Engineering a Curriculum: Exploring Technology Education in the USA

In this episode of Talking D&T, I had the pleasure of interviewing Scott Bartholemew, a professor of technology and engineering studies at Brigham Young University in Utah, USA. We explored the landscape of design and technology education in America, which is known there as technology and engineering education.

Scott provided fascinating insights into the complex structure of technology education in the US, explaining how it varies significantly between states. He described the historical split between generalist technology education and career-focused technical education, represented by two main organisations: ITEEA and ACTE.

We discussed how the subject is taught at different levels, with a focus on broad exposure to various technologies in middle schools. Scott also highlighted an interesting development where school librarians have unexpectedly become key technology educators in primary schools.

A significant challenge Scott mentioned is the public's lack of understanding about what technology and engineering education entails. This often leads to oversimplification when explaining the subject.

Throughout our conversation, we drew parallels between the American system and the British D&T curriculum, noting both similarities and differences. It was refreshing to learn that despite the different terminology and structures, we face many similar challenges in promoting and developing our subject.

Overall, this international perspective provided valuable insights into how design and technology education is approached in another part of the world.
(Text generated by AI, edited by Alison Hardy)

Join my online workshop on 6 November at 4pm to prepare your response to the government's curriculum review. Get insights, discuss key issues, and learn how to submit your views effectively. Your expertise matters - make it count before the 22 November deadline!
Register NOW!

Chapters

• 0:54 Technology Education in the United States
• 17:02 Education in Technology and Engineering
• 26:16 Challenges in Technology Education Perception

Transcript

Alison Hardy: 0:55

you're listening to the talking dnt podcast. I'm dr Alison hardy, a writer, researcher and advocate of design and technology education. In each episode I share views, news and opinions about dnt. This is another episode in the talking dnt podcast series around shaping the design and technology curriculum, and this week it's an international guest um. So we're kind of bringing in a different perspective about what design and technology education looks like in other countries, although you'll learn quite soon that it's not even called design and technology, which is quite outrageous, some of you might be thinking. So I'm with Scott Bartholomew, who's over in the States. So, scott, I'm going to hand over to you so you can say who you are, where you are and what you do.

Scott Bartholemew: 1:44

Thank you, yeah, Scott Bartholomew. I am currently in the state of Utah at Brigham Young University, the state of Utah. At Brigham Young University, I'm a professor of technology and engineering studies, and so I train future technology and engineering or you would refer to them as D&T, but technology and engineering teachers for middle school and high school. I've been here at Brigham Young University. I'm just finishing up my fourth year. Prior to that, I was at Purdue University for four years in the state of Indiana, and America is a very big geographically country, and so Indiana to Utah by car is 32 hours, and so that's kind of gives you the scope of how far the move was. But anyway, yeah, that's a little bit about me.

Alison Hardy: 2:39

So was it? Was it work that caused you to move, or family, or is it just different, different opportunity?

Scott Bartholemew: 2:45

Yeah, I loved. I loved my time at Purdue, loved my colleagues, worked with some great people there Greg Strimmel, nathan Menser but my father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a few years ago actually 2020, right before COVID hit is when he got his diagnosis and my parents live here in Utah and we just felt the pull to get a little closer to family. My wife is from Washington State, which is even further west than Utah, and so Utah to Washington State is 11 hours and Indiana to Utah is 32 hours, so we were just a really long way away from family and felt the need to get closer to home.

Alison Hardy: 3:28

Yeah, that does occur, doesn't it? It can be a big pull. Yeah, I've moved once or twice to kind of just be closer to family and yeah, my mum now lives seven miles down the road from me, which is near enough, I have to say Near enough. I love having it, I love having her that close. So, yeah, seven miles compared to your 11 hours is a little bit different, but I suppose it's all a matter of scale, isn't it? So yeah, so you're involved in training teachers, and you called it technology and engineering. Is that one subject or is that two subjects?

Scott Bartholemew: 3:59

That is one subject and it would be our equivalent of what you guys in Ireland and Australia and everyone calls D&T. It was just technology education when I was a middle school teacher. Um, it was just technology education when I was a middle school teacher. So I taught middle school for four years, um, starting in 2010. And uh, it was technology education, but there was a big push a few years ago to include engineering in our name, um, and there's a kind of a big long backstory about that and lots of politics and things. But anyway, it's now called Technology and Engineering Education.

Alison Hardy: 4:39

Is that a good thing? I think, so Loaded question.

Scott Bartholemew: 4:45

Yeah, that is a loaded question, I think. Probably I don't love having an and in any name because I feel like that just makes everything a little confusing. But the quick story was maybe 10 years ago.

Scott Bartholemew: 5:10

well, maybe you'll get more than you want people say STEM, it means a really, really, really big S and then a very small T-E and then kind of a medium-sized M, and science is really the big driver behind STEM. And in the United States, ngss is the governing body that created the standards, the new standards for science, and science is very strong in terms of their organization. They have a national organization and it's a very strong lobbying body. Anyway, when NGSS came out, they included engineering as part of the science standards, engineering as part of the science standards.

Scott Bartholemew: 5:54

And that kind of raised the hackles for everybody in technology who said we're the ones that are doing the engineering, we're the ones that are doing the building, and et cetera, et cetera. And so there was all of a sudden, this mad rush to include engineering in our name, to try and claim our territory, if you will, a little bit. And so, anyway, that's where the rush came behind the whole engineering idea.

