ROV Tech
Content
Portable insPiration • teaching students about clean fuels and transPortation technologies
Technology
TEACHER
T h e Vo i c e o f Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
Volume 68 • Number 7
April 2009
the
Design Your Own Underwater ROV
Also: 2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional and Museum Members
www.iteaconnect.org
With the growing need for skilled manufacturing professionals, there is a nationwide push to involve more women and minorities, such as student Ashley Kolarek.
I choose Mastercam because:
“I prefer to teach Mastercam over any other CAM software because students who know how to use Mastercam get jobs! Mastercam is the most commonly used software in Northern Colorado. From small shops to major manufacturers, when employers call me seeking to hire a student, they want applicants who know how to work in Mastercam.”
– Instructor Debra Mann, Front Range Community College, Fort Collins, Colorado Mastercam is the software Debra’s students need to succeed in the classroom and in the job market. With industry-proven technology and unparalleled customer support, it is clear why Mastercam is the most widely-used CAD/CAM software in both industry and education for well over a decade. Debra Mann is a member of the Mastercam Certification Committee. She and her Mastercam class were featured in the September 2008 issue of American Machinist. To read about Debra’s CAD/CAM classes, visit www.mastercam.com/edarticles or contact our Educational Division toll free at (800) ASK-MCAM.
FEATURING STEM Products for SCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY • ENGINEERING • MATH
www.kelvin.com
Project Motors
®
Fuel Cell Cars
AS LOW AS
$
#841982
5995
®
NEW!
Stock # 283695
AS LOW AS
59¢
$
EA.
Solar Cells
Stock # 841970
AS LOW AS
EZee™ Plastic Former
It’s designed for ease of use in schools! The 10” x 14” material area is large enough for forming dragster models, car bodies, lettering for signs, game parts, masks, boat hauls, etc.
$
8595
SEE ONLINE VIDEO!
Economy Foam Cutter
AS LOW AS
2
95
EACH
Balsa StiKutter™
Stock # 990198
AS LOW AS
$
PER STUDENT
3
75
DC Motor Kits
Stock # 842084
The Most Economical!
Stock # 841982
AS LOW AS
$
8
95
EACH
50 LE Multimeter
NEW!
Stock #990177
NEW!
AS LOW AS
Join the Battling Robot Craze!
NEW!
$
PER STUDENT
660
Solar ™ Racers
Stock # 841236
WE HAVE MULTIMETERS AS LOW AS Stock # 842069
$
2
75
EACH
FIND THE COMPLETE KELVIN® CATALOG ONLINE AT WWW.KELVIN.COM
Contents
APRIL • VOL. 68 • NO. 7
22
Design your own Underwater Remotely operated vehicle (Rov)
An Ohio technology education teacher describes how he implemented a marine engineering project to design underwater ROVs. BRIAN lIEN
Departments
Features
1 2 3 10 30
Web News TIDE News Calendar Resources in Technology Classroom Challenge
5 16 26 34
Using Engineering Cases in Technology Education
This article seeks to consider engineering case studies as a logical way to teach the engineering design process to students not commonly familiar with the process. ToDD R. KEllEy
Teaching Students about Clean Fuels and Transportation Technologies
We can utilize renewable energy technologies to foster our students’ creative thinking and design in a green world while applying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). JoE R. BUSBy, DTE AND PAm PAgE CARPENTER
Portable Inspiration: The Necessity of STEm outreach Investment
Describes Portable Inspiration, an outreach program designed to expose students, educators, and communities to the experience of engineering and the design process. RICh KRESSly, WITh SylvIA hERBERT, PhIl RoSS, AND DElIA voTSCh
2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional and museum members
Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE Editor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la Paz Editor, Kathie F. Cluff ITEA Board of Directors Ed Denton, DTE, President Len Litowitz, DTE, Past President Gary Wynn, DTE, President-Elect Greg Kane, Director, ITEA-CS Joanne Trombley, Director, Region I Michael A. Fitzgerald, DTE, Director, Region II Mike Neden, DTE, Director, Region III Patrick McDonald, Director, Region IV Michael DeMiranda, Director, CTTE Andrew Klenke, Director, TECA Ginger Whiting, Director, TECC Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE, Executive Director
ITEA is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Technology Teacher, ISSN: 0746-3537, is published eight times a year (September through June with combined December/January and May/June issues) by the International Technology Education Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191. Subscriptions are included in member dues. U.S. Library and nonmember subscriptions are $90; $100 outside the U.S. Single copies are $10.00 for members; $11.00 for nonmembers, plus shipping and handling. The Technology Teacher is listed in the Educational Index and the Current Index to Journal in Education. Volumes are available on Microfiche from University Microfilm, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
Advertising Sales: ITEA Publications Department 703-860-2100 Fax: 703-860-0353 Subscription Claims All subscription claims must be made within 60 days of the first day of the month appearing on the cover of the journal. For combined issues, claims will be honored within 60 days from the first day of the last month on the cover. Because of repeated delivery problems outside the continental United States, journals will be shipped only at the customer’s risk. ITEA will ship the subscription copy but assumes no responsibility thereafter.
Change of Address Send change of address notification promptly. Provide old mailing label and new address. Include zip + 4 code. Allow six weeks for change. Postmaster Send address change to: The Technology Teacher, Address Change, ITEA, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at Herndon, VA and additional mailing offices. Email: [email protected] World Wide Web: www.iteaconnect.org
Now Available on the
Save the Planet! Make the world a better place! Become aware of how we can make a difference to sustain our environment through smart decision-making, consumerism, designing, creating, and using human ingenuity! These are all statements about GREEN TECHNOLOGY that need to be addressed today to properly save and use our resources for tomorrow. What better way to address these issues than through a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. ITEA’s Annual Conference in Charlotte, NC on March 18-20, 2010 will become a series of presentations about the use of design and technology to make a better society by using best practices to deliver education with an eye on 21st Century learning skills as a basis for our future citizens. STRAND ONE: Designing the Green Environment STRAND TWO: Describing Best Practices through Teaching and Learning STEM STRAND THREE: Developing 21st Century Skills Application to Present in Charlotte: www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent.htm Deadline is June 15, 2009.
ITEA Website:
Call for Presenters for ITEA’s 2010 Conference in Charlotte, NC, march 18-20 Theme: Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens
Technology
TEACHER
T h e Vo i c e o f Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
the
Editorial Review Board Chairperson Gerald Day University of Maryland Eastern Shore Lori Abernethy Andrew Morrison ES, PA Byron C. Anderson University of Wisconsin-Stout Steve Andersen Nikolay Middle School, WI Stephen L. Baird Bayside Middle School, VA Lynn Basham Virginia Department of Education Mary L. Braden Carver Magnet HS, TX Jolette Bush Midvale Middle School, UT Mike Cichocki Salisbury Middle School, PA Laura Morford Erli East Side MS, IN Jeremy Ernst North Carolina State University Mike Fitzgerald, DTE IN Department of Education Kara Harris Purdue University Editorial Policy As the only national and international association dedicated solely to the development and improvement of technology education, ITEA seeks to provide an open forum for the free exchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education. Materials appearing in the journal, including advertising, are expressions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or the opinion of the association, its officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff. Referee Policy All professional articles in The Technology Teacher are refereed, with the exception of selected association activities and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles are reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board before publication in The Technology Teacher. Articles with bylines will be identified as either refereed or invited unless written by ITEA officers on association activities or policies. To Submit Articles All articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief, International Technology Education Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539. Please submit articles and photographs via email to [email protected]. Maximum length for manuscripts is eight pages. Manuscripts should be prepared following the style specified in the Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition. Editorial guidelines and review policies are available by writing directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteaconnect.org/ Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright © 2008 by the International Technology Education Association, Inc., 703-860-2100. Marie Hoepfl Appalachian State University Laura Hummell Manteo Middle School, NC Doug Hunt Southern Wells HS, IN Chad Johnson West Washington HS, IN Anthony Korwin, DTE NM Public Education Department Frank Kruth South Fayette MS, PA Theodore Lewis University of Trinidad and Tobago Linda Markert SUNY at Oswego Mary Annette Rose Ball State University Terrie Rust Oasis Elementary School, AZ Bart Smoot Delmar MS/HS, DE Jerianne Taylor Appalachian State University
ITEA is “linkedIn”
ITEA has created a group for members of LinkedIn, an interconnected network of experienced professionals from around the world. Through LinkedIn, you can find, be introduced to, and collaborate with qualified professionals with whom you need to work to accomplish your goals. When you join, you create a profile that summarizes your professional expertise and accomplishments. You can then form enduring connections by inviting trusted contacts to join LinkedIn and connect to you. Your network consists of your connections, your connections’ connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts. Through your network you can: • anage the information that’s publicly available about you as professional. M • ind and be introduced to potential clients, service providers, and subject F experts who come recommended by your LinkedIn colleagues. • reate and collaborate on projects, gather data, share files, and solve C problems. • e found for opportunities and find potential partners. B • ain new insights from discussions with like-minded professionals in private G group settings. • iscover inside connections that can help you land jobs. D • ost and distribute job listings to find the best talent for your organization. P Once you’re a member of LinkedIn, ITEA’s group of professional educators can be accessed at www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1787786.
www.iteaconnect.org
1•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
TIDE News
ITEA is Going Green in Charlotte! March 18-20, 2010
Save the Planet! Make the world a better place! Become aware of how we can make a difference to sustain our environment through smart decision-making, consumerism, designing, creating, and using human ingenuity. These are all statements about Green Technology that need to be addressed today to properly conserve and use our resources for tomorrow. What better way to address these issues than through Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. This conference will become a series of presentations about the use of design and technology to make a better society by using best practices to deliver education with an eye on twenty-first century learning skills as a basis for our future citizens. Mark your calendar now to join ITEA in beautiful Charlotte, North Carolina on March 18-20, 2010 for the 72nd Annual ITEA Conference and Exhibition. Don’t miss this extraordinary opportunity! Generating Resources Engineering Education Now
Sign Up Now for ITEA’s Newest Technology Interest Group – TSA!
This is a forum dedicated to those interested in the topic of the Technology Student Association. As a member of this community you can post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In this TIG, you can discuss with other ITEA members issues regarding leadership curriculum, competitive events, encouraging student leaders, current products, and anything else related to the Technology Student Association. Moderator – Doug Miller, TSA State Advisor, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO. www.iteaconnect.org/Forms/tigsform.htm
ITEA Blog Update
Be sure to check in from time to time with ITEA’s firstever Blog, “Advocating Technological Literacy.” Its purpose is to provide an avenue for delivering timely news and commentary on subjects pertaining to technological literacy, as well as a “behind-the-scenes” glimpse of what we’re working on at any given point in time. Maintained by ITEA’s Editor and through the use of “Guest Bloggers,” the ITEA Blog will utilize text, images, and links to other sources. Readers will have the ability to leave comments as well as participate in ongoing polling on various topics and can choose whether or not to automatically receive notices of new posts. Take a look today by going to http://iteatide. blogspot.com/.
Call for Presenters in Charlotte
The presenter application process for ITEA’s 2010 Charlotte, NC conference is now in full swing. Presentations must address the conference theme, “Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens” and, specifically, one or more of the following three strands: 1) Designing the Green Environment, 2) Describing Best Practices Through Teaching and Learning STEM, and 3) Developing 21st Century Skills. Complete descriptions of the strands are posted at www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent. htm along with an online link to the Application to Present. Hurry! The application deadline is June 15, 2009.
Facebook “Cause”
David Janosz of NJTEA has created a “Cause” on Facebook entitled “Technological Literacy for All.” As of this writing, the cause has over 402 people signed up and is growing fast! Show YOUR support today. Facebook members can go directly to http://apps.facebook.com/ causes/208149?m=96aaaf39.
2•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Calendar Calendar
April 4, 2009 The Ohio Technology Education Association (OTEA) Spring Conference 2009 will be held at Worthington Kilbourne High School in Columbus, Ohio. Visit www.otea.info/CONFERENCES.HTML for details. April 27, 2009 IMSTEA Super Mileage Challenge will take place at O’Reilly Indianapolis Raceway Park in Indianapolis. Indiana High School students are challenged to engineer solutions for our nation’s energy needs in the 2009 Super Mileage Challenge! In the SMC, high school students apply Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) to design, engineer, construct, test, and evaluate vehicles that obtain the highest MPG. Details can be found at www.doe.state.in.us/octe/technologyed/ SuperMileageChallenge.html or www.imstea.org/. April 30-may 1, 2009 The 2008/2009 New Jersey Technology Education Association (NJTEA) Conference, “Sustainability in Design,” will be held at the Hilton Hasbrouck Heights, NJ. Keynote speakers will be TTT contributor Harry Roman and ITEA President, Ed Denton, DTE. Check www.njtea.org/Pages/ProDev/NJTEA%20 Conference.html for details. may 26-27, 2009 The Connecticut Technology Education Association (CTEA) Spring Conference 09 will be held at CCSU. As in years past, the highlights of this year’s conference will be the Exhibitor section, the Workshop sessions, and the great Texas barbecue lunch. To get a free lunch, you must preregister before May 1, 2009. You can register online from the CTEA website or by mail. Visit http://www.cteaweb.org/ for details. Conference, “Making the Difference,” at the Quality Inn, Hagley Road, Birmingham. Events will include keynote addresses, research papers, case studies, practical workshops, visits to primary schools, and displays of resources. For registration information, please contact Clare Benson at [email protected]. June 28-July 2, 2009 The Technology Student Association will hold its 31st TSA National Conference, “Shape the Future,” at the Sheraton Denver Hotel and the Colorado Convention Center. Complete conference information, including registration, accommodations, and competition rules, is available at www.tsaweb.org/2009-NationalConference-Information#accommodations. August 24-28, 2009 The Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-22) Conference, “Strengthening Technology Education in the School Curriculum,” will be held in Delft, the Netherlands, hosted by the Science Education and Communication (SEC) section at the Delft University of Technology. You are invited to submit papers to address one of the following subthemes: Seeking strategic curricular alliances; Educating teachers for a sustainable technology education; Educational research for supporting technology education; Promoting technology education for the wider public; Seeking political support; or Other strategies for strengthening the position of technology education in the school curriculum. PATT is an international discussion platform for research and developments in technology education. PATT conferences are characterized by their informal atmosphere, the absence of parallel sessions, an open exchange of information, and ideas in presentations and discussions. The PATT-Foundation is based in the Netherlands. For additional information, contact Marc J. de Vries at [email protected]. Deadline for preregistration is April 1, 2009. october 6-8 2009 Don’t miss TENZ 2009. TENZ’s seventh biennial conference will, like its predecessors, offer a firstclass professional development opportunity to all those interested in technology education. The conference will be held in Napier, where Napier’s stunning War Memorial Conference Centre is the venue for presentations, workshops, and the conference dinner. The programme will include a broad range of activities for primary, secondary, and tertiary educators. Register now at www.tenz.org.nz, where you will also find information on possible accommodation. To find out more about TENZ 2009, email [email protected].
June 15, 2009 Submission Deadline for Application to Present at ITEA’s 72nd Annual Conference, March 18-20, 2010 in Charlotte, NC. The conference theme is “Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens.” The application and complete information are available at www. iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent.htm. June 26-30, 2009 The Centre for Research into Primary Technology (CRIPT) at Birmingham City University will host its 7th International Primary Design & Technology
3•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
You are encouraged to contribute to the Conference by sharing your experience through a paper or workshop presentation. The Organising Committee is keen to see a range of presentations, and information about submission is now available at www.tenz.org.nz/2009/presentation. November 11-13, 2009 ICTE 2009 (International Conference on Technology Education in the Asia-Pacific Region) will hold its fall conference, “Less is More, Searching Solutions to Facilitate Technology Education with Limited Resources,” in Taipei, Taiwan. The organizing committee has issued a call for papers and invites submission of papers on any topics relating to technology
education. ICTE is a biennial conference in which the most representative technology associations/societies in seven countries in the Asia-Pacific Rim participate. Deadline for submission of papers is June 1, 2009. The conference website is www.ite.ntnu.edu.tw./~icte2009/. Email Dr. Chi-Cheng Chang at [email protected] for additional information.
List your State/Province Association Conference in TTT and Inside TIDE (ITEA’s electronic newsletter). Submit conference title, date(s), location, and contact information (at least two months prior to journal publication date) to kcluff@ iteaconnect.org.
217_430 TechEd7x4.625bw.P1:Layout 1
11/7/08
2:19 PM
Page 1
100% ONLINE Master of Education
in Technology Education
Ensure the vital competitiveness of your students by becoming an expert educator in integrating technology and engineering (the T&E of STEM) by earning your Master’s degree ONLINE. This 100% online program will enhance your ability to prepare your students with a conceptual understanding of technology and its place in society:
• Dedicated, world-class faculty • Asynchronous program with flexible learning • No residency requirement • Competitive tuition • 31 credits
The National Academy of Engineering developed an action plan to address the “technology” and “education” components of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) with representatives from business, government and education to address growing employment demands. Strengthen the “T&E” pipeline to address the looming shortage of talent prepared to enter these careers. Prepare your students by being the best.
G L O BA L
C A L I F O R N I A U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y LV A N I A
BUI L D I NG C HA RACTER. BUI L D IN G CA REERS.
www.cup.edu/go
A proud member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
CALU
ONLINE
4•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Using Engineering Cases in Technology Education
By Todd R. Kelley
Engineering students who only practice engineering problems often have a false sense of security that engineering problems are crisp and narrow analytical problems.
Introduction
There has been a great deal of discussion in the past few years about implementing engineering design in K-12 classrooms. Experts from K-12 education, universities, industry, and government officials attended the ASEE leadership workshop on K-12 Engineering Outreach in June of 2004 and came to a consensus on the need to implement engineering in K-12 schools (Douglas, Iversen, & Kalyandurg, 2004). Many leaders in the field of technology education believe that developing technological literacy in students can be best delivered by teaching engineering design (Wicklein, 2006, Lewis, 2005, Dearing & Daugherty, 2004). The use of the engineering design process is stressed throughout Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007), especially Standards 8 through 13. While there may be strong support for teaching engineering concepts to K-12 students, how this knowledge is properly delivered to high school students is still a debatable topic. This article seeks to consider engineering case studies as a logical way to teach the engineering design process to students not commonly familiar with it. Arguments have been made against assigning students to full-scale engineering design problems when they are new to engineering. Often novice engineering students lack the analytical tools necessary for successful development of design solutions to full-sale engineering problems (Petroski, 1998, Dym, 1994). Introducing engineering design to K-12 students through the employment of design case studies is a logical solution.
Henry Petroski (1996) documents a number of historical design cases that highlight the design evolution of everyday items such as the standard GEM paperclip.
Design Case Studies Defined
Although design case studies have been used in engineering schools since the late 1960s, the term may be new to those in the field of technology education. Design case studies have a variety of definitions, depending on the source. The
5•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
general term design case study has several variations in title including engineering cases and case studies. Geza Kardos (1979) says that the terms “engineer case, cases, and case studies are used loosely and interchangeably,” (p.1). In a separate article, Kardos (1979) defines engineering cases as “ . . . a written account of an engineering activity as it was actually carried out” (p.1). H.O. Fuchs (1974) defines an engineering case as: “A case is a written account of an engineering job as it was actually done, or of an engineering problem as it was actually encountered” (p. 1). A common key to any engineering case is that the writing is based on factual information about a real engineering case or problem. One common practice is to change the names of the parties involved in the engineering case; however, the overall details must remain factual.
Variety of Formats
Some engineering cases tell the full story by providing the problem statement, the processes and procedures, and the actual applied solution; thus, these cases are known as case histories. “A case history is an account of an actual event or situation; it reviews the variables and circumstances, describes how a problem was solved, and examines consequences of decisions and the lessons learned” (Richards & Gorman, 2004, p. 2). Henry Petroski (1996) documents a number of historical design cases that highlight the design evolution of everyday items such as the standard GEM paperclip along with eight other design categories that are presented in the book Invention by Design: How Engineers Get From Thought to Thing. He provides an historical perspective of the design and engineering of everyday artifacts. Petroski provides early patents of many household items such as the zipper and aluminum can. Petroski also presents case histories that feature the detailed analysis of engineering, such as the case of a common pencil. This particular case history illustrates how important it is to scrutinize and interpret the often seemingly trivial details of engineering analysis. Some of Petroski’s historical engineering design cases show the reader the details of how common household artifacts are mass-produced. Designing an artifact that meets a human need is one thing; designing it for mass production is another task entirely. Petroski provides some excellent historical cases that can provide students with greater insight into the world of design and engineering. Case problems present an engineering case as an openended problem that can contain multiple solutions. The analysis and final solution stages to the engineering design process are intentionally left out of a case problem. A case problem can be an excellent way for students to study the
Some of Petroski’s historical engineering design cases show the reader the details of how common household artifacts are mass-produced.
engineering design process and provide an opportunity to determine on their own what aspects of the problem require analysis. A case problem then allows the students to make an informed decision about a proposed solution. The instructor can require students to defend their solutions by using the analysis data. This experience can provide new insight into how important it is for an engineer to carefully consider all aspects of a technical problem as well as increase the ability to defend the final solution based on factual information in a clear and logical manner. One very powerful format of engineering design cases is when cases are presented using multimedia formats. New engineering cases have been documented in multimedia forms including videotapes, CDs, and DVDs. This multimedia format allows engineering cases to include interviews with the stakeholders and principal engineers, visits to the site where the case takes place, and provides graphical and numeric data often obtained in the analysis stage of the engineering design process. Moreover, multimedia formats allow an instructor to hold a large amount of information about an engineering case in a compact form. The instructor has the ability in using multimedia formats to select only the information he or she wants students to use for their assignment. Multimedia formats can bring the engineering design case to life and allow for more individual interaction that might require students to locate the information they deem important
6•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Case Studies Teach About Real-World Engineering
Most case studies are generated from real-world situations; consequently, they contain many more unknowns than problems developed for a textbook example. It is very important that students learn that engineering is all about working with unknowns. Real case studies illustrate to students that even though a solution is generated, such as the GEM paper clip, it does not mean that the solution is without problems. Engineering is about compromise—an important reality of engineering that technology education students must learn. Technology education students will likely learn more from the flaws and failures of the featured engineering solutions in an engineering case study than about the successes of a design solution. Often individuals learn as much from failures as they do from successes. Some engineering cases specifically select failures in engineering to highlight such real cases as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Failure of a Large Gearset, and Twelve Years to Discover the Obvious (Henderson, Bellman, & Furman, 1983). Students provided with an opportunity to study these cases can formulate their own judgments and decisions about such cases and compare their conclusions with those of the real engineers assigned to the actual cases. Technology education students studying case studies will be given an opportunity to view the overall process of engineering design through a real engineering example allowing students to have a better understanding of the caliber of the problems that engineers encounter, as well the processes and procedures engineers apply to solve such problems.
Multimedia engineering cases provide a real-world virtual field trip inside the world of engineering that might otherwise have been out of reach.
to their assignment. Many public school systems today greatly limit or have eliminated field trips altogether, yet multimedia engineering cases provide a real-world virtual field trip inside the world of engineering that might otherwise have been out of reach (Richards & Gorman, 2004). A program in conjunction with Tuskegee University effectively uses multimedia-formatted engineering design cases in K-12 schools. The results of the program indicated that using these cases broadened students’ understanding of engineering, and it boosted students’ retention rates (Seif, 1994).
Students Benefit from Engineering Cases
Effective engineering cases present the complete details of an engineering problem as well as the entire process undertaken by the principal engineer to solve such a problem. Consequently, an engineering case is drastically different from a problem that might be presented in an engineering textbook. An engineering case presents more than a simple mathematical problem. Engineering students who only practice engineering problems often have a false sense of security that engineering problems are crisp and narrow analytical problems. Real engineering problems are ill-defined and are embedded within an entire system; therefore, analysis must consider the entire system. Engineering cases also require students to go beyond a single answer. Because a real case study is multifaceted, it requires students to think about all aspects of the engineering design process, not just an analytical piece (Henderson, Bellman, & Furman, 1983). Engineering cases allow students to learn how to sift through the details of an
Why Engineering Cases for Technology Education?
Much of the writing about the application of case studies in engineering education suggests that engineering cases are an excellent learning tool to use with students inexperienced with an engineering design process—a freshman engineering major or nonengineering major, for example, because he or she would not possess the analytical tools to properly engage in full-scale engineering design experiences (Petroski, 1998). Petroski suggests that case studies enable students to understand engineering in the broad context in which engineering is actually practiced. One of the greatest benefits of using engineering cases to teach engineering design to a novice is that there are no prerequisites in the study of an engineering case study; generally, anyone can learn about engineering through engineering cases.
7•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
engineering case to discover the most essential information needed to address the critical issues; this is known to the engineering community as framing or setting the problem. When students are asked to place judgments on the approaches and procedures of a practicing engineer, their learning moves from low-level knowledge and application to higher levels of learning such as synthesis and evaluation.
