Engineering Better Content Standards

With the release of new NAEP science scores last week, there has been a flurry of commentary about what these scores mean for students and what we are doing- or should be doing- to improve science education in our schools. Many in the K-12 world are centering the discussion on improving science content standards, particularly as states and districts prepare for mandatory science testing under NCLB (beginning 2007). AAAS's Project 2061 provides a great history and some updates on national and state efforts to create science standards.

Part of the conversation is about revising content standards. Another part is about adding new content areas altogether, namely engineering. Engineering is somewhat of an unusual suspect in this K-12 science conversation. It’s a hot topic in higher education for many reasons, including that engineering enrollment has recently begun to climb but has still not reached its 1983 peak. Read NSF’s Science & Engineering Indicators 2006 report for more about the overall state of science and technology. The last section, as an aside, includes some interesting data about what Americans think about science and where we get our information (sadly, not from reading).

The idea to introduce and formally incorporate engineering into the K-12 curriculum has been gaining popularity. Several states have added “pre-engineering” components to their curricula and other states seem ready to follow. Massachusetts is the first state to have a pre-college engineering curriculum in place and to formally add it to its statewide framework.

The notion seems like a good one. Introduce engineering early in education and students will be more engaged, or at least familiar, with the subject before entering college. It makes sense that learning real-world engineering applications (imagine high school students learning how to build their own iPods, for instance) might increase student interest in and aptitude for science and engineering. But there are some important practical questions to consider first. How and where will “pre-engineering” fit into the curricula (or into state assessments)? Do we have teachers who are prepared to teach these courses? Will engineering courses be required, or will “enrichment" programs meet the requirements? (There are, by the way, many examples of excellent engineering programs and competitions for youth, and activities for teachers to incorporate into their current lesson plans). Finally, are we adding more content because more seems better? The seminal reports on the subject, Project 2061's Benchmarks for Science Literacy and the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards, recommend depth over breadth for student learning so this last point may be the most salient consideration.

There is no argument that basic engineering principles should be included in any science curriculum, and that students should be exposed to engineering concepts early in their education. But formally incorporating another content area into statewide frameworks might not be the most resourceful way to achieve this goal. As the front-runner, Massachusetts will be worth watching.