Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering and Technology Concepts: Key Ideas That Students Should Understand

  • Living reference work entry
  • Latest version View entry history
  • First Online:
Handbook of Technology Education

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

  • 231 Accesses

Abstract

Competencies people need to be well educated will vary in response to societal waves of change. As STEM education grows in popularity worldwide, interest is increasing in using this paradigm to break down the traditional conception of the four component subjects as individual “silos” of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In the United States, Engineering and Technology education (ETE) is seen as a route through which the four disciplines can be integrated. In Europe, 30 countries promote and support STEM collaboration.

The evolution of ETE from its craft-oriented and industrial roots has resulted in a demand for new curriculum – driven not only by contemporary workforce and employability demands but by other values-driven aspirations that educators, parents, and policy makers hold for students.

Since the 1980s, conceptual learning has been defined by curricular learning standards and associated performance expectations (often quite numerous) that, when attained, are presumed to provide disciplinary competence. In this chapter, the author suggests that revisiting a small set of transferable ETE thematic ideas in different contexts can complement learning of standards-based domain-specific concepts and skills. Doing so would make instruction more manageable and enable students to assimilate a more holistic understanding of engineering and technology.

The chapter draws upon research studies that established a consensus of expert opinion about the most important ETE competencies high school students should attain within five thematic categories that consistently appear in the literature: (a) design, (b) modeling, (c) systems, (d) resources, and (e) human values.

Two case studies are offered as examples. The first exemplifies how a cutting-edge technology company looks to hire new employees with a broad mix of skills. The second describes a new ETE curriculum model that integrates important concepts within authentic social contexts and supports the fundamental purposes of education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alfie. (1966). Dir. Lewis Gilbert. Paramount Pictures: Film.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach, B. & David, H. (1966). Alfie. Produced by George Martin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bealer, G. (1998). A theory of concepts and concept possession. Philosophical Issues, 9, 241–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. A. & Bawden W. T. (Eds.) (1910). Manual Training Magazine (Vol. 11). Peoria. The Manual Arts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, S., & Evangelou, D. (2007). Precursors to engineering thinking project. Washington, DC: American Society of Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64, 6. International Technology Education Association. Reston, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, R. L. & Sedlak, M. W. (1976). Education in the United States: An interpretive history (pp. 288–313). New York: Free Press. isbn:0-02-90490-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Flow: The secret to happiness. TED Talk. Retrieved July 1, 2015, from https://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow?language=en.

  • Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J. L., & Meyer, J. P. (2010). Formulating a concept base for secondary level engineering: A review and synthesis. Journal of Technology Education, 22(1), 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, M. (2010). A concept-context framework for engineering and technology education. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education. Amsterdam: Sense Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1897, January 16). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogar, S. (2015, May 15). Education your child, they must live in a time different from you. (PowerPoint slides). Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.slideshare.net/samiadogar/cls-lect-3.

  • Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). Introduction. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl, D. (2006). Concepts and properties. A defense of the view that concepts and properties are one and the same sort of entity. Metaphysica, 7(1), 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. & Edwards, J. (2013). Getting the big idea: Concept-based teaching and learning. UNC World View. Retrieved May 8, 2016, from http://worldview.unc.edu/files/2013/07/Getting-the-Big-Idea-PPT.pdf.

  • Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project. (1971). The man-made world. Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, H. L. (2008). Stirring the head, heart and soul: Redefining curriculum and instruction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Forlenza, Vincent. (2010). Mutual reinforcement. Interview by William Tavani. Resolve: An Online Magazine (Vol. 1). Lehigh University. http://www3.lehigh.edu/engineering/resolve7/q-and-a.html.

  • Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung in Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50. Translation: On Sense and Reference in Geach and Black; 1980. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_and_reference.

  • Gleason, Paula. (2008, Winter). Meeting the needs of millennial students. In touch newsletter. 16(1). Student Services. CSULB; Retrieved May 1, 2014, from http://web.csulb.edu/divisions/students2/intouch/archives/2007-08/vol16_no1/01.htm.

  • Guisepi, R. (Ed). (2007, March 16). The History of Education. International World History Project. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://history-world.org/history_of_education.htm.

  • Hacker, M. (2014). Key engineering and technology concepts and skills for the general education of all high school students in the United States: A comparison of perceptions of academic engineering educators and high school classroom technology teachers. Doctoral Dissertation. Beersheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, M. & Barak, M. (2017, Spring). Important engineering and technology concepts and skills for all high school students in the United States: Comparing perceptions of engineering educators and high school teachers. Journal of Technology Education. In Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (2010). Association for Science Education. Hatrfield, Harts, UK: Ashrod Colour Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstra University Center for STEM Research. (2016). EfA Project Abstract. Retrieved May 29, 2016, from http://www.hofstra.edu/academics/colleges/seas/CTL/efa/index.html.

