Teaching engineering and technology: cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving taxonomies

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to explore the objectives and methods of teaching engineering and technology education (ETE) through the lens of three educational taxonomies in cognitive, knowledge and problem-solving perspectives. This analysis is useful in light of today's increasing interest in teaching engineering and technology in K-12 education, instead of crafts or manual skills. Design/methodology/approach -This is an exploratory study. Technology and engineering education is a relatively new area in K-12 education, and little has been written about the use of general educational taxonomies for analysing and designing the teaching and learning of this subject. Findings -The literature analysis teaches us that fostering students' higher-order capabilities such as design and problem solving in engineering and technology cannot take place in isolation from specific knowledge. Instruction should be designed to: develop a certain degree of factual, procedural, conceptual and meta-cognitive knowledge in relevant areas of technology, science and mathematics; and engage learners in assignments of increasing cognitive levels, from simple to complex ones. Originality/value -This work is original and valuable in that it explores ETE through tools often used in the educational literature and research, rather than regarding technology education as an exceptional school subject. This could encourage making engineering and technology a core component in the overall curriculum.

Pre-service Science Teachers Learn a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)-Oriented Program: The Case of Sound, Waves and Communication Systems

“…However, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) claim that minimally guided instructional methods are less effective than instructional approaches for guiding the students' learning process. According to Barak (2013), if the problems presented to students are too well structured, close-ended, simple, abstract or unrealistic, only little learning is achieved, and students are busy 'doing' with only little significant learning taking place (Barron et al, 1998;Blumenfeld et al, 1991;Dolmans et al, 2005). In addition, Capraro, Capraro, and Morgan (2013) claims that effective STEM PBL requires teachers to experience high-quality professional development in order to learn how to design high-quality experiential learning activities -something that is not taken for granted.…”

A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education

“…STEM educators with only this view point fail to acknowledge that technology consists of a body of knowledge, skills, and practices. The term technology means so many different things to people rendering the term almost useless, and further study of technology definitions will not bring clarity to the subject (Barak 2012). Herschbach (2009) suggested there are two common views of technology; an engineering view of technology and a humanities perspective of technology.…”

“…Technology as volition is the concept that technology is driven by the human will and as a result is embedded within our culture driven by human values. Herschbach (2009) Barak (2012) suggests that both engineering and technology are so closely related that they should be taught in unison within technology education and suggests teaching them as one school subject called Engineering Technology Education (ETE).…”

The Physics Problem-Solving Taxonomy (PPST): Development and Application for Evaluating Student Learning

“…3 / 16 2012), science (Leppävirta, Kettunen, & Sihvola, 2011), and technology (McCormick, 1997(McCormick, , 2004. Let us closely examine the definitions of the four categories in the knowledge taxonomy and how they apply to teaching science and technology (Barak, 2013).…”

“…We developed the PPST as a tool for teachers to design problems, questions, and exercises for students in the physics class. The PPST was derived from taxonomies discussed earlier (e.g., Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Barak, 2013;Bloom & Krathwohl, 1956;Plants, Dean, Sears, and Venable, 1980) and adapted to the special context of teaching physics. It consists of five levels, as illustrated in Figure 1.…”