Engineering Cases Motivate
Many in the engineering community have suggested using engineering cases to motivate engineering students and to address the problems of retention (Smith & Kardos, 1987). Engineering design cases provide students with meaningful, real-world examples of applying math and science to engineering problems. H.O. Fuchs (1974) believes that engineering cases motivate students because a wellwritten case study draws on their interests and engages them in the engineering problem. He believes that students are able to get into the case study because cases include the human or social factors of an engineering problem. Engineering cases are about real people with real problems, an important element in order for students to have the ability to identify with the problem (Fuchs, 1974). Students can approach an engineering case as if they are the project engineer, thus providing a sense of ownership that is not easily achieved with a standard textbook engineering problem. Some engineering cases are written excluding actual applied solutions, allowing students to apply their own knowledge and frame the problem to solve in the way they dictate. This provides motivation and opportunity for creativity. Engineering cases provide the important lesson that engineering problems do not contain a single correct answer. This fact can empower a student to develop his or her own approach to the problem. Design case studies have been successfully used in K-12 programs to increase technical awareness and to attract students into the field of engineering. Tuskegee University has successfully worked with three public school corporations to develop K-12 engineering education programs that utilize engineering design cases, and students’ perceptions of engineering through the use of engineering cases have been favorable as indicated by program surveys (Seif, 1994).
Education Division (DEED) of ASEE. The Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology houses the Engineering Case Library. Rose-Hulman is responsible for reproducing and distributing the over 250 design cases housed at the library. Another source for engineering cases is the National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS). This source for engineering cases has been developed by the National Science Foundation Synthesis Coalition (Richards & Gorman, 2004).
Conclusion
Engineering case studies have been used successfully as teaching tools by the engineering education community for many years, and the benefits of using engineering cases to teach the engineering design process is widely documented. However, many educators in the field of technology education may not be familiar with engineering cases and the potential they possess as teaching tools. Certainly, some modification and editing of an engineering case must take place to adjust the content so that it can be appropriately used with K-12 students, but engineering cases can provide the needed details about engineering that might otherwise be missed without their use. Engineering cases are another tool that has potential to assist K-12 educators to properly implement engineering concepts into the curriculum.
References
Dearing, B. M. & Daugherty, M. K. (2004). Delivering engineering content in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64 (3), 8-11. Douglas, J., Iversen, E., & Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: An analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. A production of the ASEE Engineering K12 Center. Dym, Clive L. (1994). Teaching design to freshmen: Style and content. Journal of Engineering Education, 83 (4), 303-310. Fuchs, H. O. (1974). On kindling flames with cases. Engineering Education, (March issue). Henderson, J. M., Bellman, L. G., & Furman, B. J. (1983, January). A Case for teaching engineering with cases, Engineering Education, pp. 288-292. ITEA. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Kardos, G. (1979, March). On writing engineering cases. Paper presented at ASEE National Conference on Engineering Case Studies. Kardos, G. (1979, March). Engineering cases in the classroom. Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference on Engineering Case Studies.
Engineering Case Libraries
The Engineering Case Program originated at Stanford University in 1964 and is still sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). An ASEE Case Study Committee exists under the Design in Engineering
8•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16 (2), 3754. Petroski, H. (1998, October). Polishing the GEM: A firstyear design project. Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 313-324. Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Richards, L. G. & Gorman, M. E. (2004, June). Using case studies to teach engineering design and ethics. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. Seif, M. (1994, March). Multimedia design case studies. Paper presented at ASEE/GSW, Southern University, Baton. Rouge, LA. Smith, C. O. & Kardos, G. (1987, January). Need design content for accreditation? Try engineering cases! Engineering Education, pp. 228-230. Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as a focus for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25-29. Todd R. Kelley is an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial Technology at Purdue University. He can be reached at [email protected].
This is a refereed article.
9•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Resources in Technology
Water Treatment: Keeping it Pure
By Petros J. Katsioloudis
A simple activity that can be conducted with students is the filtration of water with the use of a
Credit: Department of Primary Industries
homemade filter.
he availability of water has dictated the location and survival of civilizations through the ages. Nearly 1.1 billion people around the world lack access to potable drinking water sources, and 2.2 million die from basic hygiene-related disease, an issue that can easily be justified as the most important environmental problem of all (World Health Organization, 2007). The majority of these deaths are wholly preventable through effective improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene. The United States remains strongly committed to providing safe drinking water for all of its citizens (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2005)). The national goal for sanitary drinking water has been to provide water that meets all health-based standards to 95% of the population served by public drinking water supplies by 2005 (EPA, 1999). In 2002, the level of compliance with these health-based issues was 94% (EPA, 2003). However, conventional piped water systems using effective treatment to deliver safe water to households may be decades away in much of the developing world. This leaves the majority of the poorest people in the world with the task
T
Photo 1. Wastewater Treatment As agriculture and industry use more and more water to meet crop and manufacturing needs, there is a growing need to process and clean wastewater for recycling and consumer use. Agricultural runoff may include nutrients and other chemicals that can have negative impacts on public health and the environment. Efforts are being made to control runoff and remove contaminants from such water.
of collecting water outside the home, then treating and storing it themselves (Sobsey, 2002). Even though water is essential for human life and its quantity and quality are equally imperative, natural waters are in most cases not
10 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
aesthetically or hygienically appropriate to be consumed, thus calling for some means of treatment. Appearance, taste, and odor are useful indicators for the quality of drinking water, but the critical suitability factor in terms of public health is determined by microbiological, physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics. As far as is known, the first instance of filtration as a means of water treatment dates from 1804, when John Gibb designed and built an experimental slow-sand filter for his bleachery in Paisley, Scotland, and sold the surplus treated water to the public at a halfpenny per gallon (Baker, 1949). In 1855 the first mechanical filters were installed in the U.S. (Baker, 1949). Since then a number of modifications and improvements have been introduced and have attained varying degrees of popularity. Table 1 describes a number of the most common water-treatment methods. A variety of technologies for water treatment exist; some are based on historical water-
treatment techniques. However, there is new research that has found effective reduction of waterborne pathogens using innovative technologies (Lantagne, 2007).
Historical Background
According to the Public Health Service (PHS), (2005) the federal regulation of drinking water quality began in 1914, when standards were set for the bacteriological quality of drinking water (PHS, 2005). The standards, however, applied only to water systems that provided drinking water to interstate carriers such as ships and trains, and only applied to contaminants capable of causing contagious disease. Upon revision in 1925, 1946, and 1962, PHS revised the standards to regulate 28 substances, establishing the most comprehensive federal drinking water standards in existence before the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
Table 1. Most Common Water-Treatment Methods
Boiling 1. Simple method for the inactivation of viral, parasitic, and bacterial pathogens. 2. Often economically and environmentally unsustainable. 3. Provides no residual protection. (Mintz et al., 2001) Solar Disinfection Uses the synergy of solar UV and heat. Simple, inexpensive, does not affect taste. Ineffective with turbid water. Not good for large volumes. (Mintz et al., 2001) Blends 1. Sachet: a packet containing powdered ferrous sulfate (a flocculant) and calcium hypochlorite (a disinfectant). Very effective even with turbid water.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Filtration 1. Many types available for water treatment • ranular media: Bio-sand, slow sand G • egetable- and animal-derived depth filters V • embrane filters: paper, cloth, plastic M • orous cast filters: ceramic pots P • eptum and body-feed filters S 2. iltration alone, at a household level, has not proved F effective for viruses and acceptable reductions of bacteria. (Sobsey, 2002) Ultraviolet 1. Works very well on all waterborne pathogens in combination in parallel with a turbidity reducing treatment such as coagulation/flocculation or filtration. 2. No odor or taste problems. 3. Requires significant energy input: batteries or electricity. (Sobsey, 2002)
1. 2. 3. 4.
Chlorination Sodium hypochlorite has proven the safest, most effective, and least expensive chemical disinfectant for point-of-use treatment. It can be produced on-site or created on-site through electrolysis. Relatively ineffective against parasites and viruses. The taste and odor of chlorinated water can reduce use. (Mintz et al., 2001)
11 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
With minor modifications, all 50 U.S states adopted the Public Health Service standards either as regulations or as guidelines for all of the public water systems in their jurisdictions. However, the aesthetic problems, pathogens, and chemicals identified by the Public Health Service in the late 1960s were not the only drinking water quality concerns, since industrial and agricultural advances and the creation of new man-made chemicals also had negative impacts on the environment and public health. The main sources of drinking water are often polluted by industrial and municipal chemicals (Gevod et al., 2003). While filtration was a fairly effective treatment method for reducing turbidity, disinfectants such as chlorine played the largest role in reducing the number of waterborne disease outbreaks in the early 1900s. In 1908, chlorine was used for the first time as a primary disinfectant of drinking water in Jersey City, New Jersey. Even though water treatment plants reduce the concentrations of harmful chemicals in waters to a safe level, the use of chlorine results in the formation of disinfectant by-products, which have been proved to be strongly carcinogenic (Gevod et al., 2003). The use of other disinfectants such as ozone also began in Europe around this time, but was not employed in the U.S. until several decades later. Even though the new chemicals were effective for water treatment, many others were finding their way into water supplies through factory discharges, street and farm-field runoff, and leaking underground storage and disposal tanks. Although treatment techniques such as aeration, flocculation, and granular-activated carbon adsorption existed at the time, they were either underutilized by water systems or ineffective at removing some new contaminants. Several studies conducted by the Public Health Service in 1969, and later in 1972, showed that only 60% of the systems surveyed delivered water that met all the Public Health Service standards, and 36 chemicals were found in treated water taken from treatment plants. Over half of the treatment facilities surveyed had major deficiencies involving disinfection. The combination of health issues and increased awareness eventually led to the passage of several federal environmental and health laws, one of which was the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. This law, with significant amendments in 1986 and 1996, is administered today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (EPA) and its local partners (EPA, 1996). According to several EPA surveys, from 1976 to
1995 the percentage of small and medium community water systems (systems serving people year-round) that treat their water has steadily increased (EPA, 1995). Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Engineering named water treatment as one of the most significant public health advancements of the twentieth century (NAE, 2007). Today, filtration and chlorination remain effective treatment techniques for protecting U.S. water supplies from harmful microbes, although additional advances in disinfection have been made over the years. Filtration was recognized quite early in recorded technological history as a unique process for improving the clarity of water (Montgomery, 2005). As summarized by Baker (1949), the earliest recorded reference to the use of filters for water treatment occurred about 3000 years ago in India. The first attempt at filtering a municipal supply in the United States occurred in Richmond, Virginia, in 1832 under the direction of Albert Stein (Baker, 1949). According to a 1995 EPA survey, approximately 64 percent of community ground water and surface water systems disinfect their water with chlorine (EPA, 1995). The economy and effectiveness of chlorine in killing waterborne organisms has made water chlorination a tremendous public health success worldwide. Most studies have shown positive associations between chlorinated drinking water and colorectal and bladder cancer. This has been attributed to trihalomethanes (THMs), a carcinogenic organic halogenated byproduct of water chlorination (Reuber, 1979). Many of the treatment techniques used today by drinking water plants include methods that have been used for hundreds and even thousands of years; however, newer treatment techniques (e.g., reverse osmosis and granular activated carbon) are also being employed by some modern drinking water plants. Military units must have the capability to transport or produce large qualities of water for personnel use (Photo 2). Emergency and public disaster units must also have similar capabilities. In the 1970s and 1980s, improvements were made in membrane development for reverse-osmosis filtration and other treatment techniques such as ozonation. Ozone is used in many drinking water plants for the oxidation of organic micro pollutants and manganese as well as for disinfection (Staehelln & Holgne, 1982).
Water Treatment Process
The process of water treatment starts from the initial point at which water is pumped into a container from its source. To avoid adding contaminants to the water, this physical infrastructure must be made from appropriate materials
12 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Credit: Ministry of Defense Singapore
Photo 2. Water Treatment Unit Military and emergency organizations, much the same as municipalities, require quality potable water. Portable desalination units such as the one shown here have the capability to be placed on location and to produce quantities of high-quality water on short notice.
and constructed so that accidental contamination does not occur. Most of the time water is collected from rivers and lakes where debris such as sticks, leaves, trash, soil and other large particles exist and, unless removed, may interfere with subsequent purification steps. Screening therefore is the first step during which water passes through multiple screens that collect large particles. Once water is collected, the next step is storage. According to Montgomery (1985), water from rivers could be stored for periods from a few days to many months to allow natural biological purification (p. 19). Once water is stored, the next process is flocculation, in which dirt particles come out of solution in the form of flakes. Flocculation is a process used in water treatment for aggregation or growth of destabilized particles, which can be easily removed through subsequent treatment methods such as sedimentation or filtration (Vigneswaran & Visvanathan, 2000). The three major mechanisms of flocculation are: a) aggregation resulting from Brownian movement (random movement of particles suspended in a liquid) in which particles move in water under Brownian motion, collide with other particles, and form larger, heavier particles not affected by the motion; b) aggregation induced by velocity gradient in the fluid that involves particle movement with gentle motion of water that promotes forming of the particles into a rounded mass and eventually separation due to mass weight; c) differential settling in which flocculation is due to the different rates of settling of particles of different sizes (Vigneswaran & Visvanathan, 2000).
Once the process of flocculation is completed, the next step is sedimentation, a solid-liquid process that makes use of the gravitational settling principle. In water-treatment plants, sedimentation is used to remove settleable solids left from the flocculation process. Since the size of the particles in the surface water is smaller, sedimentation precedes flocculation (Montgomery, 1985). Upon completion of the sedimentation process water will then go through filtration. Filters are divided into two types: pressure and gravity. Pressure filters consist of closed vessels containing beds of sand or other granular material through which water is forced under pressure (Montgomery, 1985). A gravity filter consists essentially of an open-topped box, drained at the bottom, and partly filled with filtering medium clean sand. Raw water is admitted to the space above the sand and flows downward under the action of gravity. Purification takes place during this downward passage. Like synthetic filters, natural sand filters (called slow-sand filters) achieve the same results when the water goes through and gets filtered from particles. In a slow-sand filter the water enters the water above the filter bed, awaiting its downward passage through the medium. This raw water reservoir is about 1-1.5 m deep, and the average time the sample will remain there varies from 3-12 hours, depending on the filtration velocity (Montgomery, 1985). The heavier particles of suspended matter start to settle. During the day and under the influence of sunlight, algae are growing and are absorbing carbon dioxide from the water to form cell material and oxygen. Along with the natural slow-sand filter technique is the lava filter technique in which lava rocks are used to filter particles and impurities out of the water. Once the water is cleaned of the different particles, the final step is
13 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Photo 3. Water Treatment Plant Water treatment plants process water through a series of settling and sedimentation, flocculation, and filtering steps. Chemicals are added to eliminate bacteriological pathogens and meet health needs such as fluoridation to produce a high-quality water product.
disinfection, where chlorine can be used to remove odors and taste. Water is then pumped to the households for consumption. Design Initiative for Students A simple activity that can be conducted with students is the filtration of water with the use of a homemade filter. To build the filter, we need a one-liter plastic water bottle with a lid that can serve as the housing for the filtration system and an ordinary plastic straw that can serve as the spout. The filtration system will consist of cotton batting, fine- and large-grain gravel, fine- and large-grain sand, and a coffee filter. A mug can be used to capture the filtered water. To create this style of homemade water filter, students will cut off the bottom of the one-liter water bottle and create a hole in the lid of the bottle so that a straw may fit snugly. The straw must sit halfway through the opening in the lid. Once the straw is in place, add the cotton batting at the bottom of the one-liter bottle and use it as lining for your filtration system. Next, place a layer of fine-grain sand followed by a layer of large-grain sand and follow the layers of sand with a layer of fine-grain gravel and then larger-grain
gravel. Once the bottle is full with the sand and gravel layers, top the filtration system with the coffee filter. The filter is now complete. Students will then pour unfiltered water through the coffee filter to work its way through the layers of sediment to wick away the impurities in the water. The cotton batting will catch particulates from the sediment and act as a final buffer. Finally a few drops of chlorine can be added in the filtered water to disinfect and finalize the process. Activities such as the one described above are easy to correlate with the technological literacy standards developed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). See Table 2 for correlations with ITEA’s standards.
Summary
Water quality is of concern to many. The substantial value of water is confirmed by society’s need for water and stability for all sectors, and it depends on access to reliable, good quality water. A nation’s survival depends on and is affected by water availability; therefore, water resources
14 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Credit: Texas Water Development Center
Table 2. Correlation with Standards for Technological Literacy
The Nature of Technology Standard 1: Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics and scope of technology. Standard 2: Students will develop an understanding of the core concepts of technology. Standard 3: Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies and the connections between technology and other fields of study. Technology and Society Standard 4: Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology. Standard 5: Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the environment. Standard 6: Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the development and use of technology. Design Standard 8: Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design. Standard 9: Students will develop an understanding of engineering design. Standard 10: Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving.
Standard 7: Students will develop an understanding of the influence of technology on history. Note. Adapted from Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). must be guarded and be protected from pollution and abuse to ensure the potential of the land for the sake of future generations. Retrieved November 2008, from: www.wilsoncenter.org/ waterstories/Household_Water_Treatment.pdf. Mintz, E., Bartram, J., Lochery, P., & Wegelin, M. (2001). Not just a drop in the bucket: Expanding access to point-ofuse water treatment systems. Am J Public Health, 91(10), 1565-1570. Reuber, M. D. (1979). Carcinogenicity of chloroform. Environmental Health Perspectives. 31, 171-182. Staehelln, J. & Holgne, J. (1982). Decomposition of ozone in water: Rate of initiation by hydroxide ions and hydrogen peroxide. Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 16 (10), 676-681. Sobsey, M. D. (2002). Managing water in the home: Accelerating health gains from improved water supply. Geneva: WHO. Vigneswaran, S. & Visvanathan, C. (2000). Water treatment process. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. World Health Organization. (2007). Combating waterborne disease at the household level (PDF). IWA Publishing. ISBN 978 92 4159522 3. Petros J. Katsioloudis, Ph.D., is an ambassador to Cyprus for the International Technology Education Association. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Occupational and Technical Studies at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.
References
Baker, M. N. (1949). The quest for pure water. New York, NY: American Waterworks Association. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). National primary drinking water regulations. EPA-published manuscript: 40 CFR Part 142. Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2003). Method 1602. Male-specific (F+) and somatic coliphage in water by single agar layer (SAL) procedure. Washington, DC: Author. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). Guidelines for testing microbiological water purifiers. Washington, DC.: Author. Genov, V., Reshetnyak, I., Gevod, I., Shklyarova, I., & Rudenko, A. (2003). Modern tools and methods of water treatment for improving living standards. Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine: Springer. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Lantagne, D., Quick, R. & Mintz, E. (2007). Household water treatment and safe storage options in developing countries: A review of current implementation practices.
15 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Teaching Students about Clean Fuels and Transportation Technologies
By Joe Busby, DTE and Pam Page Carpenter
Technology teachers are part of the global solution for educating a greater public about energy inputs, processes, and outputs.
lobal warming, going green, ethanol, biodiesel, fuel cells, hydrogen combustion, and hybrids are some of the terms being tossed around in mainstream media these days. The grassroots efforts of many environmentalists and concerned citizen groups, Al Gore’s (2006) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, on global warming, rising petroleum fuel prices, concerns for dependency on oil, national security, and jobs are a few of the issues driving the need to become more informed and involved in going green. Regardless of a person’s convictions and belief system, science has provided a body of knowledge that points to human interaction with nature as being the leading cause of pollution and a variable to the cause of global warming. Some of this knowledge is being debated within the science community, and even more within the mainstream of society. For many, the question of what is fact or fiction is real. Technology teachers are part of the global solution for educating a greater public about energy inputs, processes, and outputs as indicated in Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007): Standard 5 – the effects of technology on the environment, Standard 15 – agricultural and related biotechnologies, Standard 16 – energy and power technologies, and Standard 18 – transportation technologies. Therefore, technology teachers need reliable and basic information about renewable energy technologies to incorporate into their classroom instruction in order to better fulfill STL. There are many alternative energy and transportation technologies being implemented that will make a positive difference on the environment. Many other technologies that hold great promise are currently in a research and development phase. The following topics are environmentally friendlier energy and transportation technologies that are currently being implemented in various places around the world.
G
Junior Solar Sprint students ready to race.
16 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
Fuel-efficient vehicles, referred to as FEVs, are determined by the maximum miles per gallon (MPG) and the lowest emissions. Emissions contribute to greenhouse gases, with transportation being the largest contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2). According to the Energy Information Administration (2007), 98% of CO2 is emitted as a product of the combustion of fossil fuels in the United States. Some vehicles are partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs). An example of a PZEV is the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that runs on gasoline and batteries. When the Prius is using only battery power, it is said to be a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) because it is not emitting any pollutants into the atmosphere. The batteries have a limited range, so the gasoline internal-combustion engine (ICE) provides most of the power for the auto. When a hybrid’s ICE is running, gasoline is burned and emissions are released into the atmosphere. A hydrogen vehicle is considered a ZEV because its only emission is a harmless water vapor (Air Resources Board, 2004a). This makes it an excellent vehicle to drive to help eliminate greenhouse gases. In order to achieve clean-air standards, California has enacted strict regulations requiring automobile manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission vehicles (Air Resource Board, 2004b). These standards can be met by producing and selling a greater number of PZEVs. These regulations will push the automobile industry to create a variety of vehicles with zero and partial emissions.
automobile manufacturers offered over 70 models of AFVs to consumers, a marked increase from 11 models in 2001 (AutoblogGreen, 2008).
Flexible-Fuel Vehicles
Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are defined by the use of both fossil fuels and alternative fuels (e.g., gasoline and ethanol, diesel and biodiesel). Onboard sensors detect which fuel is being utilized in order to accommodate for and efficiently burn the fuel in an ICE. The U.S. Department of Energy (2008a) estimates more than 6 million FFVs were in service in 2008, and many of the owners were not aware their vehicles were FFVs. The lack of awareness causes an underutilization of alternative fuels by the owner/operator and reduces the environmental benefits of the vehicle.
Biomass
Biomass is plant and animal matter that is used to make energy. It is considered the most common renewable source of energy (Markert and Backer, 2003). Examples of biomass are wood, corn stalks and shucks, grain, wheat stubble, and animal dung. Ethanol and biodiesel are two alternative fuels acquired from biomass resources and utilized in FFVs.
Alternative Fuels
Alternative fuels are non-petroleum-based fuels and are sources of renewable energy. Alternative fuels include battery power, biodiesel, biomass, ethanol, hydrogen, solar, and wind energy. Most of these renewable energy sources are currently being used to power alternative fuel vehicles and as oxygenates in low-level fuel blends (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008b). Hydrogen is presently being researched and developed, with the first leased vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines now available for consumers in some states.
Ethanol Ethanol is a renewable grain alcohol fuel derived from the fermentation of plant materials that are high in carbohydrates. Some plants that are used to create ethanol include corn, sugar cane, grains, and woody fibers. The woody fibers (cellulosic) tend to be the most difficult from which to obtain ethanol because of the lignin in the plant, but hold the greatest potential for future production and meeting the U.S. Department of Energy’s (30 x 30) goal for replacing 30% of automobile gasoline by 2030 (Neilson, 2007).
Currently, researchers at North Carolina State University are manipulating the genes in popular trees to create trees with less lignin and improve ethanol production (Burns, 2007). Ethanol is usually mixed with gasoline of a blend of E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) for flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and heavy-duty trucks use E-95, which is a blend of 95% ethanol and 5% gasoline.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) are defined by the use of non-petroleum-based renewable fuels. Examples of AFVs are automobiles that use biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, and solar energy. Approximately 1.8 million AFVs were sold in 2007 in the U.S. During 2008, it was estimated that over 11 million AFVs were in service in the U.S., and
Biodiesel Biodiesel is derived from soy beans, canola, and other plants. It is also processed from recycled vegetable oil. All diesel engines can operate on biodiesel blends of 5% (B5) and 95% petro-diesel. Blends higher than 5% may require modifications to the vehicle. Biodiesel may be used in the
17 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
pure form of B100 or mixed with diesel as a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel known as B20. Biodiesel results in lower emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants. These lower emissions have less adverse impact on the environment. Concerns about the harmful effects from diesel exposure have given cause for some school districts to use biodiesel in school buses. Biodiesel is a safer alternative for the students riding buses because carbon monoxide and particulate matter (breathing irritants) are reduced by almost one half. Further, two potential cancer-causing compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAH), are reduced by large amounts. Most of the PAH compounds are reduced by 75 percent, and the nPAH are reduced by 90 percent or more (National Biodiesel Board, 2008).
is burned instead of gasoline. Hydrogen is considered the simplest of elements because its structure is one proton and one electron. Individual hydrogen elements are rarely found alone in nature because of their single electron. When hydrogen is concentrated, it is usual for two hydrogen elements to join by sharing their electrons and form H2 gas (Ewing, 2007). Hydrogen is the cleanest of fuels since its emissions are clean water. Hydrogen is also being combined with natural gas and propane systems to improve emissions of the systems.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
A fuel-cell vehicle (FCV) uses a hydrogen fuel cell. The fuel cell, like a battery, is an electrochemical energy conversion device. The difference between a battery and fuel cell is that a battery has to be recharged and eventually discarded, while a fuel cell, as long as it has a constant flow of chemicals to contact the catalyst, will continue to produce electricity. There are several types of hydrogen fuel cells. The electrolyte used in the fuel cell provides the primary
Hydrogen
Hydrogen holds great promise as a fuel for advanced technology vehicles. Currently, hydrogen is being used in hydrogen fuel cells to make electricity and in ICEs where it
Triumph Spitfire EV converted by high school students.
