large portion of precalculus-based engineering analytic principles and pre-dictive computational skills; and (d) becomefamiliar with various modes of the engineeringdesign process. These potentially realistic learn-ing outcomes could give these students the free-dom to choose any of the following:

(1) Enrollment in college engineering programs as full-time students with asolid mastery of the precalculus-basedportions of foundation courses as wellas practical engineering design andresearch skills; or

(2) Entry into job market as technicalemployees, such as CAD drafters withsome entry-level ability to design simple products (e.g., furniture, tools,toys with electronic devices and kitchenappliances with simple circuitry andmechanical components), whileenrolling as part-time students in engineering and technology programs,including two-year technical certificateor four-year bachelor of sciencedegrees; or

(3) Enrollment in non-engineering universityundergraduate majors (e.g., science andmathematics) with useful abilities andskills for lifelong career enhancement;

for example, a future scientist or mathematicians would be able to designand prototype devices to facilitateexperiments or teaching.

Notice that the aforementioned choices aresimply convenient suggestions, and by no meansdo they constitute any intended idea about “academic tracking.” If the Proposed Model were adequately implemented, then all studentsenrolled in K-12 STEM Career Pathways ( alltypes of achievers), could be better prepared for a science or engineering major at the collegelevel. Therefore, the Proposed Model should beconsidered as an egalitarian (although upwardmobile and flexible) model that promotes equalpreparation for college engineering majors froman academic perspective; it would be up to thestudents to choose their Career Pathways. Theultimate purpose of the Proposed Model is toeducate new generations of innovative engineersor professionals in other fields. This could beaccomplished by launching K-12 students earlyinto engineering studies, so that they could fosteranalytic and innovative capacities early in life.Modern engineering education is more compli-cated than ever before, due to the explosion ofnew knowledge and technologies, especiallythose related to digital modeling and simulation.In addition, traditional engineering education has been somehow challenging to students due to heavy requirements on calculus-based mathe-matics, physics, and engineering course work.Therefore, engaging students early in theEngineering Career Pathways would make sense.It is not this author’s expectation for K-12 stu-dents to become instantaneous robotic designers

Figure 4. Sirinterlikci and Mativo’s Animatronics project helped studentsimprove STEM learning through inclusion of engineering design (Mativo &Sirinterlikci, 2005a).

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

33

or spacecraft engineers (although the highestacademic achievers among them should be givenadequate preparation for careers of vital nationalinterests). This is generally beyond their cogni-tive maturity (except in some high-achievingcommunities where economic and educationalconditions might magically allow this to hap-pen); instead, we should aim at matching K-12engineering and technology education with thecognitive maturity level of average K-12 stu-dents. Taking the Mechanical Engineering CareerPathway as an example, they could be expectedto graduate from the program with some creativeabilities and analytic skills to design and proto-type everyday products or systems, with simplemechanical and electronic components (either oftheir own design or from out-of-shelf selection),which are professionally ready for production orinstallation; and these could include toys, uten-sils, furniture, clothing, and fastening devices.This might be doable for average high schoolgraduates. But they should not be expected todesign robots except the very simple ones usingout-of-shelf components. Expecting too muchfrom K-12 students without a reasonable chanceto succeed would not be the best way to preparethem for a brilliant engineering career. This lineof thinking is compatible with the “everydaytechnology” idea of broadly defining “the termtechnology to include the artifacts of everydaylife as well as environments and systems,” of“focusing on the technologies of everyday life,”and of allowing children to “solve problems ofreal significance in their lives,” which have beenexplained by Benenson (2001, pp. 730-732), inpresenting his 10-year long City Technologyproject.

Potential Benefits of the Proposed Model

The Proposed Model’s most importantpotential benefit is the symbiotic integration ofspecific engineering analytic knowledge contentwith various modes of generic engineeringdesign process, for it is self-evident that withoutteaching K-12 students particular age-appropri-ate engineering analytic and predictive knowl-edge content, they could not build a solid foun-dation of knowledge and skills for further studyof engineering at college level. Also, withoutgiving such students opportunities to practiceage-appropriate engineering design, they wouldnot be able to synthesize various sets of knowl-edge and skills into practical solutions of real-world problems and to form appropriate engineering thinking habits. The aim of infusingengineering analytic and predictive principles

and computational skills into a potentially viableK-12 engineering curriculum is NOT to makestudents instruments of computations, or toencourage rote memorization of engineeringanalytic principles and computational formulas,or their applications in solving a few simplehomework problems in the purely “AnalyticReduction” model (although all of the above arenecessary tasks); however the aim is to foster thereal ability of solving real-world problems,which involve integration of engineering analyticprinciples. It also involves, of course, computa-tional formulas, from various subjects, as wellas knowledge from art, social and ecologicalstudies, and others, into a “system thinking”model of holistic problem solving. This focus onsolving problems could foster students’ real abil-ity in innovative engineering design that is basedon solid mastery of necessary analytic tools.This would allow them to use the generic engi-neering design approach to create real-worldquality products and systems, which are appro-priate to their age, technically feasible, andsocially and ecologically appropriate.