  • International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: ITEEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., & de Vries, M. (Eds.). (2009). International Handbook of Research and Development in Technology Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education; National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12635/engineering-in-k-12-education-understanding-the-status-and-improving#description.

  • Kearney, C. 2015. Efforts to Increase Students’ Interest in Pursuing Mathematics, Science and Technology Studies and Careers. National Measures taken by 30 Countries – 2015 Report, European Schoolnet, Brussels; January, 2016. Retrieved October 6, 2016, from http://files.eun.org/scientix/Observatory/ComparativeAnalysis2015/Kearney-2016-NationalMeasures-30-countries-2015-Executive-Summary.pdf.

  • Kipperman, D. (2009). Teaching through technology concepts: Strengthening the position of technology education in the curriculum. Proceedings of the 22nd pupils attitudes toward technology (PATT) conference, international conference on design and technology education research, Delft, 279–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristoff, N. (2015, April 16). Starving for wisdom. The New York Times. The Opinion Pages. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://nyti.ms/1CQEv4s.

  • Leonard, G. B. (1968). Education and ecstasy. New York: Delacorte Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, C. E. (2013, September). The evolution of the educational paradigm. World Academy Forum on Global Higher Education. World Academy of Art and Science. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.worldacademy.org/files/UCB/The_Evolution_of_the_Educational_Paradigm by_C. E.Lindgren.pdf.

  • Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (2011). Concepts. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University: Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, B. (2007). Craft education: Looking back, looking forward. Distinguished Lecture given at the at the NCECA 41st Annual Conference, Louisville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagdy M. & Roser, M. (2016) Primary education and schools. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from https://ourworldindata.org/primary-education-and-schools.

  • National Academy of Education. (2009). In L. Shepard, J. Hannaway, & E. Baker (Eds.), Standards, assessments, and acountability. Education policy white paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Governing Board. (2016, May 17). The Nation’s Report Card: Technology and engineering literacy. Detroit: Michigan Science Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). More about the NAEP technology and engineering literacy (TEL) assessment. NAEP Publications. Retrieved March 1, 2014, from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tel/moreabout.aspx.

  • National Governors Association. (2010). Center for best practices. Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC: Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2007). Innovation America: Building a Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0702INNOVATIONStem.pdf.

  • National Research Council. (2008). Common Standards for K-12 education? Considering the evidence. A Workshop Series. Alexandra Beatty, Rapporteur. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Committee on standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on New Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2012). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palantir. (2016a). Scale. Speed. Agility. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.palantir.com.

  • Palantir. (2016b). An engineering culture. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.palantir.com/engineering-culture.

  • Palantir. (2016c). How to ace a systems design interview. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.palantir.com/2011/10/how-to-ace-a-systems-design-interview.

  • Palantir. (2016d). Why are we needed? Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.palantir.com/philanthropy-engineering.

  • Palantir. (2016e). Getting hired. Retrieved May 24, 2016, from https://www.palantir.com/getting-hired.

  • Parker, W. (2013, April 15). Concept formation. Teachinghistory.org. Retrieved May 26, 2016, from http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/25184.

  • Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, G. (1995). Concepts. In S. Guttenplan (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of mind (pp. 185–193). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2010). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–423. doi:10.1007/s10798-010-9129-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M., Sherman, T., & Watson, P. (2012, March 17). Engineering concepts taught and teaching methods employed by technology education teachers. Paper presented at the ITEEA Conference. Long Beach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. E. (1989). Three distinctions about concepts and categorization. Mind and Language, 4(1, 2), 57–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vest, Charles. (2009, Fall). Putting the “E” in STEM Education. The Bridge, 39(3). Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vocabulary.com. 2016, Concept. Retrieved May 7, 2016, from https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/concept.

  • Webster, N. & McKechnie, J. L. (1979). Webster’s new universal unabridged diction (2nd ed., p. 376). New York: Dorset and Babar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, J. (2015, May). Pearson loses Texas contract for standardized exams. Dallas News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. P., McTighe, J., Kiernan, L. J., & Frost, F. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hofstra University Center for STEM Research, Hempstead, NY, USA

    Michael Hacker

Authors
  1. Michael Hacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Hacker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology , Delft, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marc J. de Vries

Section Editor information

  1. School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

    P John Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hacker, M. (2017). Engineering and Technology Concepts: Key Ideas That Students Should Understand. In: de Vries, M. (eds) Handbook of Technology Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_15-3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_15-3

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-38889-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Engineering and Technology Concepts: Key Ideas That Students Should Understand
    Published:
    24 June 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_15-3

  2. Engineering and Technology Concepts: Key Ideas That Students Should Understand
    Published:
    30 May 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_15-2

  3. Original

    Engineering and Technology Concepts: Key Ideas That Students Should Understand
    Published:
    05 April 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-38889-2_15-1

Search

Navigation