18 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
classification for the fuel cell. Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs) are the first type of fuel cells to be used in the space program. Although expensive to operate, these fuel cells produce electricity for the spacecraft and consumable water for the astronauts (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007). The Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell (PEM) is presently the most suitable for land transportation applications. This fuel cell is fueled by hydrogen that is carried onboard and oxygen obtained from the atmospheric ambient air. The only emissions from a PEM are heat and water. The need for stored hydrogen is a current challenge for this system. A great amount of storage is necessary for PEM-powered vehicles to have ranges comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Other types of fuel cells exist but each exhibits challenges for application to vehicular transportation systems. Several systems produce extreme heat well past the boiling point of water. Others produce by-products that are not environmentally friendly.
Solar Vehicles
While EVs obtain energy from batteries, solar electric vehicles (SEVs) use the sun as their source of power. Photovoltaic cells, mounted on the exterior of the vehicle, are used to convert sunlight into electricity. SEVs are considered by many to be impractical because of the limitations of sunlight. Still, photovoltaic modules are being produced as add-on applications to HEVs. The gains recognized by the addition of the photovoltaics reduce the operation of the gasoline engine, thus further reducing emission.
An Example Educational Energy and Transportation Initiative
The North Carolina Solar Center is an educational initiative of the College of Engineering at North Carolina State University and has provided K-12 programs in alternative fuels and transportation for over ten years. Two Solar Center programs that can serve as models for technology education are the Junior Solar Sprint and the Students Making Advancements in Renewable Transportation Technologies (SMARTT) Challenge programs. The Junior Solar Sprint program provides a hands-on opportunity for middle school students to learn about solar energy. The students study content materials developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2001) that enable them to design, build, and test a small vehicle powered by a photovoltaic cell. The culminating activity is the annual competition with other schools on the campus of North Carolina State University. The SMARTT Challenge program is a year-long curriculum program that includes converting a gasolinepowered vehicle into an electric vehicle. The SMARTT Challenge program is a hands-on thematic program with many requirements that ends with a competition. The students are expected to study a specific curriculum that intentionally integrates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts. For the competition, the students have to create a web page that explains their environmental education and their activities while building the electric vehicle, create a display explaining building the electric vehicle and document its use in the community, and develop oral presentations per requirements. Both the Junior Solar Sprint and the SMARTT Challenge programs provide opportunities for students to work cooperatively in a hands-on learning environment. These programs give students, who may not be academically
Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles (EVs) are advanced technology vehicles that rely on rechargeable batteries as the source of energy. Refueling is only a plug-in to an electrical supply system. EVs have a range of 50 to 200 miles (Plug In America, 2007). There are zero emissions from EVs, and they require no oil changes, no tune-ups, and little in the way of purchasing parts for the vehicles.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
There are numerous hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) on the road today. HEVs have a combination of an ICE and an electric motor to provide power. The HEVs are able to travel greater ranges while consuming less fuel and producing fewer emissions than conventional vehicles. HEVs are generally classified as partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEV). While being powered only by the electric motor, zero emissions are being emitted, but when the gasoline engine is in operation, emissions are expelled. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are just entering the market for private transportation. PHEVs utilize an ICE and an electric motor just like other HEVs. The difference is that the PHEV works like an EV and plugs into a wall socket to charge the batteries. It also works like an HEV and gets energy from the ICE, which gives the automobile a greater range than an EV.
19 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
engaged, opportunities to become interested in school again. Further, the programs provide extended learning opportunities for all students involved, including those who are more inclined towards academics. The North Carolina Solar Center provides workshops to prepare teachers for teaching the Junior Solar Sprint and the SMARTT Challenge programs. They also offer a number of other workshops for teachers about wind energy and other renewable energy technologies. The Solar House, part of the North Carolina Solar Center, is the premiere facility where students and the public can see and experience firsthand solar energy apparatus incorporated in residential dwellings. These apparatus include active and passive solar energies, photovoltaics, wind turbine, and alternative fuels.
in fuel economy standards for automobiles since 1975, calling for a 40 percent increase by setting a national fuel economy threshold at 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill also sets a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) where fuel producers are required to use a minimum amount of biofuel in 2022. Technology education teachers can be part of the solution to environmental challenges by educating about clean, alternative fuels and transportation technologies. Many changes are happening within these areas and students need
Facts into Action – An Activity
All technology education teachers can create opportunities for their students to experience alternative energy and transportation technologies. These experiences can happen in well-equipped laboratories or in programs with meager means for hands-on activities, as whole class, partial class, enrichment, or after-school activities. With appropriate and adequate planning, successful experiences can be realized by all. A constructivist’s model to follow that allows for engineering design and problem solving is for the teacher to present information about alternative energy sources as applied to transportation technologies and then have students help create a list of alternative transportation energy source topics for further investigation. The students can choose a topic from the list and work individually, in pairs, or in small groups to research the topic. Based on the research, the student or team should plan, build, and test a working model of the system. Data collection for the intent of making informed decisions and reporting the findings should be included as part of the testing. The students should utilize professionals from the community to help develop the plans for building the system, as well as the plans for testing the system and reporting the data from the tests. Ultimately a report and display can be developed to show the findings of the research project and to serve as an outlet to disseminate the information to a greater public.
Conclusion
Clean fuels and transportation technologies are part of the puzzle for cleaning up the earth’s environment. While this article was being written, the United States passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Office of the Press Secretary, 2007). This bill enacts the first increase
The NC State Wolfpack Energy-Efficient Locomotion at the Junior Solar Sprint and Students Making Advancements In Renewable Transportation Technologies (SMARTT) final event.
20 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
to have experiences and develop understanding so they can be wise consumers as well as conscious contributors to future developments.
References
Air Resources Board. (2004a). Fact sheet: California vehicle emissions. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from www.arb.ca.gov/ msprog/zevprog/factsheets/calemissions.pdf. Air Resources Board. (2004b). Manufacturers advisory correspondence (MAC) 2004-01. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/mac0401/ mac0401.doc. AutoblogGreen. (2008). Auto Alliance: 1.8 million alternative fuel vehicles sold in 2007. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.autobloggreen.com/2008/ 04/05/auto-alliance-1-8-million-alternative-fuel-vehiclessold-in-200/. Burns, M. (2007). Breeding better biofuels. Results: Research and graduate studies at North Carolina State University. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from www.ncsu.edu/ research/results/vol7n2/09.html. Energy Information Administration. (2007). Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2005: Executive summary – carbon. Official energy statistics from the U.S. Government. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from www.eia. doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg06rpt/summary/carbon. html. Ewing, R. A. (2007). Hydrogen – hot stuff cool science. Masonville, CO: PixyJack Press, LLC. Gore, A., et. al. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Classics and Participant Productions. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Markert, L. R. and Backer, P. R. (2003). Contemporary technology: Innovations, issues, and perspectives. Tinley Park, IL: The Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc. National Biodiesel Board. (2008). Biodiesel: Biodiesel emissions. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from www.biodiesel. org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2001). Junior solar sprint: So…you want to build a model solar car. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy01/30826. pdf. Neilson, R. M., Jr. (2007). The role of cellulosic ethanol in transportation. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Laboratory. (INL/CON-07013406 Preprint). Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/ Documents/3867727.pdf.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2007, December 19.) Fact sheet: Energy independence and security act of 2007. The White House. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html. Plug In America. (2007). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from www.pluginamerica.com/ faq.shtml. U.S. Department of Energy. (2007). Hydrogen, fuel cells & infrastructure technologies program. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/ fc_types.html. U.S. Department of Energy. (2008a). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center. Alternative & advanced vehicles: Fuels. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.eere. energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/flexible_fuel.html. U.S. Department of Energy. (2008b). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center. Data, analysis & trends: Fuels. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.eere.energy. gov/afdc/data/fuels.html. Joe Busby, Ed.D., DTE is an assistant teaching professor in the Department of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. He can be reached via email at joe_busby@ ncsu.edu. Pam Page Carpenter, Ed.D. is the K-12 Education Specialist at the North Carolina Solar Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. She can be reached via email at pam_ [email protected]. This is a refereed article.
Ad Index
California University of Pennsylvania ...........4 Carnegie Mellon ...........................................C-4 Engineer Your Life ......................................... 40 Forrest T. Jones & Co. .................................C-3 Goodheart-Willcox Publisher .........................9 Kelvin Electronics ..............................................i Mastercam .....................................................C-2
21 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Design Your Own Underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
By Brian Lien
[The project] will excite your students, and you as the teacher will get a new outlook on your teaching career.
W
hile looking for labs for my pre-engineering class, I came across an idea for a marine engineering project from the Future Scientists and Engineers of America website. I thought the lab looked fun, and it was not too expensive. These were two important criteria as I chose labs for the class. Another important criteria I had for implementing labs into the class was whether or not I could incorporate both science and math concepts into the lesson. I felt I could develop a connection between both science and math with technology and engineering as I developed the lab. What really clinched the development of the project for me came when I saw Robert Ballard speak at the 2008 ITEA conference in Salt Lake City. As he talked about his experiences in ROVs and his JASON Project, I knew this lab was one my students needed to do. I knew developing this lab would take me out of my comfort zone. However, I feel for a teacher to become a better teacher, he or she must learn new things. This, in turn, frustrated one of my students who told me she thought I should know everything. She thought I should have done the lab first and worked out all of the problems in order to anticipate the problems students would have and be able to provide answers. I explained that when she gets a
Mark and Kyle are making final adjustments to their underwater ROV.
22 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
job and her boss approaches her with a problem that she can’t immediately solve, she will have to use the skills she is learning now to help her solve problems later. She was OK with the explanation; however, she still thought the teacher should know all the answers. The lesson began with the purchase of two kits from FSEA (www.discoverycube.org/fsea/aspx). I read through their material, which gave good instructions on how to build the project but did not incorporate the science and math skills I wanted the students to use. So, I bought Build Your Own Underwater Robot and Other Wet Projects by Harry Bohm. This book contained some good background information about the history of underwater devices and some of the science and math skills I wanted to teach my students to better understand marine engineering. I used this book to develop my opening-day activity sheet. I wanted to introduce students to undersea devices and to develop a timeline using the CAD system as their output means. I wanted to show them how a CAD system could be used as a design tool to output a drawing other than the traditional two- and three-dimensional drawings they were used to. I gave them hints on what to look for, but in my redesigned handout, I further refined some specific devices I wanted them to look for. These devices started about 1200 AD and went through the JASON Project’s ROVs. Once they learned about the history of these devices, it was time for the science. In the book, Build Your Own Underwater Robot and Other Wet Projects, there is a section on Archimedes’ Principle. I used this section to help the students with the concept of buoyancy. Next year, as my “hook” to this activity, I am going to have a clear bucket or tub filled with water. I will have 5-10 different objects and have students tell me if each object will float like a boat, submerge—but not sink, or sink like a rock. To confuse them I will also have a piece of ebony wood and Pumice rock. These two materials act differently than most other types of wood or rock. Once they see what the objects do in water, I will introduce them to Archimedes’ Principle and the terms, “positively buoyant,” “neutrally buoyant,” and “negatively buoyant.” I will then relate these terms to the project they are going to design. You can even talk about Newton’s First Law of Motion during the course of this lab. Once student ROVs are neutrally buoyant, it will not take much effort to get the ROV moving. After the history aspect is complete, students can begin the build process. I gave them the design problem of having to pick up five steel washers from the bottom of the shallow end of a pool using a supplied electromagnet.
Trevor is adjusting the electromagnet. He is using the extra weight of the electromagnet to make his project neutrally buoyant.
They had ten minutes to do this task. I had the students use the engineering design method. First the students had to research small ROVs. You could incorporate this into your timeline if you wanted to condense the time frame of the lab. Students were asked to determine if any projects like this had been done before. When I started the research, I discovered several great websites—including information about a regional and a national contest with a device very similar to what we were designing. The contest is by Marine Advanced Technology Education Center (MATE), with information at www.marinetech.org/rov_competition/ index.php. Next, students brainstormed ten ideas and made a CAD drawing of their final idea. They had to use Microsoft Excel® to make a parts list and total the cost of their project before I would give them any supplies. I gave them a list of
23 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Zach practices “flying” the day before the contest.
This is an example of how we waterproofed the 12-volt DC motor. We used petroleum jelly to seal the small hole where the shaft extends through the bottom of the film canister. To seal the rest of the motor in and the rim of the lid, we used wax toilet bowl sealer. We used the pipe insulation to help make it neutrally buoyant.
supplies I would provide and anything else they would need to purchase. I had them include the cost of the controller also. They had to use my costs to complete their sheet, keeping the total under $40. That sounds like a lot; however, I, the controller, was included as part of the build cost. Once the parts list was complete, students had three days to build the project. Next they had four days in our pool to test their projects. We needed that time; however, if they built the project small enough, they could have taken the project home to do testing in their bathtubs. This was even a comment made by one of the students on the year-end evaluation—the desire for additional testing time. Taking the projects home to test could potentially cut out a day or two of testing at school. For the actual competition, I invited local media, both print and video, into the pool area. I also suggested inviting science and math students to see the event as a way to promote our classes for next year. Take lots of pictures. I took several pictures each day while the students were in the design and build stages. I also took several pictures and video clips while they were in the pool. Our school posted the pictures on its website and I emailed the link everywhere that came to mind. Fellow ITEA Idea Gardeners replied with how they did the MATE competition. I used their expertise to improve my lesson for next year. Here is one comment I received from Celeste
Baine, the author of Engineers Make a Difference: “The interesting thing is that his project is considered marine engineering. Marine and ocean engineering are important branches of engineering, especially since we are studying all aspects of the ocean environment to determine our effect on the oceans, the ocean as a natural resource, and its effect on ships and other marine vehicles. For me personally, water is relaxing, and the ocean has always beckoned. I’m sure there are many students who feel the same way. A career being outside enjoying the water would be especially appealing. This line of work is a welcomed defiance to most of the stereotypes about what engineers do all day.” Debra Shapiro, an associate editor from the National Science Teachers Association, read the blog and ran a story on the NSTA website. My administration and parents really loved the lab. Best of all was that this lab was listed as one of the top two labs by my students. They really liked the project. They wanted me to teach it earlier in the year so they would be more willing to do a better job on it. Some of the problems I encountered with the lab included having a power supply break the day before I was to go to the pool for testing. To overcome that problem I used old cell phone charging units. I found a couple of 1-amp units that worked, but not as well as the real charger would have. You really need a 6-amp charger or a marine deep cycle
24 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
battery for the project to work well. By the time you turn on three 12-volt motors and the electromagnet, the ROV draws about 2.5 amps on dry land. When you put it into the water, it will draw even more amperage. I would make the electromagnet differently than the version supplied by FSEA—its magnet is very heavy. I would make my own magnet. Propellers were another big challenge for my students. I bought 40 propellers for the project, and we went through all 40. The students kept breaking them. They had a very hard time gluing the propellers to the shaft. They finally started experimenting with different glues, but it wasn’t until the propeller fell off the shaft for the third and fourth time that I suggested trying a different method for propeller attachment. Trying to keep the students “thinking small” was a challenge. However, two of my most successful projects were my largest projects. The cost of the project is expensive for the first year. If you make a controller for each ROV, the cost will be about $50-$55 per unit; however, reuse of the controllers allows subsequent yearly costs to remain minimal. If you keep all of the ROVs, you can reuse 95% of the projects. The most expensive part, other than the controllers, is the 12-volt motor. They cost about $8.00 each, and you need at least three per ROV. These can be reused from year to year also.
There are several variations you could do to make this project work without a pool. You could make them really small using very thin PVC and fly them in any large baby pool or deep sink you might have. You could also not use the electromagnet and use the pool hoops. The challenge would be to fly down and gather the hoops off the bottom of the pool using some arm hanging off the end or bottom of the ROV. Get creative with the project. It will excite your students, and you as the teacher will get a new outlook on your teaching career. It really excited me and kept me going through the final weeks of the school year.
Resource
Bohm, Harry. (1997). Build your own underwater robot and other wet projects. Vancouver: Westcoast Words. ISBN: 9780968161005. Brian Lien is a technology education teacher at Princeton High School in Cincinnati, Ohio. He can be reached via email at blien@ princeton.k12.oh.us.
25 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Portable Inspiration: The Necessity of STEM Outreach Investment
By Rich Kressly With Sylvia Herbert, Phil Ross, and Delia Votsch
The program is fueled by a passion to provide others with opportunities to learn about the excitement and benefits of STEM, robotics education, and competition through hands-on experiences.
unning a successful technology education lab and delivering curriculum in today’s educational environment can be busy, misunderstood, and downright exhausting. Keeping up with growing and emerging technologies, educating the school and community on what your program is really all about, and running after-school technology and engineering clubs leaves precious little time for anything else. On top of all of that, investing in a STEM outreach program isn’t even close to feasible, right? Even if it’s far more feasible than one might think, to suggest that such a program is a “necessity” is downright foolish, isn’t it? Not in our opinion. In fact, Pennsylvania Standard 3.8.12 mandates that students “apply the use of ingenuity and technological resources to solve specific societal needs and improve the quality of life,” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2002). Further, Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) Standards 4, 5, 6, and 13 all relate to the impacts of technology on the environment and society in general (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). Whether through a school’s technology education curriculum, through a cocurricular STEM-related club, or a combination of both, it would seem that investment in an outreach program is a compelling way to address perhaps the most important standard charged to technology educators across the commonwealth today.
R
Our Example, But By No Means Our Idea
Originally developed as an extension of the Lower Merion High School Technology & Engineering Club’s FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) Team in October of 2007, Portable Inspiration was designed to expose students, educators, and communities to the experience of engineering and the design process. The program is fueled by a passion to provide others with opportunities to learn about the excitement and benefits of STEM, robotics education, and competition through hands-on experiences. There are also clear benefits for those LMHS students
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
Student outreach team with PI package.
26 •
• april 2009
who spend time planning and executing these outreach events in our community and others. Students in our club are developing leadership and communication skills while engaging in meaningful and relevant community service. While Portable Inspiration was born and planned for at Lower Merion, the idea to perform outreach is something we cannot take any credit for. As a participant in FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science & Technology), the national nonprofit that operates FRC, we’ve been encouraged to spread the word of STEM and FIRST’s ideals of Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism, two terms that promote the coexistence of cooperation and competition while emphasizing acting with integrity. Veteran FIRST participants learn to focus upon the ultimate goal of transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology. At Lower Merion we’ve broadened that effort to include all students in our Technology & Engineering Club whether they are affiliated with FIRST, VEX, TSA, or all three. With a strong ethos behind the effort, we then planned for and developed the Portable Inspiration package by consulting STEM-focused clubs and robotics programs that conduct similar outreach in VA, PA, DE, and as far away as Ontario, Canada. From there, we took the best of what each example had to offer while considering what would best meet the needs of our community.
Club members work with a student with special needs.
and for high school students with special needs. We’ve also adapted the use of the Portable Inspiration Package to include more in-depth workshops and learning experiences for high school and elementary school students. Thus far these workshops have proven to be productive and meaningful for students in Grades K-3 in two separate school districts and in one private school as well. In a halfday’s time our high school students engage every student in an entire grade level as champions of engineering and design as well as acting as community role models. In addition to controlling a robot in Pyramid Mania, young students learn about simple machines, robots in the world, teamwork, and more. Teachers even get the opportunity to drive a large FIRST robot and leave with classroom materials. Now, in Year Two of the program, demand is really growing. A supportive administration has afforded us the time to conduct the workshops, and we involve many of our students so that exposure is maximized and lost class time during the school day is minimized.
Creating Win-Win Scenarios
From the onset, when creating our outreach program, we realized that we needed to conserve resources (especially time and human capital, as these are always scarce) as well as keeping an eye on cost—both initial and recurring. In short, we needed a very engaging concept that was flexible and portable for varying audiences and environments that didn’t cost a lot or take a tremendous amount of time to create or maintain. With creating “win-win” scenarios for participants and student presenters/experts in mind, we settled upon the use of the VEX Robotics Design System rather quickly because of its price point and for the fact we were already invested in VEX in both the Tech Ed curriculum and with our after-school competitive robotics efforts. We then developed a robotics game called Pyramid Mania that utilizes an inexpensive PVC field and tennis balls for game objects that fit in a single container and set up in mere moments. This basic outreach package fits into five small totes; four VEX starter kits and “SquareBots” and one tote for the game field and objects. With this basic package we have run hands-on demonstrations for hundreds of visitors and younger siblings who attend local high school robotics events and competitions, for cub scouts at a pack meeting,
The STEM Outreach Recipe—Key Ingredients
Creating your own STEM outreach program and package isn’t really all that difficult. In the end, all you really need is the desire to make the investment of time and resources because you see this as worthwhile for the students, community, and staff. Selecting a target audience and choosing your “tools” to deliver the STEM message are
27 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
existing relationships you have with school administration, webmasters, parent/community groups, local business, and local media outlets. Once the ball starts rolling, more support of some kind is sure to follow. Just like the rest of your work, this will never be a perfect endeavor, but if you are willing to make this investment, the dividends could have a deeper and more lasting impact upon your students and community than you could have ever imagined.
The Unintended, Yet Delightful Consequences of Saying “Yes”
We’re all keenly aware of what happens when excited students come to a classroom teacher with an “idea” for a project—it takes precious time and energy. In our case, however, it’s proving to be more than worth it. As our students now take the initiative looking for opportunities to utilize the outreach package to expose, excite, and teach others about the wonders of technology and engineering, many are realizing unintended benefits. In addition to our stated goals, the outreach program has led to an Eagle Scout project, new robotics team members, and an invitation to be part of the international Ulster Project. Our high school students have even been asked to sign autographs for younger students in workshops. It’s becoming obvious that these experiences, the ones that we cannot control or predict, are some of the most meaningful of all. What we can do intentionally, though, is create an atmosphere where
Club members give elementary students a tour of competition robot “Deuce.”
certainly at the forefront. In our case, we initially wanted to reach out to a special needs population in our own building, and things “mushroomed” from there. From the start we knew that the idea might grow, so we kept the words “flexible” and “portable” in mind. Alongside those two key words was a third word: “engaging.” No matter who your outreach target audience is, you need to be sure that they are engaged in a way that makes them say “wow.” Robotics is one way to do this, but there are others as well. The bottom line is, once you have the audience’s interest, it becomes very easy for you and your students to deliver a message in a meaningful and lasting way. Think hard about the strengths of your program and how they might be leveraged to create an outreach program. Naturally, budget is always a consideration. The Portable Inspiration package initial cost was about $1,500 worth of VEX and associated equipment, which we had already budgeted for between curriculum and our robotics team. That price could easily be cut in half by using two robots instead of the four we have. Get creative to meet your needs and constraints. Our additional workshop materials were all created in-house for under $100 total. Later, we received a donation that helped us upgrade our simple machines station. Once you’ve built from your own program strength and have a package that’s flexible and portable, promote these activities just like you would promote any student’s or program accomplishment. Leverage the
VEX Robotics Design System.
28 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
References
FIRST: For Inspiration & Recognition of Science & Technology. (October 2008). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from www.usfirst.org. Innovation First, Inc. (2008). Vex robotics design system. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from www.vexrobotics.com. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd. pdf. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Academic standards for science and technology. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/scitech. pdf. Rich Kressly has been a public educator for 15 years and is currently serving Lower Merion High School’s Technology Education and English departments and running the school’s competitive robotics program while also acting as an educational consultant for Innovation First, Inc. He’s served FIRST Robotics as a Regional Senior Mentor and has also been part of the yearly international robotics challenge design for FIRST’s intermediate program. He has played roles in designing robotics curriculum and support materials at the local, state, and national levels—most recently completing work as one of five lead authors of the Autodesk VEX Robotics Curriculum. Kressly has also twice received Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers honors. He can be reached at [email protected].
Guiding an elementary student driving “Square bot.”
creative deployment of STEM outreach is encouraged and expected.
Going One Extra Step to Start Someone Else’s Journey
Once you develop your own outreach program based on your program strengths, go the small extra step to share what you do. All of it. The only way we’ll ever come close to achieving a world where people “apply the use of ingenuity and technological resources to solve specific societal needs and improve the quality of life” on a grand scale is if we all utilize today’s modern communication tools to share what we do—openly and without reservation. Proudly, all of LMHS’ Portable Inspiration and associated files are available via a popular competitive robotics education message board at: www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2052. For the small amount of time this took to share, if it helps inspire just one other program somewhere, it’s well-invested time. Yes, being a technology educator is indeed too busy a profession for anyone to fairly ask you to create and operate a STEM outreach program through curriculum, clubs, or both. Yet, it just may be a very critical component in our mission to meet important education standards and, ultimately, to help produce the kind of students who will utilize skills, knowledge, and technology for the greater good, share those success stories and methods openly with others, and consciously help create a stronger, healthier global society.