ConclusionsThis article has provided a workable frame-

work for defining K-12 age-appropriate engi-neering knowledge content and an outline for anew paradigm for a streamlined, cohesive, andoptimized lifelong STEM education in theUnited States, with a focus in engineering. Foradditional details of the Proposed Model, pleasecontact the author at edwardnlocke@yahoo.com.In order to improve K-12 engineering education,the following recommendations and plans arehereby presented for consideration, support, andimplementation:

1. Organization: Establish a network ofstakeholders, to include, (a) governmentofficers in charge of K-12 STEM educa-tion at Federal and state levels, (b) lead-ers of National Centers for Engineeringand Technology Education and otherinstitutions of authority in K-12 engi-neering education, (c) scholars in thefields of engineering and technologyeducation from universities and researchinstitutions, (d) school district adminis-trators and engineering and technologyteachers, (e) representatives from thebusiness community and nonprofitorganizations, and (f) university engineering students. This network could offer stakeholders an opportunity

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

34

References

Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 730-745

Claxton, A. F., Pannells, T. C., & Rhoads, P. A. (2005). Developmental trends in the creativity ofschool age children. Creativity Research Journal, 17 (4), 327-335.

Committee on K-12 Engineering Education (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understandingthe status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering and theNational Research Council.

Fleer, M. (2000). Working technologically: Investigations into how young children design and makeduring technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 43-59.

Hill, R. B. (2006). New perspectives: Technology teacher education and engineering design. Journalof Industrial Teacher Education, 43 (3), Retrieved February 2, 2009, fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v43n3/hill.html

Lewis, T. (2007). Engineering education in schools. International Journal of Engineering Education,23(5), 843-852.

Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005a). AC 2007-730: Innovative exposure to engineering basicsthrough mechatronics summer honors program for high school students. Retrieved January 30,2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html

Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005b). Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for EngineeringEducation Annual Conference & Exposition: A Cross-disciplinary study via animatronics. RetrievedJanuary 30, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html

to discuss specific policies, measures,actions to be taken for the solution ofproblems listed in the report by theCommittee on K-12 EngineeringEducation (2009). It could also offerthem criticism and advice regarding theimprovement of the model of the K-12Engineering Curriculum proposed in thisarticle, so that it could eventuallybecome a collective proposal acceptedby all or most of the stakeholders.

2. Research: Continue research on definingK-12 age-appropriate engineeringknowledge content from the followingsubjects: dynamics, strength of materials,material science, heat transfer, thermody-namics, engineering economics, aerody-namics, and mechanism design; this willlead to the eventual publication of TheHandbook of Proposed EngineeringTopics with Analytic Principles,Computational Formulas and Units forK-12 Schools (with Reviews forMathematics and Sciences). Thisresearch constitutes the most important

prerequisite for the implementation ofthe K-12 Engineering Curriculum proposed in this article. It would be animportant reference for the developmentof K-12 engineering teaching materialsand the improvement of K-12 engineeringand technology teacher training programs.

3. Pilot study: K-12 schools (especiallyhigh schools, including charter schools)could be found to conduct pilot peda-gogic experiments to determine the age-appropriateness of all K-12 feasibleengineering analytic knowledge contentto be identified in the above-mentionedHandbook to be published in the nearfuture.

Edward Locke graduated in 2009 with an

Education Specialist degree from the College of

Education, Department of Workforce Education,

Leadership and Social Foundations at The

University of Georgia, Athens.

Th

eJ

ou

rna

lo

fTe

ch

no

log

yS

tud

ies

35

Mativo, J., & Sirinterlikci, A. (2005c). 2006-2505: Summer honors institute for the gifted. RetrievedJanuary 30, 2009, from http://www.coe.uga.edu/welsf/faculty/mativo/index.html

National Science Foundation. (2008). General science and engineering indicators of the digest of keyscience and engineering indicators 2008. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest08/pages/figure8.htm

Sanders, M. E. (2008, December). Integrative STEM education: Primer. The Technology Teacher,68(4), 20-26.

Smith, P. C. (2007). Identifying the essential aspects and related academic concepts of an engineeringdesign curriculum in secondary technology education. Unpublished internal research report,NCETE. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://ncete.org/flash/publications.php

Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education.Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–29.