Phil Ross, Delia Votsch, and Sylvia Herbert are student members of the LMHS Technology & Engineering Club, the current Captains of Dawgma, the school’s FIRST & VEX Robotics teams, and have all held various leadership positions with the club’s TSA Chapter during their high school careers as well. They can be reached at captains@ lmtechclub.org.
29 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Classroom Challenge
Revisiting the Nuclear Power Option
By Harry T. Roman
When citizens do not understand what a technology is or what it can do, there is sometimes a deep-seated fear about it.
echnologies can be “hot buttons” for controversy, especially if it has anything to do with nuclear energy. Undoubtedly, nuclear power plants generate a significant portion of our nation’s electricity, and to shut them down would impose severe shocks to the economy and our electricity bills. Such plants do have some very important benefits such as no greenhouse gas emissions, no use of petroleum fuels, and no dependence on foreign sources for fuel supply. But in the heat of philosophical battle, opposing sides don’t always hear each other or listen without bias. If there is anything that will impact how technology is accepted, it is likely to be the public’s preconceived notions and how the popular press in all its forms (print, TV, radio) influences their opinions. It is often many times more powerful than any technological fix that scientists or engineers can apply. The challenge for your class here is
T
to revisit this controversial power-generation option and develop ideas for reinvigorating this technology.
Getting Started
The first order of business is to understand how nuclear power plants operate as well as what leads to the everpresent controversy surrounding them. How old is this technology? Where are the plants located? What has been their performance record? What are the concerns about these plants today, and how is that different from other types of power-generation technologies?
30 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
• ow much people really understand about how nuclear H plants work. • hat sources of information they have read to arrive at W their conclusions. • hat things trouble them the most about nuclear plants. W • f they are willing to listen to new nuclear power ideas. I Here students can talk to their parents, other teachers, extended family, and friends to develop an appreciation about how people view this technology. France obtains close to 70% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Germany, Japan, England, Spain, and Canada also use nuclear power. What are their opinions of the technology? Why is France so comfortable with the technology? Are some other countries moving away from it and why? We have had nuclear-powered ships for over 50 years, so what’s all the fuss about nuclear power on land?
If there is anything that will impact how technology is accepted, it is likely to be the public’s preconceived notions and how the popular press…influences their opinions.
Information abounds about this topic, so finding references should not be a problem; but it is important that students read both the pro and con side of the arguments. Balance of perspective is essential if students are to make meaningful suggestions about how to “rebirth” the technology. You will find there are major points of contention about: • lant safety P • adioactive leaks R • ost of the plants C • torage and transportation of spent fuel S • ossible attack by terrorists P • seful lifetime of the plants U • ging plants A • uel recycling F There are also new ideas being talked about for radically different nuclear power plants, inherently safer and less prone to leaks. This is food for new ideas about transitioning the existing technology to something perhaps more acceptable. When citizens do not understand what a technology is or what it can do, there is sometimes a deep-seated fear about it. Nuclear power is no exception. Have the students ask around about what people know and fear about nuclear power and why. Try to have the students be very specific about how they ask questions and dig deeply to determine:
You will find there are major points of contention about plant safety.
31 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Is it possible to invite pro and con advocates to your classroom to discuss the technology and address the points of contention? Is there a utility in your area that operates a nuclear power plant, and can someone from the plant visit the students to discuss how the plant is operated? Is there a local anti-nuclear activist who would be willing to talk with the students? This would be a wonderful opportunity for students to dig down to the basics of the arguments and see: • here there could be room for compromise and change. W • hat alternatives anti-nuclear activists propose. W • ow realistic it would be to phase out nuclear plants. H • e experience and knowledge from which both parties Th speak. • rrational fears or misconceptions on both sides of the I issue.
Challenge the Status Quo
Once the major issues and the public perception questions have been understood, it is time for the students to make their recommendations for change. They should be thinking along two lines of thought: Is there something that can be done to existing plants to make them more acceptable? and What new nuclear power technologies could be used?
Explore the broad gamut of possibilities for students to consider. They are free to propose new ideas based on what they have learned thus far in this exercise. Stimulate discussion and creativity with provocative questions such as: • hould we build all nuclear power plants underground? S • aybe if we had more nuclear technology available for the M public to use it might make them more comfortable with it….why not nuclear-powered cars, home heating systems, etc? • an we find something useful to do with all the spent fuel? C • o we prohibit any public approaches to nuclear plant D sites? • s it necessary that we have a special organization in I charge of all nuclear power plants and their operation? • hould we build artificial islands and locate power plants S on them and bring the energy ashore by cables? • hould we make the power plants smaller and more S numerous to reduce potential problems at large site locations? • aybe a massive public education program about nuclear M power is needed, or perhaps a national debate. • hould we develop power plant designs that are fail-safe S and very different than the types we use today?
Should we build artificial islands and locate power plants on them and bring the energy ashore by cables?
32 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
• f we cannot use nuclear power, what will be its I replacement that could be available any time of the day? • hat is its impact on the environment, air quality, etc? W These are big questions with broad ramifications, but technology can have such impacts on society—look at stem cell research, nanotechnology, life extension techniques, etc. Think about how the car, electricity, motion pictures, the lightbulb, and airplanes changed our society. Are there parallels to nuclear power and common lessons that can be learned? What makes the “hot button” of nuclear power so different from these other civilization-changing technologies?
Urge your students to grab a big chunk of this topic and run with it. They will learn there is a great deal more to technology than the “geek stuff.” Here they will be up close and personal with the social, environmental, institutional, governmental, and economic forces that ebb and flow in our capitalist system. Harry T. Roman recently retired from his engineering job and is the author of a variety of new technology education books. He can be reached via email at htroman49@aol. com.
33 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional Members
For further information, contact the faculty member listed. LEGEND Degrees 1 Bachelor’s Degree 2 Master’s Degree 3 Fifth Year Program 4 Sixth Year Program 5 Advanced Standing Certificate 6 Doctoral Degree 7 Continuing Education Seminars/Workshops/ Conferences Financial Aid Offered A Undergraduate Scholarships B Research Assistantships C Teaching Assistantships D Scholarships E Fellowships F Other
CONNECTICUT
1,2,4,6,7 A,B,D Central Connecticut State University Department of Technology & Engineering Education 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050-2040 860-832-1850 • FAX 860-832-1811 www.teched.ccsu.edu [email protected] Dr. James A. Delaura
GEORGIA
1,2,3,6 B,C The University of Georgia Department of Workforce Education, Leadership and Social Foundations 223 River’s Crossing Athens, GA 30602-4809 706-542-4503 • FAX 706-542-4054 www.uga.edu/teched/index.html [email protected] Dr. Robert Wicklein, DTE
ALABAMA
1,2 The University of West Alabama Department of University Partners 21982 University Lane Orange Beach, AL 36561 251-979-6125 www.columbiasouthern.edu/uwa [email protected] Rebecca Stevens A,C
ILLINOIS
1,2,6,7 Chicago State University Technology Education Program 9501 S. King Drive Chicago, IL 60628 773-821-2441 www.csu.edu/ [email protected] Dr. Cathryn Busch 1,2,7 Eastern Illinois University School of Technology 600 Lincoln Avenue Charleston, IL 61920-3099 217-581-3226 www.eiu.edu/~tech [email protected] Dr. Mahyar R. Izadi 1,2,6,7 Illinois State University Department of Technology 210 Turner Hall, Campus Box 5100 Normal, IL 61790-5100 309-438-7862 • FAX 309-438-8628 www.tec.ilstu.edu [email protected] Dr. Chris Merrill D
ARKANSAS
1,2,6,7 A,E,F University of Arkansas Department of Curriculum & Instruction/Technology Education Peabody Hall 116 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-3076 • FAX 479-575-2396 http://vaed.uark.edu/tech_ed.htm [email protected] Vinson Carter
A,B,C,D
AUSTRALIA
1,2,6 Griffith University School of Education and Professional Studies Mt. Gravatt Campus Brisbane Qld 4122 Australia www.griffith.edu.au/education [email protected] Dr. Ivan Chester D
A,B,C,D,F
34 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
INDIANA
1,2 Ball State University Department of Technology Applied Technology 131 Muncie, IN 47306-0255 765-285-5641 • FAX 765-285-2162 www.bsu.edu/technology/ [email protected] Dr. Ray Shackelford, DTE 1,2,6,7 Indiana State University Department of Technology Management TC 302 John Myers Technology Center Terre Haute, IN 47809 812-237-3377 • FAX 812-237-2655 http://web.indstate.edu/tm/ [email protected] Dr. James Smallwood 1,2,6 Purdue University Department of Industrial Technology 401 N. Grant Street, Knoy Hall West Lafayette, IN 47907-2021 765-494-1101 www.tech.purdue.edu/it [email protected] Dr. Niaz Latif A,B,C
1,2,7 A,B,C,D Pittsburg State University Department of Technology Studies 1701 S. Broadway Pittsburg, KS 66762 620-235-4373 • FAX 620-235-4020 www.pittstate.edu/department/tech-studies/technologyeducation/index.dot [email protected] Dr. John L. Iley
A,B,C,D,E
KENTUCKY
1 Berea College Department of Technology and Industrial Arts CPO 2188 Berea, KY 40404 859-985-3063 • FAX 859-986-4506 www.berea.edu/tia/ [email protected] Dr. Gary Mahoney 1,2,3,6,7 Eastern Kentucky University Department of Technology 521 Lancaster Avenue 302 Whalin Technology Complex Richmond, KY 40475-3102 859-622-3232 • FAX 859-622-2357 www.technology.eku.edu [email protected] Dr. Tim Ross F
A,B,D,C,E
A,B,D,F
IOWA
1,2,6,7 University of Northern Iowa Department of Industrial Technology Industrial Technology Center, Room 28 Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0178 319-273-2489 • FAX 319-273-5818 www.uni.edu/indtech/ [email protected] Dr. Bart Berquist (interim) A,B,C,D
MARYLAND
1,2,5,7 University of Maryland Eastern Shore Department of Technology 11931 Art Shell Plaza-UMES Campus Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299 410-651-6468 • FAX 410-651-7959 www.umes.edu/tech [email protected] Dr. Leon L. Copeland, Sr. A,B,C
KANSAS
1,2,7 Fort Hays State University Technology Studies Department 600 Park Street Hays, KS 67601-4099 785-628-4315 • FAX 785-628-4267 www.fhsu.edu/tecs [email protected] Dr. Fred Ruda, DTE A,C,D
MASSACHUSETTS
1,2,5,7 Fitchburg State College Department of Industrial Technology 160 Pearl Street Fitchburg, MA 01520 978-665-3255 www.fsc.edu [email protected] Dr. James P. Alicata A,B,D
35 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Lemelson-MIT Program 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 617-452-2147 [email protected] Leigh Estabrooks
NEW JERSEY
1,2,7 The College of New Jersey Department of Technological Studies PO Box 7718 Ewing, NJ 08628-0718 609-771-2543/2782 • FAX 609-771-3330 www.tcnj.edu/~tstudies/ [email protected] Dr. John Karsnitz A,D,F
MICHIGAN
1,2,6,7 Eastern Michigan University School of Technology Studies 122 Sill Hall Ypsilanti, MI 48197 734-487-4330 • FAX 734-487-7690 www.emich.edu/cot/undergrad_tde.htm [email protected]/[email protected] John Boyless, Director/Dr. Phillip L. Cardon A,B,C,D,E
NEW YORK
1,2,5,7 A,B,D,F Buffalo State College Department of Technology 1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222 716-878-6017 www.buffalostate.edu [email protected] Dr. Richard Butz (chair)/Clark Greene (coordinator) 1,7 New York City College of Technology Career and Technology Teacher Education 300 Jay Street, M-201 Brooklyn, NY 11201-2983 718-260-5373 • FAX 718-260-5995 www.citytech.cuny.edu [email protected] Godfrey I. Nwoke 1,2 NY State University at Oswego Department of Technology Washington Boulevard, 209 Park Hall Oswego, NY 13126-3599 315-312-3011 www.oswego.edu/tech [email protected] Philip Gaines A,D
MINNESOTA
1,2 St. Cloud State University Environmental & Technological Studies 720 – 4th Avenue S., 216 Headley Hall St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 320-308-3235 • FAX 320-654-5122 www.stcloudstate.edu/ets [email protected] Dr. Mitch Bender A,D
MISSOURI
1,2,7 A,B,C,D University of Central Missouri Department of Career and Technology Education 120 Grinstead Building Warrensburg, MO 64093-5034 660-543-4452 • FAX 660-543-8031 www.cmsu.edu/cte/ [email protected] Dr. Dick Kahoe/Dr. Odin Jurkowski (chair)
C
MONTANA
1,2 Montana State University Department of Education 118 Cheever Hall Bozeman, MT 59717-2880 406-994-3201 • FAX 406-994-6696 www.montana.edu/wwwad [email protected] Scott Davis A,C
1,2,7 A,C,D The College of Saint Rose Department of Applied Technology Education/Education Tech/Educational Psychology 432 Western Avenue Albany, NY 12203-1490 518-454-5279 www.strose.edu/Future_Students/Academics [email protected] Dr. Travis Plowman
36 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
NORTH CAROLINA
1,2,7 A,B,C,D,E Appalachian State University Department of Technology Katherine Harper Hall, ASU Box 32122 Boone, NC 28608-2122 828-262-3110 www.tec.appstate.edu/ [email protected]/[email protected] Dr. Jerianne Taylor/Dr. Marie Hoepfl Dr. Jeffrey Tiller ([email protected]) 1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D North Carolina State University Mathematics, Science & Technology Education Box 7801 Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 919-515-1748 • FAX 919-515-6892 http://ced.ncsu.edu/mste/tech_programs/index.php [email protected] Dr. William J. Haynie
1,7 Ohio Northern University Department of Technological Studies Room 208, Taft Memorial Building Ada, OH 45810 419-772-2170 • FAX 419-772-1932 www-new.onu.edu/academics/ [email protected] Dr. David L. Rouch 1,2,3,6,7 The Ohio State University Technology Education 1100 Kinnear Road, Room 100A Columbus, OH 43212-1152 614-292-7471 • FAX 614-292-2662 www.teched.coe.ohio-state.edu [email protected] Dr. Paul E. Post
A,D,F
A,B,C,D,E
OKLAHOMA
1,2,7 A,C,D Southwestern Oklahoma State University Department of Industrial and Engineering Technology 100 Campus Drive Weatherford, OK 73096-3098 580-774-3162 • FAX 580-774-7028 www.swosu.edu/academics/tech/ [email protected] Dr. Gary Bell
NORTH DAKOTA
1,2,3,4,6,7 University of North Dakota Department of Technology 10 Cornell Street, Stop 7118 Grand Forks, ND 58202-3061 701-777-2249 • FAX 701-777-4320 www.business.und.edu/dept/technology [email protected] Dr. Dave Yearwood 1,2,7 Valley City State University Department of Technology 101 College Street, SW Valley City, ND 58072 701-845-7444 • FAX 701-845-7245 http://teched.vcsu.edu [email protected] Dr. Don Mugan A,B,C,D,E
PENNSYLVANIA
A 1,2,5,7 California University of Pennsylvania Applied Engineering & Technology 250 University Avenue California, PA 15419 724-938-4085 • FAX 724-938-4572 www.cup.edu/eberly/aet/index [email protected] Dr. Stanley A. Komacek, DTE 1,2,5,7 Millersville University Department of Industry & Technology PO Box 1002, Osburn Hall Millersville, PA 17551-0302 717-872-3316 • FAX 717-872-3318 www.millersville.edu/itec [email protected] Dr. Barry David A,B,D
OHIO
1,2 Kent State University College of Technology 375 Terrace Drive Kent, OH 44242-0001 330-672-2040 www.tech.kent.edu/tech [email protected] Dr. Lowell S. Zurbuch A,B,C
A,B,D,F
37 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
RHODE ISLAND
1,2,5,6 Johnson & Wales University School of Technology 8 Abbott Park Place Providence, RI 02903 401-598-2500 www.jwu.edu [email protected] Frank Tweedie, Dean 1,2,7 Rhode Island College Technology Education Program 600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Providence, RI 02908-1991 401-456-8018 www.ric.edu/educationalStudies/technology.php [email protected] Dr. Charles H. McLaughlin, Jr., DTE A,D
VIRGINIA
1,2,5,6,7 Old Dominion University Occupational and Technical Studies 228 Education Norfolk, VA 23529-0498 757-683-4305 • FAX 757-683-5227 http://education.odu.edu/ots/ [email protected] Dr. Philip A. Reed A,B,C,D,E
A
SWEDEN
Linkoping University Centre for School Technology Education (CETIS) Campus Norrkoping Norrkoping SE60174 www.cetis.se [email protected] Dr. Thomas Ginner
2,3,5,6,7 B,C Virginia Tech Department of Integrative STEM Education/Technology Education 300B War Memorial Hall Blacksburg, VA 24060 540-231-8173 • FAX 540-231-9075 www.teched.vt.edu/TE/STEM.html [email protected] Dr. Mark Sanders
WISCONSIN
1,2,7 A,B University of Wisconsin-Stout Master of Science in Industrial/Technology Education 224C Communication Technologies Building Menomonie, WI 54751 715-232-2757 • FAX 715-232-1441 www.uwstout.edu/programs/msite/ [email protected] Dr. David Stricker
UTAH
1,2 Brigham Young University Technology & Engineering Education 230 SNLB Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6496 www.et.byu.edu/sot/ [email protected] Dr. Steven Shumway 1,2,6,7 Utah State University Engineering and Technology Education 6000 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-6000 435-797-1795 www.ete.usu.edu [email protected] Dr. Kurt H. Becker A
WYOMING
1 University of Wyoming Department of Secondary Education 125 College Drive Casper, WY 82601 307-268-2406 • FAX 307-268-2416 www.uwyo.edu/uwcc/ [email protected] Dr. Rod Thompson A
A,B,C,D,E
38 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
2009 Directory of ITEA Museum Members
For further information contact the staff member listed.
MASSACHUSETTS
Museum of Science National Center for Technological Literacy 1 Science Park Boston, MA 02114 617-589-0170 www.mos.org Inga Laurila [email protected]
MARYLAND
Baltimore Museum of Industry 1415 Key Hwy Baltimore, MD 21230 410-887-8926 www.thebmi.org Mike Shealey, DTE [email protected]
39 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Explore the Possibilities.
Meet Emily, a civil engineer who used her degree to travel to Indonesia with Engineers Without Borders. She helped to rebuild shrimp hatcheries that had been destroyed by the 2004 tsunami.
Visit engineeryourlife.org and introduce your students to Emily and view the stories of other young female engineers who “dream big and love what they do.”
Major funding for Engineer Your Life provided by The National Science Foundation and Northrop Grumman Foundation. Additional funding provided by Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. and the United Engineering Foundation (ASCE, ASME, AIChE, IEEE, AIME). © 2008 WGBH Educational Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences for the National Academy of Engineering. Engineer Your Life and logo are trademarks of WGBH. All rights reserved. All third party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Used with permission.
Wouldn’t it be great to have all the answers?
Well, here are some of them, now available from ITEA and EbD™
Technological Design, A Standards-Based High School Model Course Guide
Engineering scope, content, and professional practices are presented through practical applications. Students in engineering teams apply technology, science, and mathematics concepts and skills to solve engineering design problems and innovate designs. Students research, develop, test, and analyze engineering designs using criteria such as design effectiveness, public safety, human factors, and ethics. 2009 P236CD - $29.00; Members $24.00 (delivered on CD as an interactive electronic publication)
Technological Systems, Second Edition A Standards-Based Middle School Model Course Guide
Technological Systems is intended to teach students how technological systems work together to solve problems and capture opportunities. As technology becomes more integrated, and systems become more and more dependent upon each other than ever before, this course gives students a general background on the different types of systems, with particular concentration on the connections between these systems. 2009 P235CD - $29.00; Members $24.00 (delivered on CD as an interactive electronic publication)
Order today by calling 703-860-2100 or faxing an order form to 703-860-0353.
A downloadable order form is available at www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/puborder.pdf More information and sample pages can be viewed at www.iteaconnect.org/EbD/Samples/ebdsamples.htm
Are You Cutting Off STEM at the Roots?
EbD™ helps students, teachers, and programs grow.
Engineering byDesign™ is the only comprehensive K–16 Solution for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
Standards-Based.
Comprehensive.
Hands-On.
Learn how we can help you achieve your program goals today. www.engineeringbydesign.org, [email protected], 301-482-1929.
GEICO and Forrest T. Jones & Co. have teamed up to offer a special discount on car insurance.
Special member discount
Visit geico.com for your FREE, no-obligation rate quote and be sure to select ITEA when asked for your affiliation. New customers save an average of $500 when they switch. GEICO offers you: • Outstanding, round-the-clock service online or on the phone, even on holidays and weekends! • Fast, fair claim handling. • Money-saving discounts. GEICO can also help you with homeowner’s and renter’s insurance. To find out how much you could save, visit geico.com or call 1-800-368-2734 today.
Average savings amount based on national GEICO New Policyholder Survey data through August 2007. Discount amount varies in some states. Discount is not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. One group discount applicable per policy. In New York a premium reduction is available. Homeowner’s insurance is not available in all states. Homeowner’s and renter’s coverages are written through non-affiliated insurance companies and are secured through Insurance Counselors Inc., the GEICO Property Agency, doing business as Special Services Insurance Agency in CA and GEICO Insurance Agency in MA, MI, NJ, NY, OK, SD, UT. Government Employees Insurance Co. • GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. GEICO auto insurance is not available in Mass. GEICO, Washington, DC 20076
ROBOTICS TEACHER TRAINING
• 5 days of on-site, hands-on training • Use robots, sensors & other hardware • Use Robotics Academy curriculum • Certificate of Completion for course graduates • Curriculum mapped to national education standards • Tour of CMU National Robotics Engineering Center LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXT® June 22-26 NXT-G July 13-17 ROBOTC for LEGO Aug. 3-7 NXT-G Aug. 10-14 ROBOTC for LEGO
Summer 2009
www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu
Register on the web or call 412 681-7160
All training is conducted at the National Robotics Engineering Center (NREC) in Pittsburgh, PA. The NREC is part of the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute, a world-renowned robotics organization, where you’ll be surrounded by real-world robot research and commercialization. VEX® ROBOTICS July 6-10 ROBOTC for VEX July 20-24 ROBOTC for VEX July 27-31 ROBOTC for VEX
After classes are complete, teachers are surveyed. Here are some of their comments: ”Your sessions take care of both experienced robotics teachers and those just starting out!” ”As a teacher with no robotic experience, I feel comfortable and excited to begin implementing it into my program.” ”I believe I met all of my personal objectives during this session.”
Classes fill up quickly. Register early to get your first choice session.
ROBOTC
• Interactive Run-Time Debugger • Dynamic Multitasking • Advanced Math Functions* (Sin, Cos, Log, etc. *NXT only) • 100+ Sample Programs • Detailed Built-In Help
C-Based Robot Programming Language
®
y 30 -Da C OBOT ..! R ive Test Dr
FREE
VEX
2.0 Robotics Curriculum
®
Vex Classroom Bundles were developed specifically for use with Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy VEX Curriculum.
VEX SOFTWARE • VEX Curriculum 2.0 • ROBOTC for VEX • Teaching ROBOTC for VEX VEX HARDWARE • Classroom Bundles • Pneumatics • Sensors • Electronics • Actuators
• Multimedia Training and Curriculum for both VEX® and LEGO® NXT
www.ROBOTC.net
The only NXT programming code with built-in functionality for PC Remote Control*
* USB PC-compatible remote control unit required. PC Bluetooth adapter required for wireless control of your NXT via ROBOTC.
412.963.7310
www.vexcurriculum.com
”The best robotics curriculum for VEX Robots...”
Technology
TEACHER
T h e Vo i c e o f Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
Volume 68 • Number 7
April 2009
the
Design Your Own Underwater ROV
Also: 2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional and Museum Members
www.iteaconnect.org
With the growing need for skilled manufacturing professionals, there is a nationwide push to involve more women and minorities, such as student Ashley Kolarek.
I choose Mastercam because:
“I prefer to teach Mastercam over any other CAM software because students who know how to use Mastercam get jobs! Mastercam is the most commonly used software in Northern Colorado. From small shops to major manufacturers, when employers call me seeking to hire a student, they want applicants who know how to work in Mastercam.”
– Instructor Debra Mann, Front Range Community College, Fort Collins, Colorado Mastercam is the software Debra’s students need to succeed in the classroom and in the job market. With industry-proven technology and unparalleled customer support, it is clear why Mastercam is the most widely-used CAD/CAM software in both industry and education for well over a decade. Debra Mann is a member of the Mastercam Certification Committee. She and her Mastercam class were featured in the September 2008 issue of American Machinist. To read about Debra’s CAD/CAM classes, visit www.mastercam.com/edarticles or contact our Educational Division toll free at (800) ASK-MCAM.
FEATURING STEM Products for SCIENCE • TECHNOLOGY • ENGINEERING • MATH
www.kelvin.com
Project Motors
®
Fuel Cell Cars
AS LOW AS
$
#841982
5995
®
NEW!
Stock # 283695
AS LOW AS
59¢
$
EA.
Solar Cells
Stock # 841970
AS LOW AS
EZee™ Plastic Former
It’s designed for ease of use in schools! The 10” x 14” material area is large enough for forming dragster models, car bodies, lettering for signs, game parts, masks, boat hauls, etc.
$
8595
SEE ONLINE VIDEO!
Economy Foam Cutter
AS LOW AS
2
95
EACH
Balsa StiKutter™
Stock # 990198
AS LOW AS
$
PER STUDENT
3
75
DC Motor Kits
Stock # 842084
The Most Economical!
Stock # 841982
AS LOW AS
$
8
95
EACH
50 LE Multimeter
NEW!
Stock #990177
NEW!
AS LOW AS
Join the Battling Robot Craze!
NEW!
$
PER STUDENT
660
Solar ™ Racers
Stock # 841236
WE HAVE MULTIMETERS AS LOW AS Stock # 842069
$
2
75
EACH
FIND THE COMPLETE KELVIN® CATALOG ONLINE AT WWW.KELVIN.COM
Contents
APRIL • VOL. 68 • NO. 7
22
Design your own Underwater Remotely operated vehicle (Rov)
An Ohio technology education teacher describes how he implemented a marine engineering project to design underwater ROVs. BRIAN lIEN
Departments
Features
1 2 3 10 30
Web News TIDE News Calendar Resources in Technology Classroom Challenge
5 16 26 34
Using Engineering Cases in Technology Education
This article seeks to consider engineering case studies as a logical way to teach the engineering design process to students not commonly familiar with the process. ToDD R. KEllEy
Teaching Students about Clean Fuels and Transportation Technologies
We can utilize renewable energy technologies to foster our students’ creative thinking and design in a green world while applying Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). JoE R. BUSBy, DTE AND PAm PAgE CARPENTER
Portable Inspiration: The Necessity of STEm outreach Investment
Describes Portable Inspiration, an outreach program designed to expose students, educators, and communities to the experience of engineering and the design process. RICh KRESSly, WITh SylvIA hERBERT, PhIl RoSS, AND DElIA voTSCh
2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional and museum members
Publisher, Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE Editor-In-Chief, Kathleen B. de la Paz Editor, Kathie F. Cluff ITEA Board of Directors Ed Denton, DTE, President Len Litowitz, DTE, Past President Gary Wynn, DTE, President-Elect Greg Kane, Director, ITEA-CS Joanne Trombley, Director, Region I Michael A. Fitzgerald, DTE, Director, Region II Mike Neden, DTE, Director, Region III Patrick McDonald, Director, Region IV Michael DeMiranda, Director, CTTE Andrew Klenke, Director, TECA Ginger Whiting, Director, TECC Kendall N. Starkweather, DTE, CAE, Executive Director
ITEA is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Technology Teacher, ISSN: 0746-3537, is published eight times a year (September through June with combined December/January and May/June issues) by the International Technology Education Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191. Subscriptions are included in member dues. U.S. Library and nonmember subscriptions are $90; $100 outside the U.S. Single copies are $10.00 for members; $11.00 for nonmembers, plus shipping and handling. The Technology Teacher is listed in the Educational Index and the Current Index to Journal in Education. Volumes are available on Microfiche from University Microfilm, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
Advertising Sales: ITEA Publications Department 703-860-2100 Fax: 703-860-0353 Subscription Claims All subscription claims must be made within 60 days of the first day of the month appearing on the cover of the journal. For combined issues, claims will be honored within 60 days from the first day of the last month on the cover. Because of repeated delivery problems outside the continental United States, journals will be shipped only at the customer’s risk. ITEA will ship the subscription copy but assumes no responsibility thereafter.
Change of Address Send change of address notification promptly. Provide old mailing label and new address. Include zip + 4 code. Allow six weeks for change. Postmaster Send address change to: The Technology Teacher, Address Change, ITEA, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539. Periodicals postage paid at Herndon, VA and additional mailing offices. Email: [email protected] World Wide Web: www.iteaconnect.org
Now Available on the
Save the Planet! Make the world a better place! Become aware of how we can make a difference to sustain our environment through smart decision-making, consumerism, designing, creating, and using human ingenuity! These are all statements about GREEN TECHNOLOGY that need to be addressed today to properly save and use our resources for tomorrow. What better way to address these issues than through a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. ITEA’s Annual Conference in Charlotte, NC on March 18-20, 2010 will become a series of presentations about the use of design and technology to make a better society by using best practices to deliver education with an eye on 21st Century learning skills as a basis for our future citizens. STRAND ONE: Designing the Green Environment STRAND TWO: Describing Best Practices through Teaching and Learning STEM STRAND THREE: Developing 21st Century Skills Application to Present in Charlotte: www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent.htm Deadline is June 15, 2009.
ITEA Website:
Call for Presenters for ITEA’s 2010 Conference in Charlotte, NC, march 18-20 Theme: Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens
Technology
TEACHER
T h e Vo i c e o f Te c h n o l o g y E d u c a t i o n
the
Editorial Review Board Chairperson Gerald Day University of Maryland Eastern Shore Lori Abernethy Andrew Morrison ES, PA Byron C. Anderson University of Wisconsin-Stout Steve Andersen Nikolay Middle School, WI Stephen L. Baird Bayside Middle School, VA Lynn Basham Virginia Department of Education Mary L. Braden Carver Magnet HS, TX Jolette Bush Midvale Middle School, UT Mike Cichocki Salisbury Middle School, PA Laura Morford Erli East Side MS, IN Jeremy Ernst North Carolina State University Mike Fitzgerald, DTE IN Department of Education Kara Harris Purdue University Editorial Policy As the only national and international association dedicated solely to the development and improvement of technology education, ITEA seeks to provide an open forum for the free exchange of relevant ideas relating to technology education. Materials appearing in the journal, including advertising, are expressions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or the opinion of the association, its officers, or the ITEA Headquarters staff. Referee Policy All professional articles in The Technology Teacher are refereed, with the exception of selected association activities and reports, and invited articles. Refereed articles are reviewed and approved by the Editorial Board before publication in The Technology Teacher. Articles with bylines will be identified as either refereed or invited unless written by ITEA officers on association activities or policies. To Submit Articles All articles should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief, International Technology Education Association, 1914 Association Drive, Suite 201, Reston, VA 20191-1539. Please submit articles and photographs via email to [email protected]. Maximum length for manuscripts is eight pages. Manuscripts should be prepared following the style specified in the Publications Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth Edition. Editorial guidelines and review policies are available by writing directly to ITEA or by visiting www.iteaconnect.org/ Publications/Submissionguidelines.htm. Contents copyright © 2008 by the International Technology Education Association, Inc., 703-860-2100. Marie Hoepfl Appalachian State University Laura Hummell Manteo Middle School, NC Doug Hunt Southern Wells HS, IN Chad Johnson West Washington HS, IN Anthony Korwin, DTE NM Public Education Department Frank Kruth South Fayette MS, PA Theodore Lewis University of Trinidad and Tobago Linda Markert SUNY at Oswego Mary Annette Rose Ball State University Terrie Rust Oasis Elementary School, AZ Bart Smoot Delmar MS/HS, DE Jerianne Taylor Appalachian State University
ITEA is “linkedIn”
ITEA has created a group for members of LinkedIn, an interconnected network of experienced professionals from around the world. Through LinkedIn, you can find, be introduced to, and collaborate with qualified professionals with whom you need to work to accomplish your goals. When you join, you create a profile that summarizes your professional expertise and accomplishments. You can then form enduring connections by inviting trusted contacts to join LinkedIn and connect to you. Your network consists of your connections, your connections’ connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts. Through your network you can: • anage the information that’s publicly available about you as professional. M • ind and be introduced to potential clients, service providers, and subject F experts who come recommended by your LinkedIn colleagues. • reate and collaborate on projects, gather data, share files, and solve C problems. • e found for opportunities and find potential partners. B • ain new insights from discussions with like-minded professionals in private G group settings. • iscover inside connections that can help you land jobs. D • ost and distribute job listings to find the best talent for your organization. P Once you’re a member of LinkedIn, ITEA’s group of professional educators can be accessed at www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1787786.
www.iteaconnect.org
1•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
TIDE News
ITEA is Going Green in Charlotte! March 18-20, 2010
Save the Planet! Make the world a better place! Become aware of how we can make a difference to sustain our environment through smart decision-making, consumerism, designing, creating, and using human ingenuity. These are all statements about Green Technology that need to be addressed today to properly conserve and use our resources for tomorrow. What better way to address these issues than through Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. This conference will become a series of presentations about the use of design and technology to make a better society by using best practices to deliver education with an eye on twenty-first century learning skills as a basis for our future citizens. Mark your calendar now to join ITEA in beautiful Charlotte, North Carolina on March 18-20, 2010 for the 72nd Annual ITEA Conference and Exhibition. Don’t miss this extraordinary opportunity! Generating Resources Engineering Education Now
Sign Up Now for ITEA’s Newest Technology Interest Group – TSA!
This is a forum dedicated to those interested in the topic of the Technology Student Association. As a member of this community you can post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In this TIG, you can discuss with other ITEA members issues regarding leadership curriculum, competitive events, encouraging student leaders, current products, and anything else related to the Technology Student Association. Moderator – Doug Miller, TSA State Advisor, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Jefferson City, MO. www.iteaconnect.org/Forms/tigsform.htm
ITEA Blog Update
Be sure to check in from time to time with ITEA’s firstever Blog, “Advocating Technological Literacy.” Its purpose is to provide an avenue for delivering timely news and commentary on subjects pertaining to technological literacy, as well as a “behind-the-scenes” glimpse of what we’re working on at any given point in time. Maintained by ITEA’s Editor and through the use of “Guest Bloggers,” the ITEA Blog will utilize text, images, and links to other sources. Readers will have the ability to leave comments as well as participate in ongoing polling on various topics and can choose whether or not to automatically receive notices of new posts. Take a look today by going to http://iteatide. blogspot.com/.
Call for Presenters in Charlotte
The presenter application process for ITEA’s 2010 Charlotte, NC conference is now in full swing. Presentations must address the conference theme, “Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens” and, specifically, one or more of the following three strands: 1) Designing the Green Environment, 2) Describing Best Practices Through Teaching and Learning STEM, and 3) Developing 21st Century Skills. Complete descriptions of the strands are posted at www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent. htm along with an online link to the Application to Present. Hurry! The application deadline is June 15, 2009.
Facebook “Cause”
David Janosz of NJTEA has created a “Cause” on Facebook entitled “Technological Literacy for All.” As of this writing, the cause has over 402 people signed up and is growing fast! Show YOUR support today. Facebook members can go directly to http://apps.facebook.com/ causes/208149?m=96aaaf39.
2•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Calendar Calendar
April 4, 2009 The Ohio Technology Education Association (OTEA) Spring Conference 2009 will be held at Worthington Kilbourne High School in Columbus, Ohio. Visit www.otea.info/CONFERENCES.HTML for details. April 27, 2009 IMSTEA Super Mileage Challenge will take place at O’Reilly Indianapolis Raceway Park in Indianapolis. Indiana High School students are challenged to engineer solutions for our nation’s energy needs in the 2009 Super Mileage Challenge! In the SMC, high school students apply Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) to design, engineer, construct, test, and evaluate vehicles that obtain the highest MPG. Details can be found at www.doe.state.in.us/octe/technologyed/ SuperMileageChallenge.html or www.imstea.org/. April 30-may 1, 2009 The 2008/2009 New Jersey Technology Education Association (NJTEA) Conference, “Sustainability in Design,” will be held at the Hilton Hasbrouck Heights, NJ. Keynote speakers will be TTT contributor Harry Roman and ITEA President, Ed Denton, DTE. Check www.njtea.org/Pages/ProDev/NJTEA%20 Conference.html for details. may 26-27, 2009 The Connecticut Technology Education Association (CTEA) Spring Conference 09 will be held at CCSU. As in years past, the highlights of this year’s conference will be the Exhibitor section, the Workshop sessions, and the great Texas barbecue lunch. To get a free lunch, you must preregister before May 1, 2009. You can register online from the CTEA website or by mail. Visit http://www.cteaweb.org/ for details. Conference, “Making the Difference,” at the Quality Inn, Hagley Road, Birmingham. Events will include keynote addresses, research papers, case studies, practical workshops, visits to primary schools, and displays of resources. For registration information, please contact Clare Benson at [email protected]. June 28-July 2, 2009 The Technology Student Association will hold its 31st TSA National Conference, “Shape the Future,” at the Sheraton Denver Hotel and the Colorado Convention Center. Complete conference information, including registration, accommodations, and competition rules, is available at www.tsaweb.org/2009-NationalConference-Information#accommodations. August 24-28, 2009 The Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Technology (PATT-22) Conference, “Strengthening Technology Education in the School Curriculum,” will be held in Delft, the Netherlands, hosted by the Science Education and Communication (SEC) section at the Delft University of Technology. You are invited to submit papers to address one of the following subthemes: Seeking strategic curricular alliances; Educating teachers for a sustainable technology education; Educational research for supporting technology education; Promoting technology education for the wider public; Seeking political support; or Other strategies for strengthening the position of technology education in the school curriculum. PATT is an international discussion platform for research and developments in technology education. PATT conferences are characterized by their informal atmosphere, the absence of parallel sessions, an open exchange of information, and ideas in presentations and discussions. The PATT-Foundation is based in the Netherlands. For additional information, contact Marc J. de Vries at [email protected]. Deadline for preregistration is April 1, 2009. october 6-8 2009 Don’t miss TENZ 2009. TENZ’s seventh biennial conference will, like its predecessors, offer a firstclass professional development opportunity to all those interested in technology education. The conference will be held in Napier, where Napier’s stunning War Memorial Conference Centre is the venue for presentations, workshops, and the conference dinner. The programme will include a broad range of activities for primary, secondary, and tertiary educators. Register now at www.tenz.org.nz, where you will also find information on possible accommodation. To find out more about TENZ 2009, email [email protected].
June 15, 2009 Submission Deadline for Application to Present at ITEA’s 72nd Annual Conference, March 18-20, 2010 in Charlotte, NC. The conference theme is “Green Technology: STEM Solutions for 21st Century Citizens.” The application and complete information are available at www. iteaconnect.org/Conference/apptopresent.htm. June 26-30, 2009 The Centre for Research into Primary Technology (CRIPT) at Birmingham City University will host its 7th International Primary Design & Technology
3•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
You are encouraged to contribute to the Conference by sharing your experience through a paper or workshop presentation. The Organising Committee is keen to see a range of presentations, and information about submission is now available at www.tenz.org.nz/2009/presentation. November 11-13, 2009 ICTE 2009 (International Conference on Technology Education in the Asia-Pacific Region) will hold its fall conference, “Less is More, Searching Solutions to Facilitate Technology Education with Limited Resources,” in Taipei, Taiwan. The organizing committee has issued a call for papers and invites submission of papers on any topics relating to technology
education. ICTE is a biennial conference in which the most representative technology associations/societies in seven countries in the Asia-Pacific Rim participate. Deadline for submission of papers is June 1, 2009. The conference website is www.ite.ntnu.edu.tw./~icte2009/. Email Dr. Chi-Cheng Chang at [email protected] for additional information.
List your State/Province Association Conference in TTT and Inside TIDE (ITEA’s electronic newsletter). Submit conference title, date(s), location, and contact information (at least two months prior to journal publication date) to kcluff@ iteaconnect.org.
217_430 TechEd7x4.625bw.P1:Layout 1
11/7/08
2:19 PM
Page 1
100% ONLINE Master of Education
in Technology Education
Ensure the vital competitiveness of your students by becoming an expert educator in integrating technology and engineering (the T&E of STEM) by earning your Master’s degree ONLINE. This 100% online program will enhance your ability to prepare your students with a conceptual understanding of technology and its place in society:
• Dedicated, world-class faculty • Asynchronous program with flexible learning • No residency requirement • Competitive tuition • 31 credits
The National Academy of Engineering developed an action plan to address the “technology” and “education” components of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) with representatives from business, government and education to address growing employment demands. Strengthen the “T&E” pipeline to address the looming shortage of talent prepared to enter these careers. Prepare your students by being the best.
G L O BA L
C A L I F O R N I A U N I V E R S I T Y O F P E N N S Y LV A N I A
BUI L D I NG C HA RACTER. BUI L D IN G CA REERS.
www.cup.edu/go
A proud member of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education.
CALU
ONLINE
4•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Using Engineering Cases in Technology Education
By Todd R. Kelley
Engineering students who only practice engineering problems often have a false sense of security that engineering problems are crisp and narrow analytical problems.
Introduction
There has been a great deal of discussion in the past few years about implementing engineering design in K-12 classrooms. Experts from K-12 education, universities, industry, and government officials attended the ASEE leadership workshop on K-12 Engineering Outreach in June of 2004 and came to a consensus on the need to implement engineering in K-12 schools (Douglas, Iversen, & Kalyandurg, 2004). Many leaders in the field of technology education believe that developing technological literacy in students can be best delivered by teaching engineering design (Wicklein, 2006, Lewis, 2005, Dearing & Daugherty, 2004). The use of the engineering design process is stressed throughout Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007), especially Standards 8 through 13. While there may be strong support for teaching engineering concepts to K-12 students, how this knowledge is properly delivered to high school students is still a debatable topic. This article seeks to consider engineering case studies as a logical way to teach the engineering design process to students not commonly familiar with it. Arguments have been made against assigning students to full-scale engineering design problems when they are new to engineering. Often novice engineering students lack the analytical tools necessary for successful development of design solutions to full-sale engineering problems (Petroski, 1998, Dym, 1994). Introducing engineering design to K-12 students through the employment of design case studies is a logical solution.
Henry Petroski (1996) documents a number of historical design cases that highlight the design evolution of everyday items such as the standard GEM paperclip.
Design Case Studies Defined
Although design case studies have been used in engineering schools since the late 1960s, the term may be new to those in the field of technology education. Design case studies have a variety of definitions, depending on the source. The
5•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
general term design case study has several variations in title including engineering cases and case studies. Geza Kardos (1979) says that the terms “engineer case, cases, and case studies are used loosely and interchangeably,” (p.1). In a separate article, Kardos (1979) defines engineering cases as “ . . . a written account of an engineering activity as it was actually carried out” (p.1). H.O. Fuchs (1974) defines an engineering case as: “A case is a written account of an engineering job as it was actually done, or of an engineering problem as it was actually encountered” (p. 1). A common key to any engineering case is that the writing is based on factual information about a real engineering case or problem. One common practice is to change the names of the parties involved in the engineering case; however, the overall details must remain factual.
Variety of Formats
Some engineering cases tell the full story by providing the problem statement, the processes and procedures, and the actual applied solution; thus, these cases are known as case histories. “A case history is an account of an actual event or situation; it reviews the variables and circumstances, describes how a problem was solved, and examines consequences of decisions and the lessons learned” (Richards & Gorman, 2004, p. 2). Henry Petroski (1996) documents a number of historical design cases that highlight the design evolution of everyday items such as the standard GEM paperclip along with eight other design categories that are presented in the book Invention by Design: How Engineers Get From Thought to Thing. He provides an historical perspective of the design and engineering of everyday artifacts. Petroski provides early patents of many household items such as the zipper and aluminum can. Petroski also presents case histories that feature the detailed analysis of engineering, such as the case of a common pencil. This particular case history illustrates how important it is to scrutinize and interpret the often seemingly trivial details of engineering analysis. Some of Petroski’s historical engineering design cases show the reader the details of how common household artifacts are mass-produced. Designing an artifact that meets a human need is one thing; designing it for mass production is another task entirely. Petroski provides some excellent historical cases that can provide students with greater insight into the world of design and engineering. Case problems present an engineering case as an openended problem that can contain multiple solutions. The analysis and final solution stages to the engineering design process are intentionally left out of a case problem. A case problem can be an excellent way for students to study the
Some of Petroski’s historical engineering design cases show the reader the details of how common household artifacts are mass-produced.
engineering design process and provide an opportunity to determine on their own what aspects of the problem require analysis. A case problem then allows the students to make an informed decision about a proposed solution. The instructor can require students to defend their solutions by using the analysis data. This experience can provide new insight into how important it is for an engineer to carefully consider all aspects of a technical problem as well as increase the ability to defend the final solution based on factual information in a clear and logical manner. One very powerful format of engineering design cases is when cases are presented using multimedia formats. New engineering cases have been documented in multimedia forms including videotapes, CDs, and DVDs. This multimedia format allows engineering cases to include interviews with the stakeholders and principal engineers, visits to the site where the case takes place, and provides graphical and numeric data often obtained in the analysis stage of the engineering design process. Moreover, multimedia formats allow an instructor to hold a large amount of information about an engineering case in a compact form. The instructor has the ability in using multimedia formats to select only the information he or she wants students to use for their assignment. Multimedia formats can bring the engineering design case to life and allow for more individual interaction that might require students to locate the information they deem important
6•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Case Studies Teach About Real-World Engineering
Most case studies are generated from real-world situations; consequently, they contain many more unknowns than problems developed for a textbook example. It is very important that students learn that engineering is all about working with unknowns. Real case studies illustrate to students that even though a solution is generated, such as the GEM paper clip, it does not mean that the solution is without problems. Engineering is about compromise—an important reality of engineering that technology education students must learn. Technology education students will likely learn more from the flaws and failures of the featured engineering solutions in an engineering case study than about the successes of a design solution. Often individuals learn as much from failures as they do from successes. Some engineering cases specifically select failures in engineering to highlight such real cases as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Failure of a Large Gearset, and Twelve Years to Discover the Obvious (Henderson, Bellman, & Furman, 1983). Students provided with an opportunity to study these cases can formulate their own judgments and decisions about such cases and compare their conclusions with those of the real engineers assigned to the actual cases. Technology education students studying case studies will be given an opportunity to view the overall process of engineering design through a real engineering example allowing students to have a better understanding of the caliber of the problems that engineers encounter, as well the processes and procedures engineers apply to solve such problems.
Multimedia engineering cases provide a real-world virtual field trip inside the world of engineering that might otherwise have been out of reach.
to their assignment. Many public school systems today greatly limit or have eliminated field trips altogether, yet multimedia engineering cases provide a real-world virtual field trip inside the world of engineering that might otherwise have been out of reach (Richards & Gorman, 2004). A program in conjunction with Tuskegee University effectively uses multimedia-formatted engineering design cases in K-12 schools. The results of the program indicated that using these cases broadened students’ understanding of engineering, and it boosted students’ retention rates (Seif, 1994).
Students Benefit from Engineering Cases
Effective engineering cases present the complete details of an engineering problem as well as the entire process undertaken by the principal engineer to solve such a problem. Consequently, an engineering case is drastically different from a problem that might be presented in an engineering textbook. An engineering case presents more than a simple mathematical problem. Engineering students who only practice engineering problems often have a false sense of security that engineering problems are crisp and narrow analytical problems. Real engineering problems are ill-defined and are embedded within an entire system; therefore, analysis must consider the entire system. Engineering cases also require students to go beyond a single answer. Because a real case study is multifaceted, it requires students to think about all aspects of the engineering design process, not just an analytical piece (Henderson, Bellman, & Furman, 1983). Engineering cases allow students to learn how to sift through the details of an
Why Engineering Cases for Technology Education?
Much of the writing about the application of case studies in engineering education suggests that engineering cases are an excellent learning tool to use with students inexperienced with an engineering design process—a freshman engineering major or nonengineering major, for example, because he or she would not possess the analytical tools to properly engage in full-scale engineering design experiences (Petroski, 1998). Petroski suggests that case studies enable students to understand engineering in the broad context in which engineering is actually practiced. One of the greatest benefits of using engineering cases to teach engineering design to a novice is that there are no prerequisites in the study of an engineering case study; generally, anyone can learn about engineering through engineering cases.
7•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
engineering case to discover the most essential information needed to address the critical issues; this is known to the engineering community as framing or setting the problem. When students are asked to place judgments on the approaches and procedures of a practicing engineer, their learning moves from low-level knowledge and application to higher levels of learning such as synthesis and evaluation.
Engineering Cases Motivate
Many in the engineering community have suggested using engineering cases to motivate engineering students and to address the problems of retention (Smith & Kardos, 1987). Engineering design cases provide students with meaningful, real-world examples of applying math and science to engineering problems. H.O. Fuchs (1974) believes that engineering cases motivate students because a wellwritten case study draws on their interests and engages them in the engineering problem. He believes that students are able to get into the case study because cases include the human or social factors of an engineering problem. Engineering cases are about real people with real problems, an important element in order for students to have the ability to identify with the problem (Fuchs, 1974). Students can approach an engineering case as if they are the project engineer, thus providing a sense of ownership that is not easily achieved with a standard textbook engineering problem. Some engineering cases are written excluding actual applied solutions, allowing students to apply their own knowledge and frame the problem to solve in the way they dictate. This provides motivation and opportunity for creativity. Engineering cases provide the important lesson that engineering problems do not contain a single correct answer. This fact can empower a student to develop his or her own approach to the problem. Design case studies have been successfully used in K-12 programs to increase technical awareness and to attract students into the field of engineering. Tuskegee University has successfully worked with three public school corporations to develop K-12 engineering education programs that utilize engineering design cases, and students’ perceptions of engineering through the use of engineering cases have been favorable as indicated by program surveys (Seif, 1994).
Education Division (DEED) of ASEE. The Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology houses the Engineering Case Library. Rose-Hulman is responsible for reproducing and distributing the over 250 design cases housed at the library. Another source for engineering cases is the National Engineering Education Delivery System (NEEDS). This source for engineering cases has been developed by the National Science Foundation Synthesis Coalition (Richards & Gorman, 2004).
Conclusion
Engineering case studies have been used successfully as teaching tools by the engineering education community for many years, and the benefits of using engineering cases to teach the engineering design process is widely documented. However, many educators in the field of technology education may not be familiar with engineering cases and the potential they possess as teaching tools. Certainly, some modification and editing of an engineering case must take place to adjust the content so that it can be appropriately used with K-12 students, but engineering cases can provide the needed details about engineering that might otherwise be missed without their use. Engineering cases are another tool that has potential to assist K-12 educators to properly implement engineering concepts into the curriculum.
References
Dearing, B. M. & Daugherty, M. K. (2004). Delivering engineering content in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64 (3), 8-11. Douglas, J., Iversen, E., & Kalyandurg, C. (2004). Engineering in the K-12 classroom: An analysis of current practices and guidelines for the future. A production of the ASEE Engineering K12 Center. Dym, Clive L. (1994). Teaching design to freshmen: Style and content. Journal of Engineering Education, 83 (4), 303-310. Fuchs, H. O. (1974). On kindling flames with cases. Engineering Education, (March issue). Henderson, J. M., Bellman, L. G., & Furman, B. J. (1983, January). A Case for teaching engineering with cases, Engineering Education, pp. 288-292. ITEA. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Kardos, G. (1979, March). On writing engineering cases. Paper presented at ASEE National Conference on Engineering Case Studies. Kardos, G. (1979, March). Engineering cases in the classroom. Paper presented at the ASEE National Conference on Engineering Case Studies.
Engineering Case Libraries
The Engineering Case Program originated at Stanford University in 1964 and is still sponsored by the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). An ASEE Case Study Committee exists under the Design in Engineering
8•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16 (2), 3754. Petroski, H. (1998, October). Polishing the GEM: A firstyear design project. Journal of Engineering Education, pp. 313-324. Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Richards, L. G. & Gorman, M. E. (2004, June). Using case studies to teach engineering design and ethics. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT. Seif, M. (1994, March). Multimedia design case studies. Paper presented at ASEE/GSW, Southern University, Baton. Rouge, LA. Smith, C. O. & Kardos, G. (1987, January). Need design content for accreditation? Try engineering cases! Engineering Education, pp. 228-230. Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as a focus for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25-29. Todd R. Kelley is an assistant professor in the Department of Industrial Technology at Purdue University. He can be reached at [email protected].
This is a refereed article.
9•
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Resources in Technology
Water Treatment: Keeping it Pure
By Petros J. Katsioloudis
A simple activity that can be conducted with students is the filtration of water with the use of a
Credit: Department of Primary Industries
homemade filter.
he availability of water has dictated the location and survival of civilizations through the ages. Nearly 1.1 billion people around the world lack access to potable drinking water sources, and 2.2 million die from basic hygiene-related disease, an issue that can easily be justified as the most important environmental problem of all (World Health Organization, 2007). The majority of these deaths are wholly preventable through effective improvements in water, sanitation, and hygiene. The United States remains strongly committed to providing safe drinking water for all of its citizens (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2005)). The national goal for sanitary drinking water has been to provide water that meets all health-based standards to 95% of the population served by public drinking water supplies by 2005 (EPA, 1999). In 2002, the level of compliance with these health-based issues was 94% (EPA, 2003). However, conventional piped water systems using effective treatment to deliver safe water to households may be decades away in much of the developing world. This leaves the majority of the poorest people in the world with the task
T
Photo 1. Wastewater Treatment As agriculture and industry use more and more water to meet crop and manufacturing needs, there is a growing need to process and clean wastewater for recycling and consumer use. Agricultural runoff may include nutrients and other chemicals that can have negative impacts on public health and the environment. Efforts are being made to control runoff and remove contaminants from such water.
of collecting water outside the home, then treating and storing it themselves (Sobsey, 2002). Even though water is essential for human life and its quantity and quality are equally imperative, natural waters are in most cases not
10 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
aesthetically or hygienically appropriate to be consumed, thus calling for some means of treatment. Appearance, taste, and odor are useful indicators for the quality of drinking water, but the critical suitability factor in terms of public health is determined by microbiological, physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics. As far as is known, the first instance of filtration as a means of water treatment dates from 1804, when John Gibb designed and built an experimental slow-sand filter for his bleachery in Paisley, Scotland, and sold the surplus treated water to the public at a halfpenny per gallon (Baker, 1949). In 1855 the first mechanical filters were installed in the U.S. (Baker, 1949). Since then a number of modifications and improvements have been introduced and have attained varying degrees of popularity. Table 1 describes a number of the most common water-treatment methods. A variety of technologies for water treatment exist; some are based on historical water-
treatment techniques. However, there is new research that has found effective reduction of waterborne pathogens using innovative technologies (Lantagne, 2007).
Historical Background
According to the Public Health Service (PHS), (2005) the federal regulation of drinking water quality began in 1914, when standards were set for the bacteriological quality of drinking water (PHS, 2005). The standards, however, applied only to water systems that provided drinking water to interstate carriers such as ships and trains, and only applied to contaminants capable of causing contagious disease. Upon revision in 1925, 1946, and 1962, PHS revised the standards to regulate 28 substances, establishing the most comprehensive federal drinking water standards in existence before the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
Table 1. Most Common Water-Treatment Methods
Boiling 1. Simple method for the inactivation of viral, parasitic, and bacterial pathogens. 2. Often economically and environmentally unsustainable. 3. Provides no residual protection. (Mintz et al., 2001) Solar Disinfection Uses the synergy of solar UV and heat. Simple, inexpensive, does not affect taste. Ineffective with turbid water. Not good for large volumes. (Mintz et al., 2001) Blends 1. Sachet: a packet containing powdered ferrous sulfate (a flocculant) and calcium hypochlorite (a disinfectant). Very effective even with turbid water.
1. 2. 3. 4.
Filtration 1. Many types available for water treatment • ranular media: Bio-sand, slow sand G • egetable- and animal-derived depth filters V • embrane filters: paper, cloth, plastic M • orous cast filters: ceramic pots P • eptum and body-feed filters S 2. iltration alone, at a household level, has not proved F effective for viruses and acceptable reductions of bacteria. (Sobsey, 2002) Ultraviolet 1. Works very well on all waterborne pathogens in combination in parallel with a turbidity reducing treatment such as coagulation/flocculation or filtration. 2. No odor or taste problems. 3. Requires significant energy input: batteries or electricity. (Sobsey, 2002)
1. 2. 3. 4.
Chlorination Sodium hypochlorite has proven the safest, most effective, and least expensive chemical disinfectant for point-of-use treatment. It can be produced on-site or created on-site through electrolysis. Relatively ineffective against parasites and viruses. The taste and odor of chlorinated water can reduce use. (Mintz et al., 2001)
11 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
With minor modifications, all 50 U.S states adopted the Public Health Service standards either as regulations or as guidelines for all of the public water systems in their jurisdictions. However, the aesthetic problems, pathogens, and chemicals identified by the Public Health Service in the late 1960s were not the only drinking water quality concerns, since industrial and agricultural advances and the creation of new man-made chemicals also had negative impacts on the environment and public health. The main sources of drinking water are often polluted by industrial and municipal chemicals (Gevod et al., 2003). While filtration was a fairly effective treatment method for reducing turbidity, disinfectants such as chlorine played the largest role in reducing the number of waterborne disease outbreaks in the early 1900s. In 1908, chlorine was used for the first time as a primary disinfectant of drinking water in Jersey City, New Jersey. Even though water treatment plants reduce the concentrations of harmful chemicals in waters to a safe level, the use of chlorine results in the formation of disinfectant by-products, which have been proved to be strongly carcinogenic (Gevod et al., 2003). The use of other disinfectants such as ozone also began in Europe around this time, but was not employed in the U.S. until several decades later. Even though the new chemicals were effective for water treatment, many others were finding their way into water supplies through factory discharges, street and farm-field runoff, and leaking underground storage and disposal tanks. Although treatment techniques such as aeration, flocculation, and granular-activated carbon adsorption existed at the time, they were either underutilized by water systems or ineffective at removing some new contaminants. Several studies conducted by the Public Health Service in 1969, and later in 1972, showed that only 60% of the systems surveyed delivered water that met all the Public Health Service standards, and 36 chemicals were found in treated water taken from treatment plants. Over half of the treatment facilities surveyed had major deficiencies involving disinfection. The combination of health issues and increased awareness eventually led to the passage of several federal environmental and health laws, one of which was the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. This law, with significant amendments in 1986 and 1996, is administered today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (EPA) and its local partners (EPA, 1996). According to several EPA surveys, from 1976 to
1995 the percentage of small and medium community water systems (systems serving people year-round) that treat their water has steadily increased (EPA, 1995). Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Academy of Engineering named water treatment as one of the most significant public health advancements of the twentieth century (NAE, 2007). Today, filtration and chlorination remain effective treatment techniques for protecting U.S. water supplies from harmful microbes, although additional advances in disinfection have been made over the years. Filtration was recognized quite early in recorded technological history as a unique process for improving the clarity of water (Montgomery, 2005). As summarized by Baker (1949), the earliest recorded reference to the use of filters for water treatment occurred about 3000 years ago in India. The first attempt at filtering a municipal supply in the United States occurred in Richmond, Virginia, in 1832 under the direction of Albert Stein (Baker, 1949). According to a 1995 EPA survey, approximately 64 percent of community ground water and surface water systems disinfect their water with chlorine (EPA, 1995). The economy and effectiveness of chlorine in killing waterborne organisms has made water chlorination a tremendous public health success worldwide. Most studies have shown positive associations between chlorinated drinking water and colorectal and bladder cancer. This has been attributed to trihalomethanes (THMs), a carcinogenic organic halogenated byproduct of water chlorination (Reuber, 1979). Many of the treatment techniques used today by drinking water plants include methods that have been used for hundreds and even thousands of years; however, newer treatment techniques (e.g., reverse osmosis and granular activated carbon) are also being employed by some modern drinking water plants. Military units must have the capability to transport or produce large qualities of water for personnel use (Photo 2). Emergency and public disaster units must also have similar capabilities. In the 1970s and 1980s, improvements were made in membrane development for reverse-osmosis filtration and other treatment techniques such as ozonation. Ozone is used in many drinking water plants for the oxidation of organic micro pollutants and manganese as well as for disinfection (Staehelln & Holgne, 1982).
Water Treatment Process
The process of water treatment starts from the initial point at which water is pumped into a container from its source. To avoid adding contaminants to the water, this physical infrastructure must be made from appropriate materials
12 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Credit: Ministry of Defense Singapore
Photo 2. Water Treatment Unit Military and emergency organizations, much the same as municipalities, require quality potable water. Portable desalination units such as the one shown here have the capability to be placed on location and to produce quantities of high-quality water on short notice.
and constructed so that accidental contamination does not occur. Most of the time water is collected from rivers and lakes where debris such as sticks, leaves, trash, soil and other large particles exist and, unless removed, may interfere with subsequent purification steps. Screening therefore is the first step during which water passes through multiple screens that collect large particles. Once water is collected, the next step is storage. According to Montgomery (1985), water from rivers could be stored for periods from a few days to many months to allow natural biological purification (p. 19). Once water is stored, the next process is flocculation, in which dirt particles come out of solution in the form of flakes. Flocculation is a process used in water treatment for aggregation or growth of destabilized particles, which can be easily removed through subsequent treatment methods such as sedimentation or filtration (Vigneswaran & Visvanathan, 2000). The three major mechanisms of flocculation are: a) aggregation resulting from Brownian movement (random movement of particles suspended in a liquid) in which particles move in water under Brownian motion, collide with other particles, and form larger, heavier particles not affected by the motion; b) aggregation induced by velocity gradient in the fluid that involves particle movement with gentle motion of water that promotes forming of the particles into a rounded mass and eventually separation due to mass weight; c) differential settling in which flocculation is due to the different rates of settling of particles of different sizes (Vigneswaran & Visvanathan, 2000).
Once the process of flocculation is completed, the next step is sedimentation, a solid-liquid process that makes use of the gravitational settling principle. In water-treatment plants, sedimentation is used to remove settleable solids left from the flocculation process. Since the size of the particles in the surface water is smaller, sedimentation precedes flocculation (Montgomery, 1985). Upon completion of the sedimentation process water will then go through filtration. Filters are divided into two types: pressure and gravity. Pressure filters consist of closed vessels containing beds of sand or other granular material through which water is forced under pressure (Montgomery, 1985). A gravity filter consists essentially of an open-topped box, drained at the bottom, and partly filled with filtering medium clean sand. Raw water is admitted to the space above the sand and flows downward under the action of gravity. Purification takes place during this downward passage. Like synthetic filters, natural sand filters (called slow-sand filters) achieve the same results when the water goes through and gets filtered from particles. In a slow-sand filter the water enters the water above the filter bed, awaiting its downward passage through the medium. This raw water reservoir is about 1-1.5 m deep, and the average time the sample will remain there varies from 3-12 hours, depending on the filtration velocity (Montgomery, 1985). The heavier particles of suspended matter start to settle. During the day and under the influence of sunlight, algae are growing and are absorbing carbon dioxide from the water to form cell material and oxygen. Along with the natural slow-sand filter technique is the lava filter technique in which lava rocks are used to filter particles and impurities out of the water. Once the water is cleaned of the different particles, the final step is
13 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Photo 3. Water Treatment Plant Water treatment plants process water through a series of settling and sedimentation, flocculation, and filtering steps. Chemicals are added to eliminate bacteriological pathogens and meet health needs such as fluoridation to produce a high-quality water product.
disinfection, where chlorine can be used to remove odors and taste. Water is then pumped to the households for consumption. Design Initiative for Students A simple activity that can be conducted with students is the filtration of water with the use of a homemade filter. To build the filter, we need a one-liter plastic water bottle with a lid that can serve as the housing for the filtration system and an ordinary plastic straw that can serve as the spout. The filtration system will consist of cotton batting, fine- and large-grain gravel, fine- and large-grain sand, and a coffee filter. A mug can be used to capture the filtered water. To create this style of homemade water filter, students will cut off the bottom of the one-liter water bottle and create a hole in the lid of the bottle so that a straw may fit snugly. The straw must sit halfway through the opening in the lid. Once the straw is in place, add the cotton batting at the bottom of the one-liter bottle and use it as lining for your filtration system. Next, place a layer of fine-grain sand followed by a layer of large-grain sand and follow the layers of sand with a layer of fine-grain gravel and then larger-grain
gravel. Once the bottle is full with the sand and gravel layers, top the filtration system with the coffee filter. The filter is now complete. Students will then pour unfiltered water through the coffee filter to work its way through the layers of sediment to wick away the impurities in the water. The cotton batting will catch particulates from the sediment and act as a final buffer. Finally a few drops of chlorine can be added in the filtered water to disinfect and finalize the process. Activities such as the one described above are easy to correlate with the technological literacy standards developed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). See Table 2 for correlations with ITEA’s standards.
Summary
Water quality is of concern to many. The substantial value of water is confirmed by society’s need for water and stability for all sectors, and it depends on access to reliable, good quality water. A nation’s survival depends on and is affected by water availability; therefore, water resources
14 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Credit: Texas Water Development Center
Table 2. Correlation with Standards for Technological Literacy
The Nature of Technology Standard 1: Students will develop an understanding of the characteristics and scope of technology. Standard 2: Students will develop an understanding of the core concepts of technology. Standard 3: Students will develop an understanding of the relationships among technologies and the connections between technology and other fields of study. Technology and Society Standard 4: Students will develop an understanding of the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology. Standard 5: Students will develop an understanding of the effects of technology on the environment. Standard 6: Students will develop an understanding of the role of society in the development and use of technology. Design Standard 8: Students will develop an understanding of the attributes of design. Standard 9: Students will develop an understanding of engineering design. Standard 10: Students will develop an understanding of the role of troubleshooting, research and development, invention and innovation, and experimentation in problem solving.
Standard 7: Students will develop an understanding of the influence of technology on history. Note. Adapted from Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). must be guarded and be protected from pollution and abuse to ensure the potential of the land for the sake of future generations. Retrieved November 2008, from: www.wilsoncenter.org/ waterstories/Household_Water_Treatment.pdf. Mintz, E., Bartram, J., Lochery, P., & Wegelin, M. (2001). Not just a drop in the bucket: Expanding access to point-ofuse water treatment systems. Am J Public Health, 91(10), 1565-1570. Reuber, M. D. (1979). Carcinogenicity of chloroform. Environmental Health Perspectives. 31, 171-182. Staehelln, J. & Holgne, J. (1982). Decomposition of ozone in water: Rate of initiation by hydroxide ions and hydrogen peroxide. Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 16 (10), 676-681. Sobsey, M. D. (2002). Managing water in the home: Accelerating health gains from improved water supply. Geneva: WHO. Vigneswaran, S. & Visvanathan, C. (2000). Water treatment process. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. World Health Organization. (2007). Combating waterborne disease at the household level (PDF). IWA Publishing. ISBN 978 92 4159522 3. Petros J. Katsioloudis, Ph.D., is an ambassador to Cyprus for the International Technology Education Association. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Occupational and Technical Studies at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia.
References
Baker, M. N. (1949). The quest for pure water. New York, NY: American Waterworks Association. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2005). National primary drinking water regulations. EPA-published manuscript: 40 CFR Part 142. Washington, DC. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2003). Method 1602. Male-specific (F+) and somatic coliphage in water by single agar layer (SAL) procedure. Washington, DC: Author. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1999). Guidelines for testing microbiological water purifiers. Washington, DC.: Author. Genov, V., Reshetnyak, I., Gevod, I., Shklyarova, I., & Rudenko, A. (2003). Modern tools and methods of water treatment for improving living standards. Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine: Springer. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Lantagne, D., Quick, R. & Mintz, E. (2007). Household water treatment and safe storage options in developing countries: A review of current implementation practices.
15 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Teaching Students about Clean Fuels and Transportation Technologies
By Joe Busby, DTE and Pam Page Carpenter
Technology teachers are part of the global solution for educating a greater public about energy inputs, processes, and outputs.
lobal warming, going green, ethanol, biodiesel, fuel cells, hydrogen combustion, and hybrids are some of the terms being tossed around in mainstream media these days. The grassroots efforts of many environmentalists and concerned citizen groups, Al Gore’s (2006) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, on global warming, rising petroleum fuel prices, concerns for dependency on oil, national security, and jobs are a few of the issues driving the need to become more informed and involved in going green. Regardless of a person’s convictions and belief system, science has provided a body of knowledge that points to human interaction with nature as being the leading cause of pollution and a variable to the cause of global warming. Some of this knowledge is being debated within the science community, and even more within the mainstream of society. For many, the question of what is fact or fiction is real. Technology teachers are part of the global solution for educating a greater public about energy inputs, processes, and outputs as indicated in Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology (STL) (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007): Standard 5 – the effects of technology on the environment, Standard 15 – agricultural and related biotechnologies, Standard 16 – energy and power technologies, and Standard 18 – transportation technologies. Therefore, technology teachers need reliable and basic information about renewable energy technologies to incorporate into their classroom instruction in order to better fulfill STL. There are many alternative energy and transportation technologies being implemented that will make a positive difference on the environment. Many other technologies that hold great promise are currently in a research and development phase. The following topics are environmentally friendlier energy and transportation technologies that are currently being implemented in various places around the world.
G
Junior Solar Sprint students ready to race.
16 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Fuel-Efficient Vehicles
Fuel-efficient vehicles, referred to as FEVs, are determined by the maximum miles per gallon (MPG) and the lowest emissions. Emissions contribute to greenhouse gases, with transportation being the largest contributor to carbon dioxide (CO2). According to the Energy Information Administration (2007), 98% of CO2 is emitted as a product of the combustion of fossil fuels in the United States. Some vehicles are partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEVs). An example of a PZEV is the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that runs on gasoline and batteries. When the Prius is using only battery power, it is said to be a zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) because it is not emitting any pollutants into the atmosphere. The batteries have a limited range, so the gasoline internal-combustion engine (ICE) provides most of the power for the auto. When a hybrid’s ICE is running, gasoline is burned and emissions are released into the atmosphere. A hydrogen vehicle is considered a ZEV because its only emission is a harmless water vapor (Air Resources Board, 2004a). This makes it an excellent vehicle to drive to help eliminate greenhouse gases. In order to achieve clean-air standards, California has enacted strict regulations requiring automobile manufacturers to produce and sell zero-emission vehicles (Air Resource Board, 2004b). These standards can be met by producing and selling a greater number of PZEVs. These regulations will push the automobile industry to create a variety of vehicles with zero and partial emissions.
automobile manufacturers offered over 70 models of AFVs to consumers, a marked increase from 11 models in 2001 (AutoblogGreen, 2008).
Flexible-Fuel Vehicles
Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) are defined by the use of both fossil fuels and alternative fuels (e.g., gasoline and ethanol, diesel and biodiesel). Onboard sensors detect which fuel is being utilized in order to accommodate for and efficiently burn the fuel in an ICE. The U.S. Department of Energy (2008a) estimates more than 6 million FFVs were in service in 2008, and many of the owners were not aware their vehicles were FFVs. The lack of awareness causes an underutilization of alternative fuels by the owner/operator and reduces the environmental benefits of the vehicle.
Biomass
Biomass is plant and animal matter that is used to make energy. It is considered the most common renewable source of energy (Markert and Backer, 2003). Examples of biomass are wood, corn stalks and shucks, grain, wheat stubble, and animal dung. Ethanol and biodiesel are two alternative fuels acquired from biomass resources and utilized in FFVs.
Alternative Fuels
Alternative fuels are non-petroleum-based fuels and are sources of renewable energy. Alternative fuels include battery power, biodiesel, biomass, ethanol, hydrogen, solar, and wind energy. Most of these renewable energy sources are currently being used to power alternative fuel vehicles and as oxygenates in low-level fuel blends (U.S. Department of Energy, 2008b). Hydrogen is presently being researched and developed, with the first leased vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines now available for consumers in some states.
Ethanol Ethanol is a renewable grain alcohol fuel derived from the fermentation of plant materials that are high in carbohydrates. Some plants that are used to create ethanol include corn, sugar cane, grains, and woody fibers. The woody fibers (cellulosic) tend to be the most difficult from which to obtain ethanol because of the lignin in the plant, but hold the greatest potential for future production and meeting the U.S. Department of Energy’s (30 x 30) goal for replacing 30% of automobile gasoline by 2030 (Neilson, 2007).
Currently, researchers at North Carolina State University are manipulating the genes in popular trees to create trees with less lignin and improve ethanol production (Burns, 2007). Ethanol is usually mixed with gasoline of a blend of E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) for flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), and heavy-duty trucks use E-95, which is a blend of 95% ethanol and 5% gasoline.
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs) are defined by the use of non-petroleum-based renewable fuels. Examples of AFVs are automobiles that use biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, and solar energy. Approximately 1.8 million AFVs were sold in 2007 in the U.S. During 2008, it was estimated that over 11 million AFVs were in service in the U.S., and
Biodiesel Biodiesel is derived from soy beans, canola, and other plants. It is also processed from recycled vegetable oil. All diesel engines can operate on biodiesel blends of 5% (B5) and 95% petro-diesel. Blends higher than 5% may require modifications to the vehicle. Biodiesel may be used in the
17 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
pure form of B100 or mixed with diesel as a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel known as B20. Biodiesel results in lower emissions of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and other pollutants. These lower emissions have less adverse impact on the environment. Concerns about the harmful effects from diesel exposure have given cause for some school districts to use biodiesel in school buses. Biodiesel is a safer alternative for the students riding buses because carbon monoxide and particulate matter (breathing irritants) are reduced by almost one half. Further, two potential cancer-causing compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and nitrated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (nPAH), are reduced by large amounts. Most of the PAH compounds are reduced by 75 percent, and the nPAH are reduced by 90 percent or more (National Biodiesel Board, 2008).
is burned instead of gasoline. Hydrogen is considered the simplest of elements because its structure is one proton and one electron. Individual hydrogen elements are rarely found alone in nature because of their single electron. When hydrogen is concentrated, it is usual for two hydrogen elements to join by sharing their electrons and form H2 gas (Ewing, 2007). Hydrogen is the cleanest of fuels since its emissions are clean water. Hydrogen is also being combined with natural gas and propane systems to improve emissions of the systems.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells
A fuel-cell vehicle (FCV) uses a hydrogen fuel cell. The fuel cell, like a battery, is an electrochemical energy conversion device. The difference between a battery and fuel cell is that a battery has to be recharged and eventually discarded, while a fuel cell, as long as it has a constant flow of chemicals to contact the catalyst, will continue to produce electricity. There are several types of hydrogen fuel cells. The electrolyte used in the fuel cell provides the primary
Hydrogen
Hydrogen holds great promise as a fuel for advanced technology vehicles. Currently, hydrogen is being used in hydrogen fuel cells to make electricity and in ICEs where it
Triumph Spitfire EV converted by high school students.
18 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
classification for the fuel cell. Alkaline Fuel Cells (AFCs) are the first type of fuel cells to be used in the space program. Although expensive to operate, these fuel cells produce electricity for the spacecraft and consumable water for the astronauts (U.S. Department of Energy, 2007). The Proton Exchange Membrane fuel cell (PEM) is presently the most suitable for land transportation applications. This fuel cell is fueled by hydrogen that is carried onboard and oxygen obtained from the atmospheric ambient air. The only emissions from a PEM are heat and water. The need for stored hydrogen is a current challenge for this system. A great amount of storage is necessary for PEM-powered vehicles to have ranges comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Other types of fuel cells exist but each exhibits challenges for application to vehicular transportation systems. Several systems produce extreme heat well past the boiling point of water. Others produce by-products that are not environmentally friendly.
Solar Vehicles
While EVs obtain energy from batteries, solar electric vehicles (SEVs) use the sun as their source of power. Photovoltaic cells, mounted on the exterior of the vehicle, are used to convert sunlight into electricity. SEVs are considered by many to be impractical because of the limitations of sunlight. Still, photovoltaic modules are being produced as add-on applications to HEVs. The gains recognized by the addition of the photovoltaics reduce the operation of the gasoline engine, thus further reducing emission.
An Example Educational Energy and Transportation Initiative
The North Carolina Solar Center is an educational initiative of the College of Engineering at North Carolina State University and has provided K-12 programs in alternative fuels and transportation for over ten years. Two Solar Center programs that can serve as models for technology education are the Junior Solar Sprint and the Students Making Advancements in Renewable Transportation Technologies (SMARTT) Challenge programs. The Junior Solar Sprint program provides a hands-on opportunity for middle school students to learn about solar energy. The students study content materials developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2001) that enable them to design, build, and test a small vehicle powered by a photovoltaic cell. The culminating activity is the annual competition with other schools on the campus of North Carolina State University. The SMARTT Challenge program is a year-long curriculum program that includes converting a gasolinepowered vehicle into an electric vehicle. The SMARTT Challenge program is a hands-on thematic program with many requirements that ends with a competition. The students are expected to study a specific curriculum that intentionally integrates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts. For the competition, the students have to create a web page that explains their environmental education and their activities while building the electric vehicle, create a display explaining building the electric vehicle and document its use in the community, and develop oral presentations per requirements. Both the Junior Solar Sprint and the SMARTT Challenge programs provide opportunities for students to work cooperatively in a hands-on learning environment. These programs give students, who may not be academically
Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles
Electric vehicles (EVs) are advanced technology vehicles that rely on rechargeable batteries as the source of energy. Refueling is only a plug-in to an electrical supply system. EVs have a range of 50 to 200 miles (Plug In America, 2007). There are zero emissions from EVs, and they require no oil changes, no tune-ups, and little in the way of purchasing parts for the vehicles.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
There are numerous hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) on the road today. HEVs have a combination of an ICE and an electric motor to provide power. The HEVs are able to travel greater ranges while consuming less fuel and producing fewer emissions than conventional vehicles. HEVs are generally classified as partial zero-emissions vehicles (PZEV). While being powered only by the electric motor, zero emissions are being emitted, but when the gasoline engine is in operation, emissions are expelled. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are just entering the market for private transportation. PHEVs utilize an ICE and an electric motor just like other HEVs. The difference is that the PHEV works like an EV and plugs into a wall socket to charge the batteries. It also works like an HEV and gets energy from the ICE, which gives the automobile a greater range than an EV.
19 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
engaged, opportunities to become interested in school again. Further, the programs provide extended learning opportunities for all students involved, including those who are more inclined towards academics. The North Carolina Solar Center provides workshops to prepare teachers for teaching the Junior Solar Sprint and the SMARTT Challenge programs. They also offer a number of other workshops for teachers about wind energy and other renewable energy technologies. The Solar House, part of the North Carolina Solar Center, is the premiere facility where students and the public can see and experience firsthand solar energy apparatus incorporated in residential dwellings. These apparatus include active and passive solar energies, photovoltaics, wind turbine, and alternative fuels.
in fuel economy standards for automobiles since 1975, calling for a 40 percent increase by setting a national fuel economy threshold at 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The bill also sets a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) where fuel producers are required to use a minimum amount of biofuel in 2022. Technology education teachers can be part of the solution to environmental challenges by educating about clean, alternative fuels and transportation technologies. Many changes are happening within these areas and students need
Facts into Action – An Activity
All technology education teachers can create opportunities for their students to experience alternative energy and transportation technologies. These experiences can happen in well-equipped laboratories or in programs with meager means for hands-on activities, as whole class, partial class, enrichment, or after-school activities. With appropriate and adequate planning, successful experiences can be realized by all. A constructivist’s model to follow that allows for engineering design and problem solving is for the teacher to present information about alternative energy sources as applied to transportation technologies and then have students help create a list of alternative transportation energy source topics for further investigation. The students can choose a topic from the list and work individually, in pairs, or in small groups to research the topic. Based on the research, the student or team should plan, build, and test a working model of the system. Data collection for the intent of making informed decisions and reporting the findings should be included as part of the testing. The students should utilize professionals from the community to help develop the plans for building the system, as well as the plans for testing the system and reporting the data from the tests. Ultimately a report and display can be developed to show the findings of the research project and to serve as an outlet to disseminate the information to a greater public.
Conclusion
Clean fuels and transportation technologies are part of the puzzle for cleaning up the earth’s environment. While this article was being written, the United States passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Office of the Press Secretary, 2007). This bill enacts the first increase
The NC State Wolfpack Energy-Efficient Locomotion at the Junior Solar Sprint and Students Making Advancements In Renewable Transportation Technologies (SMARTT) final event.
20 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
to have experiences and develop understanding so they can be wise consumers as well as conscious contributors to future developments.
References
Air Resources Board. (2004a). Fact sheet: California vehicle emissions. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from www.arb.ca.gov/ msprog/zevprog/factsheets/calemissions.pdf. Air Resources Board. (2004b). Manufacturers advisory correspondence (MAC) 2004-01. California Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/macs/mac0401/ mac0401.doc. AutoblogGreen. (2008). Auto Alliance: 1.8 million alternative fuel vehicles sold in 2007. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.autobloggreen.com/2008/ 04/05/auto-alliance-1-8-million-alternative-fuel-vehiclessold-in-200/. Burns, M. (2007). Breeding better biofuels. Results: Research and graduate studies at North Carolina State University. Retrieved November 13, 2007, from www.ncsu.edu/ research/results/vol7n2/09.html. Energy Information Administration. (2007). Emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States 2005: Executive summary – carbon. Official energy statistics from the U.S. Government. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from www.eia. doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg06rpt/summary/carbon. html. Ewing, R. A. (2007). Hydrogen – hot stuff cool science. Masonville, CO: PixyJack Press, LLC. Gore, A., et. al. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Classics and Participant Productions. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Markert, L. R. and Backer, P. R. (2003). Contemporary technology: Innovations, issues, and perspectives. Tinley Park, IL: The Goodheart-Willcox Company, Inc. National Biodiesel Board. (2008). Biodiesel: Biodiesel emissions. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from www.biodiesel. org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/emissions.pdf. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2001). Junior solar sprint: So…you want to build a model solar car. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy01/30826. pdf. Neilson, R. M., Jr. (2007). The role of cellulosic ethanol in transportation. Idaho Falls, ID: Idaho National Laboratory. (INL/CON-07013406 Preprint). Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/ Documents/3867727.pdf.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2007, December 19.) Fact sheet: Energy independence and security act of 2007. The White House. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html. Plug In America. (2007). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from www.pluginamerica.com/ faq.shtml. U.S. Department of Energy. (2007). Hydrogen, fuel cells & infrastructure technologies program. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/ fc_types.html. U.S. Department of Energy. (2008a). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center. Alternative & advanced vehicles: Fuels. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.eere. energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/flexible_fuel.html. U.S. Department of Energy. (2008b). Alternative fuels & advanced vehicles data center. Data, analysis & trends: Fuels. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from www.eere.energy. gov/afdc/data/fuels.html. Joe Busby, Ed.D., DTE is an assistant teaching professor in the Department of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. He can be reached via email at joe_busby@ ncsu.edu. Pam Page Carpenter, Ed.D. is the K-12 Education Specialist at the North Carolina Solar Center at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. She can be reached via email at pam_ [email protected]. This is a refereed article.
Ad Index
California University of Pennsylvania ...........4 Carnegie Mellon ...........................................C-4 Engineer Your Life ......................................... 40 Forrest T. Jones & Co. .................................C-3 Goodheart-Willcox Publisher .........................9 Kelvin Electronics ..............................................i Mastercam .....................................................C-2
21 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Design Your Own Underwater Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
By Brian Lien
[The project] will excite your students, and you as the teacher will get a new outlook on your teaching career.
W
hile looking for labs for my pre-engineering class, I came across an idea for a marine engineering project from the Future Scientists and Engineers of America website. I thought the lab looked fun, and it was not too expensive. These were two important criteria as I chose labs for the class. Another important criteria I had for implementing labs into the class was whether or not I could incorporate both science and math concepts into the lesson. I felt I could develop a connection between both science and math with technology and engineering as I developed the lab. What really clinched the development of the project for me came when I saw Robert Ballard speak at the 2008 ITEA conference in Salt Lake City. As he talked about his experiences in ROVs and his JASON Project, I knew this lab was one my students needed to do. I knew developing this lab would take me out of my comfort zone. However, I feel for a teacher to become a better teacher, he or she must learn new things. This, in turn, frustrated one of my students who told me she thought I should know everything. She thought I should have done the lab first and worked out all of the problems in order to anticipate the problems students would have and be able to provide answers. I explained that when she gets a
Mark and Kyle are making final adjustments to their underwater ROV.
22 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
job and her boss approaches her with a problem that she can’t immediately solve, she will have to use the skills she is learning now to help her solve problems later. She was OK with the explanation; however, she still thought the teacher should know all the answers. The lesson began with the purchase of two kits from FSEA (www.discoverycube.org/fsea/aspx). I read through their material, which gave good instructions on how to build the project but did not incorporate the science and math skills I wanted the students to use. So, I bought Build Your Own Underwater Robot and Other Wet Projects by Harry Bohm. This book contained some good background information about the history of underwater devices and some of the science and math skills I wanted to teach my students to better understand marine engineering. I used this book to develop my opening-day activity sheet. I wanted to introduce students to undersea devices and to develop a timeline using the CAD system as their output means. I wanted to show them how a CAD system could be used as a design tool to output a drawing other than the traditional two- and three-dimensional drawings they were used to. I gave them hints on what to look for, but in my redesigned handout, I further refined some specific devices I wanted them to look for. These devices started about 1200 AD and went through the JASON Project’s ROVs. Once they learned about the history of these devices, it was time for the science. In the book, Build Your Own Underwater Robot and Other Wet Projects, there is a section on Archimedes’ Principle. I used this section to help the students with the concept of buoyancy. Next year, as my “hook” to this activity, I am going to have a clear bucket or tub filled with water. I will have 5-10 different objects and have students tell me if each object will float like a boat, submerge—but not sink, or sink like a rock. To confuse them I will also have a piece of ebony wood and Pumice rock. These two materials act differently than most other types of wood or rock. Once they see what the objects do in water, I will introduce them to Archimedes’ Principle and the terms, “positively buoyant,” “neutrally buoyant,” and “negatively buoyant.” I will then relate these terms to the project they are going to design. You can even talk about Newton’s First Law of Motion during the course of this lab. Once student ROVs are neutrally buoyant, it will not take much effort to get the ROV moving. After the history aspect is complete, students can begin the build process. I gave them the design problem of having to pick up five steel washers from the bottom of the shallow end of a pool using a supplied electromagnet.
Trevor is adjusting the electromagnet. He is using the extra weight of the electromagnet to make his project neutrally buoyant.
They had ten minutes to do this task. I had the students use the engineering design method. First the students had to research small ROVs. You could incorporate this into your timeline if you wanted to condense the time frame of the lab. Students were asked to determine if any projects like this had been done before. When I started the research, I discovered several great websites—including information about a regional and a national contest with a device very similar to what we were designing. The contest is by Marine Advanced Technology Education Center (MATE), with information at www.marinetech.org/rov_competition/ index.php. Next, students brainstormed ten ideas and made a CAD drawing of their final idea. They had to use Microsoft Excel® to make a parts list and total the cost of their project before I would give them any supplies. I gave them a list of
23 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Zach practices “flying” the day before the contest.
This is an example of how we waterproofed the 12-volt DC motor. We used petroleum jelly to seal the small hole where the shaft extends through the bottom of the film canister. To seal the rest of the motor in and the rim of the lid, we used wax toilet bowl sealer. We used the pipe insulation to help make it neutrally buoyant.
supplies I would provide and anything else they would need to purchase. I had them include the cost of the controller also. They had to use my costs to complete their sheet, keeping the total under $40. That sounds like a lot; however, I, the controller, was included as part of the build cost. Once the parts list was complete, students had three days to build the project. Next they had four days in our pool to test their projects. We needed that time; however, if they built the project small enough, they could have taken the project home to do testing in their bathtubs. This was even a comment made by one of the students on the year-end evaluation—the desire for additional testing time. Taking the projects home to test could potentially cut out a day or two of testing at school. For the actual competition, I invited local media, both print and video, into the pool area. I also suggested inviting science and math students to see the event as a way to promote our classes for next year. Take lots of pictures. I took several pictures each day while the students were in the design and build stages. I also took several pictures and video clips while they were in the pool. Our school posted the pictures on its website and I emailed the link everywhere that came to mind. Fellow ITEA Idea Gardeners replied with how they did the MATE competition. I used their expertise to improve my lesson for next year. Here is one comment I received from Celeste
Baine, the author of Engineers Make a Difference: “The interesting thing is that his project is considered marine engineering. Marine and ocean engineering are important branches of engineering, especially since we are studying all aspects of the ocean environment to determine our effect on the oceans, the ocean as a natural resource, and its effect on ships and other marine vehicles. For me personally, water is relaxing, and the ocean has always beckoned. I’m sure there are many students who feel the same way. A career being outside enjoying the water would be especially appealing. This line of work is a welcomed defiance to most of the stereotypes about what engineers do all day.” Debra Shapiro, an associate editor from the National Science Teachers Association, read the blog and ran a story on the NSTA website. My administration and parents really loved the lab. Best of all was that this lab was listed as one of the top two labs by my students. They really liked the project. They wanted me to teach it earlier in the year so they would be more willing to do a better job on it. Some of the problems I encountered with the lab included having a power supply break the day before I was to go to the pool for testing. To overcome that problem I used old cell phone charging units. I found a couple of 1-amp units that worked, but not as well as the real charger would have. You really need a 6-amp charger or a marine deep cycle
24 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
battery for the project to work well. By the time you turn on three 12-volt motors and the electromagnet, the ROV draws about 2.5 amps on dry land. When you put it into the water, it will draw even more amperage. I would make the electromagnet differently than the version supplied by FSEA—its magnet is very heavy. I would make my own magnet. Propellers were another big challenge for my students. I bought 40 propellers for the project, and we went through all 40. The students kept breaking them. They had a very hard time gluing the propellers to the shaft. They finally started experimenting with different glues, but it wasn’t until the propeller fell off the shaft for the third and fourth time that I suggested trying a different method for propeller attachment. Trying to keep the students “thinking small” was a challenge. However, two of my most successful projects were my largest projects. The cost of the project is expensive for the first year. If you make a controller for each ROV, the cost will be about $50-$55 per unit; however, reuse of the controllers allows subsequent yearly costs to remain minimal. If you keep all of the ROVs, you can reuse 95% of the projects. The most expensive part, other than the controllers, is the 12-volt motor. They cost about $8.00 each, and you need at least three per ROV. These can be reused from year to year also.
There are several variations you could do to make this project work without a pool. You could make them really small using very thin PVC and fly them in any large baby pool or deep sink you might have. You could also not use the electromagnet and use the pool hoops. The challenge would be to fly down and gather the hoops off the bottom of the pool using some arm hanging off the end or bottom of the ROV. Get creative with the project. It will excite your students, and you as the teacher will get a new outlook on your teaching career. It really excited me and kept me going through the final weeks of the school year.
Resource
Bohm, Harry. (1997). Build your own underwater robot and other wet projects. Vancouver: Westcoast Words. ISBN: 9780968161005. Brian Lien is a technology education teacher at Princeton High School in Cincinnati, Ohio. He can be reached via email at blien@ princeton.k12.oh.us.
25 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Portable Inspiration: The Necessity of STEM Outreach Investment
By Rich Kressly With Sylvia Herbert, Phil Ross, and Delia Votsch
The program is fueled by a passion to provide others with opportunities to learn about the excitement and benefits of STEM, robotics education, and competition through hands-on experiences.
unning a successful technology education lab and delivering curriculum in today’s educational environment can be busy, misunderstood, and downright exhausting. Keeping up with growing and emerging technologies, educating the school and community on what your program is really all about, and running after-school technology and engineering clubs leaves precious little time for anything else. On top of all of that, investing in a STEM outreach program isn’t even close to feasible, right? Even if it’s far more feasible than one might think, to suggest that such a program is a “necessity” is downright foolish, isn’t it? Not in our opinion. In fact, Pennsylvania Standard 3.8.12 mandates that students “apply the use of ingenuity and technological resources to solve specific societal needs and improve the quality of life,” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2002). Further, Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) Standards 4, 5, 6, and 13 all relate to the impacts of technology on the environment and society in general (ITEA, 2000/2002/2007). Whether through a school’s technology education curriculum, through a cocurricular STEM-related club, or a combination of both, it would seem that investment in an outreach program is a compelling way to address perhaps the most important standard charged to technology educators across the commonwealth today.
R
Our Example, But By No Means Our Idea
Originally developed as an extension of the Lower Merion High School Technology & Engineering Club’s FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC) Team in October of 2007, Portable Inspiration was designed to expose students, educators, and communities to the experience of engineering and the design process. The program is fueled by a passion to provide others with opportunities to learn about the excitement and benefits of STEM, robotics education, and competition through hands-on experiences. There are also clear benefits for those LMHS students
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
Student outreach team with PI package.
26 •
• april 2009
who spend time planning and executing these outreach events in our community and others. Students in our club are developing leadership and communication skills while engaging in meaningful and relevant community service. While Portable Inspiration was born and planned for at Lower Merion, the idea to perform outreach is something we cannot take any credit for. As a participant in FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science & Technology), the national nonprofit that operates FRC, we’ve been encouraged to spread the word of STEM and FIRST’s ideals of Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism, two terms that promote the coexistence of cooperation and competition while emphasizing acting with integrity. Veteran FIRST participants learn to focus upon the ultimate goal of transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology. At Lower Merion we’ve broadened that effort to include all students in our Technology & Engineering Club whether they are affiliated with FIRST, VEX, TSA, or all three. With a strong ethos behind the effort, we then planned for and developed the Portable Inspiration package by consulting STEM-focused clubs and robotics programs that conduct similar outreach in VA, PA, DE, and as far away as Ontario, Canada. From there, we took the best of what each example had to offer while considering what would best meet the needs of our community.
Club members work with a student with special needs.
and for high school students with special needs. We’ve also adapted the use of the Portable Inspiration Package to include more in-depth workshops and learning experiences for high school and elementary school students. Thus far these workshops have proven to be productive and meaningful for students in Grades K-3 in two separate school districts and in one private school as well. In a halfday’s time our high school students engage every student in an entire grade level as champions of engineering and design as well as acting as community role models. In addition to controlling a robot in Pyramid Mania, young students learn about simple machines, robots in the world, teamwork, and more. Teachers even get the opportunity to drive a large FIRST robot and leave with classroom materials. Now, in Year Two of the program, demand is really growing. A supportive administration has afforded us the time to conduct the workshops, and we involve many of our students so that exposure is maximized and lost class time during the school day is minimized.
Creating Win-Win Scenarios
From the onset, when creating our outreach program, we realized that we needed to conserve resources (especially time and human capital, as these are always scarce) as well as keeping an eye on cost—both initial and recurring. In short, we needed a very engaging concept that was flexible and portable for varying audiences and environments that didn’t cost a lot or take a tremendous amount of time to create or maintain. With creating “win-win” scenarios for participants and student presenters/experts in mind, we settled upon the use of the VEX Robotics Design System rather quickly because of its price point and for the fact we were already invested in VEX in both the Tech Ed curriculum and with our after-school competitive robotics efforts. We then developed a robotics game called Pyramid Mania that utilizes an inexpensive PVC field and tennis balls for game objects that fit in a single container and set up in mere moments. This basic outreach package fits into five small totes; four VEX starter kits and “SquareBots” and one tote for the game field and objects. With this basic package we have run hands-on demonstrations for hundreds of visitors and younger siblings who attend local high school robotics events and competitions, for cub scouts at a pack meeting,
The STEM Outreach Recipe—Key Ingredients
Creating your own STEM outreach program and package isn’t really all that difficult. In the end, all you really need is the desire to make the investment of time and resources because you see this as worthwhile for the students, community, and staff. Selecting a target audience and choosing your “tools” to deliver the STEM message are
27 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
existing relationships you have with school administration, webmasters, parent/community groups, local business, and local media outlets. Once the ball starts rolling, more support of some kind is sure to follow. Just like the rest of your work, this will never be a perfect endeavor, but if you are willing to make this investment, the dividends could have a deeper and more lasting impact upon your students and community than you could have ever imagined.
The Unintended, Yet Delightful Consequences of Saying “Yes”
We’re all keenly aware of what happens when excited students come to a classroom teacher with an “idea” for a project—it takes precious time and energy. In our case, however, it’s proving to be more than worth it. As our students now take the initiative looking for opportunities to utilize the outreach package to expose, excite, and teach others about the wonders of technology and engineering, many are realizing unintended benefits. In addition to our stated goals, the outreach program has led to an Eagle Scout project, new robotics team members, and an invitation to be part of the international Ulster Project. Our high school students have even been asked to sign autographs for younger students in workshops. It’s becoming obvious that these experiences, the ones that we cannot control or predict, are some of the most meaningful of all. What we can do intentionally, though, is create an atmosphere where
Club members give elementary students a tour of competition robot “Deuce.”
certainly at the forefront. In our case, we initially wanted to reach out to a special needs population in our own building, and things “mushroomed” from there. From the start we knew that the idea might grow, so we kept the words “flexible” and “portable” in mind. Alongside those two key words was a third word: “engaging.” No matter who your outreach target audience is, you need to be sure that they are engaged in a way that makes them say “wow.” Robotics is one way to do this, but there are others as well. The bottom line is, once you have the audience’s interest, it becomes very easy for you and your students to deliver a message in a meaningful and lasting way. Think hard about the strengths of your program and how they might be leveraged to create an outreach program. Naturally, budget is always a consideration. The Portable Inspiration package initial cost was about $1,500 worth of VEX and associated equipment, which we had already budgeted for between curriculum and our robotics team. That price could easily be cut in half by using two robots instead of the four we have. Get creative to meet your needs and constraints. Our additional workshop materials were all created in-house for under $100 total. Later, we received a donation that helped us upgrade our simple machines station. Once you’ve built from your own program strength and have a package that’s flexible and portable, promote these activities just like you would promote any student’s or program accomplishment. Leverage the
VEX Robotics Design System.
28 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
References
FIRST: For Inspiration & Recognition of Science & Technology. (October 2008). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from www.usfirst.org. Innovation First, Inc. (2008). Vex robotics design system. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from www.vexrobotics.com. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd. pdf. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2002). Academic standards for science and technology. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/lib/k12/scitech. pdf. Rich Kressly has been a public educator for 15 years and is currently serving Lower Merion High School’s Technology Education and English departments and running the school’s competitive robotics program while also acting as an educational consultant for Innovation First, Inc. He’s served FIRST Robotics as a Regional Senior Mentor and has also been part of the yearly international robotics challenge design for FIRST’s intermediate program. He has played roles in designing robotics curriculum and support materials at the local, state, and national levels—most recently completing work as one of five lead authors of the Autodesk VEX Robotics Curriculum. Kressly has also twice received Who’s Who Among America’s Teachers honors. He can be reached at [email protected].
Guiding an elementary student driving “Square bot.”
creative deployment of STEM outreach is encouraged and expected.
Going One Extra Step to Start Someone Else’s Journey
Once you develop your own outreach program based on your program strengths, go the small extra step to share what you do. All of it. The only way we’ll ever come close to achieving a world where people “apply the use of ingenuity and technological resources to solve specific societal needs and improve the quality of life” on a grand scale is if we all utilize today’s modern communication tools to share what we do—openly and without reservation. Proudly, all of LMHS’ Portable Inspiration and associated files are available via a popular competitive robotics education message board at: www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2052. For the small amount of time this took to share, if it helps inspire just one other program somewhere, it’s well-invested time. Yes, being a technology educator is indeed too busy a profession for anyone to fairly ask you to create and operate a STEM outreach program through curriculum, clubs, or both. Yet, it just may be a very critical component in our mission to meet important education standards and, ultimately, to help produce the kind of students who will utilize skills, knowledge, and technology for the greater good, share those success stories and methods openly with others, and consciously help create a stronger, healthier global society.
Phil Ross, Delia Votsch, and Sylvia Herbert are student members of the LMHS Technology & Engineering Club, the current Captains of Dawgma, the school’s FIRST & VEX Robotics teams, and have all held various leadership positions with the club’s TSA Chapter during their high school careers as well. They can be reached at captains@ lmtechclub.org.
29 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Classroom Challenge
Revisiting the Nuclear Power Option
By Harry T. Roman
When citizens do not understand what a technology is or what it can do, there is sometimes a deep-seated fear about it.
echnologies can be “hot buttons” for controversy, especially if it has anything to do with nuclear energy. Undoubtedly, nuclear power plants generate a significant portion of our nation’s electricity, and to shut them down would impose severe shocks to the economy and our electricity bills. Such plants do have some very important benefits such as no greenhouse gas emissions, no use of petroleum fuels, and no dependence on foreign sources for fuel supply. But in the heat of philosophical battle, opposing sides don’t always hear each other or listen without bias. If there is anything that will impact how technology is accepted, it is likely to be the public’s preconceived notions and how the popular press in all its forms (print, TV, radio) influences their opinions. It is often many times more powerful than any technological fix that scientists or engineers can apply. The challenge for your class here is
T
to revisit this controversial power-generation option and develop ideas for reinvigorating this technology.
Getting Started
The first order of business is to understand how nuclear power plants operate as well as what leads to the everpresent controversy surrounding them. How old is this technology? Where are the plants located? What has been their performance record? What are the concerns about these plants today, and how is that different from other types of power-generation technologies?
30 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
• ow much people really understand about how nuclear H plants work. • hat sources of information they have read to arrive at W their conclusions. • hat things trouble them the most about nuclear plants. W • f they are willing to listen to new nuclear power ideas. I Here students can talk to their parents, other teachers, extended family, and friends to develop an appreciation about how people view this technology. France obtains close to 70% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Germany, Japan, England, Spain, and Canada also use nuclear power. What are their opinions of the technology? Why is France so comfortable with the technology? Are some other countries moving away from it and why? We have had nuclear-powered ships for over 50 years, so what’s all the fuss about nuclear power on land?
If there is anything that will impact how technology is accepted, it is likely to be the public’s preconceived notions and how the popular press…influences their opinions.
Information abounds about this topic, so finding references should not be a problem; but it is important that students read both the pro and con side of the arguments. Balance of perspective is essential if students are to make meaningful suggestions about how to “rebirth” the technology. You will find there are major points of contention about: • lant safety P • adioactive leaks R • ost of the plants C • torage and transportation of spent fuel S • ossible attack by terrorists P • seful lifetime of the plants U • ging plants A • uel recycling F There are also new ideas being talked about for radically different nuclear power plants, inherently safer and less prone to leaks. This is food for new ideas about transitioning the existing technology to something perhaps more acceptable. When citizens do not understand what a technology is or what it can do, there is sometimes a deep-seated fear about it. Nuclear power is no exception. Have the students ask around about what people know and fear about nuclear power and why. Try to have the students be very specific about how they ask questions and dig deeply to determine:
You will find there are major points of contention about plant safety.
31 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Is it possible to invite pro and con advocates to your classroom to discuss the technology and address the points of contention? Is there a utility in your area that operates a nuclear power plant, and can someone from the plant visit the students to discuss how the plant is operated? Is there a local anti-nuclear activist who would be willing to talk with the students? This would be a wonderful opportunity for students to dig down to the basics of the arguments and see: • here there could be room for compromise and change. W • hat alternatives anti-nuclear activists propose. W • ow realistic it would be to phase out nuclear plants. H • e experience and knowledge from which both parties Th speak. • rrational fears or misconceptions on both sides of the I issue.
Challenge the Status Quo
Once the major issues and the public perception questions have been understood, it is time for the students to make their recommendations for change. They should be thinking along two lines of thought: Is there something that can be done to existing plants to make them more acceptable? and What new nuclear power technologies could be used?
Explore the broad gamut of possibilities for students to consider. They are free to propose new ideas based on what they have learned thus far in this exercise. Stimulate discussion and creativity with provocative questions such as: • hould we build all nuclear power plants underground? S • aybe if we had more nuclear technology available for the M public to use it might make them more comfortable with it….why not nuclear-powered cars, home heating systems, etc? • an we find something useful to do with all the spent fuel? C • o we prohibit any public approaches to nuclear plant D sites? • s it necessary that we have a special organization in I charge of all nuclear power plants and their operation? • hould we build artificial islands and locate power plants S on them and bring the energy ashore by cables? • hould we make the power plants smaller and more S numerous to reduce potential problems at large site locations? • aybe a massive public education program about nuclear M power is needed, or perhaps a national debate. • hould we develop power plant designs that are fail-safe S and very different than the types we use today?
Should we build artificial islands and locate power plants on them and bring the energy ashore by cables?
32 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
• f we cannot use nuclear power, what will be its I replacement that could be available any time of the day? • hat is its impact on the environment, air quality, etc? W These are big questions with broad ramifications, but technology can have such impacts on society—look at stem cell research, nanotechnology, life extension techniques, etc. Think about how the car, electricity, motion pictures, the lightbulb, and airplanes changed our society. Are there parallels to nuclear power and common lessons that can be learned? What makes the “hot button” of nuclear power so different from these other civilization-changing technologies?
Urge your students to grab a big chunk of this topic and run with it. They will learn there is a great deal more to technology than the “geek stuff.” Here they will be up close and personal with the social, environmental, institutional, governmental, and economic forces that ebb and flow in our capitalist system. Harry T. Roman recently retired from his engineering job and is the author of a variety of new technology education books. He can be reached via email at htroman49@aol. com.
33 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
2009 Directory of ITEA Institutional Members
For further information, contact the faculty member listed. LEGEND Degrees 1 Bachelor’s Degree 2 Master’s Degree 3 Fifth Year Program 4 Sixth Year Program 5 Advanced Standing Certificate 6 Doctoral Degree 7 Continuing Education Seminars/Workshops/ Conferences Financial Aid Offered A Undergraduate Scholarships B Research Assistantships C Teaching Assistantships D Scholarships E Fellowships F Other
CONNECTICUT
1,2,4,6,7 A,B,D Central Connecticut State University Department of Technology & Engineering Education 1615 Stanley Street New Britain, CT 06050-2040 860-832-1850 • FAX 860-832-1811 www.teched.ccsu.edu [email protected] Dr. James A. Delaura
GEORGIA
1,2,3,6 B,C The University of Georgia Department of Workforce Education, Leadership and Social Foundations 223 River’s Crossing Athens, GA 30602-4809 706-542-4503 • FAX 706-542-4054 www.uga.edu/teched/index.html [email protected] Dr. Robert Wicklein, DTE
ALABAMA
1,2 The University of West Alabama Department of University Partners 21982 University Lane Orange Beach, AL 36561 251-979-6125 www.columbiasouthern.edu/uwa [email protected] Rebecca Stevens A,C
ILLINOIS
1,2,6,7 Chicago State University Technology Education Program 9501 S. King Drive Chicago, IL 60628 773-821-2441 www.csu.edu/ [email protected] Dr. Cathryn Busch 1,2,7 Eastern Illinois University School of Technology 600 Lincoln Avenue Charleston, IL 61920-3099 217-581-3226 www.eiu.edu/~tech [email protected] Dr. Mahyar R. Izadi 1,2,6,7 Illinois State University Department of Technology 210 Turner Hall, Campus Box 5100 Normal, IL 61790-5100 309-438-7862 • FAX 309-438-8628 www.tec.ilstu.edu [email protected] Dr. Chris Merrill D
ARKANSAS
1,2,6,7 A,E,F University of Arkansas Department of Curriculum & Instruction/Technology Education Peabody Hall 116 Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-3076 • FAX 479-575-2396 http://vaed.uark.edu/tech_ed.htm [email protected] Vinson Carter
A,B,C,D
AUSTRALIA
1,2,6 Griffith University School of Education and Professional Studies Mt. Gravatt Campus Brisbane Qld 4122 Australia www.griffith.edu.au/education [email protected] Dr. Ivan Chester D
A,B,C,D,F
34 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
INDIANA
1,2 Ball State University Department of Technology Applied Technology 131 Muncie, IN 47306-0255 765-285-5641 • FAX 765-285-2162 www.bsu.edu/technology/ [email protected] Dr. Ray Shackelford, DTE 1,2,6,7 Indiana State University Department of Technology Management TC 302 John Myers Technology Center Terre Haute, IN 47809 812-237-3377 • FAX 812-237-2655 http://web.indstate.edu/tm/ [email protected] Dr. James Smallwood 1,2,6 Purdue University Department of Industrial Technology 401 N. Grant Street, Knoy Hall West Lafayette, IN 47907-2021 765-494-1101 www.tech.purdue.edu/it [email protected] Dr. Niaz Latif A,B,C
1,2,7 A,B,C,D Pittsburg State University Department of Technology Studies 1701 S. Broadway Pittsburg, KS 66762 620-235-4373 • FAX 620-235-4020 www.pittstate.edu/department/tech-studies/technologyeducation/index.dot [email protected] Dr. John L. Iley
A,B,C,D,E
KENTUCKY
1 Berea College Department of Technology and Industrial Arts CPO 2188 Berea, KY 40404 859-985-3063 • FAX 859-986-4506 www.berea.edu/tia/ [email protected] Dr. Gary Mahoney 1,2,3,6,7 Eastern Kentucky University Department of Technology 521 Lancaster Avenue 302 Whalin Technology Complex Richmond, KY 40475-3102 859-622-3232 • FAX 859-622-2357 www.technology.eku.edu [email protected] Dr. Tim Ross F
A,B,D,C,E
A,B,D,F
IOWA
1,2,6,7 University of Northern Iowa Department of Industrial Technology Industrial Technology Center, Room 28 Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0178 319-273-2489 • FAX 319-273-5818 www.uni.edu/indtech/ [email protected] Dr. Bart Berquist (interim) A,B,C,D
MARYLAND
1,2,5,7 University of Maryland Eastern Shore Department of Technology 11931 Art Shell Plaza-UMES Campus Princess Anne, MD 21853-1299 410-651-6468 • FAX 410-651-7959 www.umes.edu/tech [email protected] Dr. Leon L. Copeland, Sr. A,B,C
KANSAS
1,2,7 Fort Hays State University Technology Studies Department 600 Park Street Hays, KS 67601-4099 785-628-4315 • FAX 785-628-4267 www.fhsu.edu/tecs [email protected] Dr. Fred Ruda, DTE A,C,D
MASSACHUSETTS
1,2,5,7 Fitchburg State College Department of Industrial Technology 160 Pearl Street Fitchburg, MA 01520 978-665-3255 www.fsc.edu [email protected] Dr. James P. Alicata A,B,D
35 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Lemelson-MIT Program 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139 617-452-2147 [email protected] Leigh Estabrooks
NEW JERSEY
1,2,7 The College of New Jersey Department of Technological Studies PO Box 7718 Ewing, NJ 08628-0718 609-771-2543/2782 • FAX 609-771-3330 www.tcnj.edu/~tstudies/ [email protected] Dr. John Karsnitz A,D,F
MICHIGAN
1,2,6,7 Eastern Michigan University School of Technology Studies 122 Sill Hall Ypsilanti, MI 48197 734-487-4330 • FAX 734-487-7690 www.emich.edu/cot/undergrad_tde.htm [email protected]/[email protected] John Boyless, Director/Dr. Phillip L. Cardon A,B,C,D,E
NEW YORK
1,2,5,7 A,B,D,F Buffalo State College Department of Technology 1300 Elmwood Avenue Buffalo, NY 14222 716-878-6017 www.buffalostate.edu [email protected] Dr. Richard Butz (chair)/Clark Greene (coordinator) 1,7 New York City College of Technology Career and Technology Teacher Education 300 Jay Street, M-201 Brooklyn, NY 11201-2983 718-260-5373 • FAX 718-260-5995 www.citytech.cuny.edu [email protected] Godfrey I. Nwoke 1,2 NY State University at Oswego Department of Technology Washington Boulevard, 209 Park Hall Oswego, NY 13126-3599 315-312-3011 www.oswego.edu/tech [email protected] Philip Gaines A,D
MINNESOTA
1,2 St. Cloud State University Environmental & Technological Studies 720 – 4th Avenue S., 216 Headley Hall St. Cloud, MN 56301-4498 320-308-3235 • FAX 320-654-5122 www.stcloudstate.edu/ets [email protected] Dr. Mitch Bender A,D
MISSOURI
1,2,7 A,B,C,D University of Central Missouri Department of Career and Technology Education 120 Grinstead Building Warrensburg, MO 64093-5034 660-543-4452 • FAX 660-543-8031 www.cmsu.edu/cte/ [email protected] Dr. Dick Kahoe/Dr. Odin Jurkowski (chair)
C
MONTANA
1,2 Montana State University Department of Education 118 Cheever Hall Bozeman, MT 59717-2880 406-994-3201 • FAX 406-994-6696 www.montana.edu/wwwad [email protected] Scott Davis A,C
1,2,7 A,C,D The College of Saint Rose Department of Applied Technology Education/Education Tech/Educational Psychology 432 Western Avenue Albany, NY 12203-1490 518-454-5279 www.strose.edu/Future_Students/Academics [email protected] Dr. Travis Plowman
36 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
NORTH CAROLINA
1,2,7 A,B,C,D,E Appalachian State University Department of Technology Katherine Harper Hall, ASU Box 32122 Boone, NC 28608-2122 828-262-3110 www.tec.appstate.edu/ [email protected]/[email protected] Dr. Jerianne Taylor/Dr. Marie Hoepfl Dr. Jeffrey Tiller ([email protected]) 1,2,6,7 A,B,C,D North Carolina State University Mathematics, Science & Technology Education Box 7801 Raleigh, NC 27695-7801 919-515-1748 • FAX 919-515-6892 http://ced.ncsu.edu/mste/tech_programs/index.php [email protected] Dr. William J. Haynie
1,7 Ohio Northern University Department of Technological Studies Room 208, Taft Memorial Building Ada, OH 45810 419-772-2170 • FAX 419-772-1932 www-new.onu.edu/academics/ [email protected] Dr. David L. Rouch 1,2,3,6,7 The Ohio State University Technology Education 1100 Kinnear Road, Room 100A Columbus, OH 43212-1152 614-292-7471 • FAX 614-292-2662 www.teched.coe.ohio-state.edu [email protected] Dr. Paul E. Post
A,D,F
A,B,C,D,E
OKLAHOMA
1,2,7 A,C,D Southwestern Oklahoma State University Department of Industrial and Engineering Technology 100 Campus Drive Weatherford, OK 73096-3098 580-774-3162 • FAX 580-774-7028 www.swosu.edu/academics/tech/ [email protected] Dr. Gary Bell
NORTH DAKOTA
1,2,3,4,6,7 University of North Dakota Department of Technology 10 Cornell Street, Stop 7118 Grand Forks, ND 58202-3061 701-777-2249 • FAX 701-777-4320 www.business.und.edu/dept/technology [email protected] Dr. Dave Yearwood 1,2,7 Valley City State University Department of Technology 101 College Street, SW Valley City, ND 58072 701-845-7444 • FAX 701-845-7245 http://teched.vcsu.edu [email protected] Dr. Don Mugan A,B,C,D,E
PENNSYLVANIA
A 1,2,5,7 California University of Pennsylvania Applied Engineering & Technology 250 University Avenue California, PA 15419 724-938-4085 • FAX 724-938-4572 www.cup.edu/eberly/aet/index [email protected] Dr. Stanley A. Komacek, DTE 1,2,5,7 Millersville University Department of Industry & Technology PO Box 1002, Osburn Hall Millersville, PA 17551-0302 717-872-3316 • FAX 717-872-3318 www.millersville.edu/itec [email protected] Dr. Barry David A,B,D
OHIO
1,2 Kent State University College of Technology 375 Terrace Drive Kent, OH 44242-0001 330-672-2040 www.tech.kent.edu/tech [email protected] Dr. Lowell S. Zurbuch A,B,C
A,B,D,F
37 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
RHODE ISLAND
1,2,5,6 Johnson & Wales University School of Technology 8 Abbott Park Place Providence, RI 02903 401-598-2500 www.jwu.edu [email protected] Frank Tweedie, Dean 1,2,7 Rhode Island College Technology Education Program 600 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Providence, RI 02908-1991 401-456-8018 www.ric.edu/educationalStudies/technology.php [email protected] Dr. Charles H. McLaughlin, Jr., DTE A,D
VIRGINIA
1,2,5,6,7 Old Dominion University Occupational and Technical Studies 228 Education Norfolk, VA 23529-0498 757-683-4305 • FAX 757-683-5227 http://education.odu.edu/ots/ [email protected] Dr. Philip A. Reed A,B,C,D,E
A
SWEDEN
Linkoping University Centre for School Technology Education (CETIS) Campus Norrkoping Norrkoping SE60174 www.cetis.se [email protected] Dr. Thomas Ginner
2,3,5,6,7 B,C Virginia Tech Department of Integrative STEM Education/Technology Education 300B War Memorial Hall Blacksburg, VA 24060 540-231-8173 • FAX 540-231-9075 www.teched.vt.edu/TE/STEM.html [email protected] Dr. Mark Sanders
WISCONSIN
1,2,7 A,B University of Wisconsin-Stout Master of Science in Industrial/Technology Education 224C Communication Technologies Building Menomonie, WI 54751 715-232-2757 • FAX 715-232-1441 www.uwstout.edu/programs/msite/ [email protected] Dr. David Stricker
UTAH
1,2 Brigham Young University Technology & Engineering Education 230 SNLB Provo, UT 84602 801-422-6496 www.et.byu.edu/sot/ [email protected] Dr. Steven Shumway 1,2,6,7 Utah State University Engineering and Technology Education 6000 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-6000 435-797-1795 www.ete.usu.edu [email protected] Dr. Kurt H. Becker A
WYOMING
1 University of Wyoming Department of Secondary Education 125 College Drive Casper, WY 82601 307-268-2406 • FAX 307-268-2416 www.uwyo.edu/uwcc/ [email protected] Dr. Rod Thompson A
A,B,C,D,E
38 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
2009 Directory of ITEA Museum Members
For further information contact the staff member listed.
MASSACHUSETTS
Museum of Science National Center for Technological Literacy 1 Science Park Boston, MA 02114 617-589-0170 www.mos.org Inga Laurila [email protected]
MARYLAND
Baltimore Museum of Industry 1415 Key Hwy Baltimore, MD 21230 410-887-8926 www.thebmi.org Mike Shealey, DTE [email protected]
39 •
The Te c hnolo gy Te ac her
• april 2009
Explore the Possibilities.
Meet Emily, a civil engineer who used her degree to travel to Indonesia with Engineers Without Borders. She helped to rebuild shrimp hatcheries that had been destroyed by the 2004 tsunami.
Visit engineeryourlife.org and introduce your students to Emily and view the stories of other young female engineers who “dream big and love what they do.”
Major funding for Engineer Your Life provided by The National Science Foundation and Northrop Grumman Foundation. Additional funding provided by Stephen D. Bechtel, Jr. and the United Engineering Foundation (ASCE, ASME, AIChE, IEEE, AIME). © 2008 WGBH Educational Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences for the National Academy of Engineering. Engineer Your Life and logo are trademarks of WGBH. All rights reserved. All third party trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Used with permission.
Wouldn’t it be great to have all the answers?
Well, here are some of them, now available from ITEA and EbD™
Technological Design, A Standards-Based High School Model Course Guide
Engineering scope, content, and professional practices are presented through practical applications. Students in engineering teams apply technology, science, and mathematics concepts and skills to solve engineering design problems and innovate designs. Students research, develop, test, and analyze engineering designs using criteria such as design effectiveness, public safety, human factors, and ethics. 2009 P236CD - $29.00; Members $24.00 (delivered on CD as an interactive electronic publication)
Technological Systems, Second Edition A Standards-Based Middle School Model Course Guide
Technological Systems is intended to teach students how technological systems work together to solve problems and capture opportunities. As technology becomes more integrated, and systems become more and more dependent upon each other than ever before, this course gives students a general background on the different types of systems, with particular concentration on the connections between these systems. 2009 P235CD - $29.00; Members $24.00 (delivered on CD as an interactive electronic publication)
Order today by calling 703-860-2100 or faxing an order form to 703-860-0353.
A downloadable order form is available at www.iteaconnect.org/Publications/puborder.pdf More information and sample pages can be viewed at www.iteaconnect.org/EbD/Samples/ebdsamples.htm
Are You Cutting Off STEM at the Roots?
EbD™ helps students, teachers, and programs grow.
Engineering byDesign™ is the only comprehensive K–16 Solution for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).
Standards-Based.
Comprehensive.
Hands-On.
Learn how we can help you achieve your program goals today. www.engineeringbydesign.org, [email protected], 301-482-1929.
GEICO and Forrest T. Jones & Co. have teamed up to offer a special discount on car insurance.
Special member discount
Visit geico.com for your FREE, no-obligation rate quote and be sure to select ITEA when asked for your affiliation. New customers save an average of $500 when they switch. GEICO offers you: • Outstanding, round-the-clock service online or on the phone, even on holidays and weekends! • Fast, fair claim handling. • Money-saving discounts. GEICO can also help you with homeowner’s and renter’s insurance. To find out how much you could save, visit geico.com or call 1-800-368-2734 today.
Average savings amount based on national GEICO New Policyholder Survey data through August 2007. Discount amount varies in some states. Discount is not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. One group discount applicable per policy. In New York a premium reduction is available. Homeowner’s insurance is not available in all states. Homeowner’s and renter’s coverages are written through non-affiliated insurance companies and are secured through Insurance Counselors Inc., the GEICO Property Agency, doing business as Special Services Insurance Agency in CA and GEICO Insurance Agency in MA, MI, NJ, NY, OK, SD, UT. Government Employees Insurance Co. • GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. GEICO auto insurance is not available in Mass. GEICO, Washington, DC 20076
ROBOTICS TEACHER TRAINING
• 5 days of on-site, hands-on training • Use robots, sensors & other hardware • Use Robotics Academy curriculum • Certificate of Completion for course graduates • Curriculum mapped to national education standards • Tour of CMU National Robotics Engineering Center LEGO® MINDSTORMS® NXT® June 22-26 NXT-G July 13-17 ROBOTC for LEGO Aug. 3-7 NXT-G Aug. 10-14 ROBOTC for LEGO
Summer 2009
www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu
Register on the web or call 412 681-7160
All training is conducted at the National Robotics Engineering Center (NREC) in Pittsburgh, PA. The NREC is part of the Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute, a world-renowned robotics organization, where you’ll be surrounded by real-world robot research and commercialization. VEX® ROBOTICS July 6-10 ROBOTC for VEX July 20-24 ROBOTC for VEX July 27-31 ROBOTC for VEX
After classes are complete, teachers are surveyed. Here are some of their comments: ”Your sessions take care of both experienced robotics teachers and those just starting out!” ”As a teacher with no robotic experience, I feel comfortable and excited to begin implementing it into my program.” ”I believe I met all of my personal objectives during this session.”
Classes fill up quickly. Register early to get your first choice session.
ROBOTC
• Interactive Run-Time Debugger • Dynamic Multitasking • Advanced Math Functions* (Sin, Cos, Log, etc. *NXT only) • 100+ Sample Programs • Detailed Built-In Help
C-Based Robot Programming Language
®
y 30 -Da C OBOT ..! R ive Test Dr
FREE
VEX
2.0 Robotics Curriculum
®
Vex Classroom Bundles were developed specifically for use with Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy VEX Curriculum.
VEX SOFTWARE • VEX Curriculum 2.0 • ROBOTC for VEX • Teaching ROBOTC for VEX VEX HARDWARE • Classroom Bundles • Pneumatics • Sensors • Electronics • Actuators
• Multimedia Training and Curriculum for both VEX® and LEGO® NXT
www.ROBOTC.net
The only NXT programming code with built-in functionality for PC Remote Control*
* USB PC-compatible remote control unit required. PC Bluetooth adapter required for wireless control of your NXT via ROBOTC.
412.963.7310
www.vexcurriculum.com
”The best robotics curriculum for VEX Robots...”