Alison Hardy: 6:24

And.

Scott Bartholemew: 6:25

I don't know that it actually represented any change in our curriculum. It was simply trying to establish boundaries between what different subject areas teach.

Alison Hardy: 6:38

So it's a claim of territory in a way. Yes, yeah, and there is a history that happened in England, but much earlier, sort of around the 1970s and 80s, there was that kind of you know, where does technology sit? Is it science or is it a different subject? Is it across all subjects, is it a distinct subject? And I think, I think those conversations and those arguments kind of always keep being revisited, don't they? You know, it's a change. So in America, this subject, technology and engineering who are the students? How old are they? Where are they? Is it compulsory?

Scott Bartholemew: 7:23

All good questions, and the United States is a little unique in that we have 50 states and then some territories and the way the Constitution is written. Education is governed at the state level, right, and so I could drive a few hours and be in another state and almost be in a completely different world, right as far as how they run education and what they do, and now there are lots of things that are fairly standard, but it is governed at a state level. By and large it's by the State Board of Education. So I will speak to Utah, and this is common for many states, but recognizing that it is different in places.

Scott Bartholemew: 8:16

So in Utah there is a course called CCA College and Career Awareness and that is kind of a general class that introduces students to a whole bunch of technologies, a whole bunch of other things as well, but it's all in the context of careers and that is a compulsory class, so required for all students to take that class in the state of Utah. After they take that class, there are several tech and engineering electives that students can take and those are not compulsory but very popular and common classes for students to take. And I will just to give a little backdrop, and I don't think this is unique to the states necessarily, but it maybe would provide a better view on how things go here. So many years ago many decades ago, I should say all of the technology and engineering teachers were one, meaning they were all part of the American Industrial Arts Association.

Scott Bartholemew: 9:21

AIAA and by and large they were training people in the trades woodshop, cabinetmaking, leatherwork, welding those kinds of things, cabinet making, leather work, welding those kinds of things. And then with the space race back in the 50s, and then there was some legislation that was passed related to the space race that allocated a big chunk of funding for helping students become exposed to technology and those kinds of things. When that happened, aiaa kind of split into two pieces, and this goes to what you mentioned earlier. There was one camp that said every student needs to take classes on technology. That's a requirement to be part of society. This is a generalist topic, similar to English or history or math or as you guys call it, maths, but technology is a subject that everyone should take.

Scott Bartholemew: 10:29

There was another group that said no, technology education should be what we've always been, which is focused on the trades. We should train people for jobs in auto or wood cabinet making, et cetera. And there's kind of those two groups that split, and that split still exists today. There's ACTE, which is the American Career and Technical Education, and that group is focused on career preparation.

Alison Hardy: 11:00

Yeah.

Scott Bartholemew: 11:00

And then there's ITEEA, international Technology and Engineering Education Association, and that group is focused on generalist technology education and those two groups still exist. And, to be honest, at the end of the day, I think it all comes down to money. Because, as part of the space race back forever ago, there was an act that was passed called the Perkins Act, and it was named after a senator, carl D Perkins, but he was brilliant in the way that he passed the act, in that he passed it so that a percentage of the national budget would go towards technology education and because it's a percentage, that amount of money has grown and grown and grown because our national budget has just gone crazy.

Scott Bartholemew: 11:55

It's just ballooned like mad. But that also means that that amount of money, that funding that's allocated for technology education, has grown as well. And so we still have these two groups and very powerful lobbyist groups and policymakers and things like that, but they're all vying for that same pot of Carl D Perkins funding Anyway. So that's kind of the backdrop of where technology and engineering education is Now. Where it gets a little bit interesting is the two organizations have pockets of strength around the states, have pockets of strength around the states.

Scott Bartholemew: 12:35

So when I was in Indiana, ITEEA, which is the Generalist Technology Approach, was very strong. It has a very strong presence on the East Coast and in some of those Midwest states, and so they were the ones that ran our state conference. The teachers went to the National conference for technology and engineering education and we were all kind of affiliated. Our curriculum was more aligned with what ITEA does, those kinds of things. I've now moved to Utah and ITEA has very little presence in Utah. In Utah ACTE is much stronger in Utah. In Utah ACTE is much stronger and so in turn they are a stronger voice in terms of our curriculum and the direction we go, and they're the ones that run our state conferences and things like that, and so that is kind of an interesting element of how technology and engineering education works in the States is that, depending on where you move, there are different players in charge or that have more power than others. As a professor, I try really hard to keep my foot in both worlds.

Alison Hardy: 13:44

Yeah, I was going to ask you that.

Scott Bartholemew: 13:45

Yeah, recognizing that my students will go teach and where they teach will largely dictate how they affiliate, and so I attend the state conference which is run by ACTE. I also attend the national conference run by ITEEA. I've been on the board for ITEEA. I'm very involved in the state conference here for ACTE, so I kind of live in both worlds. So I kind of live in both worlds, but I would say it's much more common for teachers to kind of affiliate with whatever the strength is in their state and by and large that will dictate what they're involved with.

Alison Hardy: 14:34

Do you think that causes them attention? You know the teachers as an individual in terms of what their identity is, they get you know. So if they've been taught, for example, by you, who has this history of where you believe. But equally, you're aware that you've got to train your students to be able to teach across both. But you may well have a more natural affinity towards one than the other, and then they develop their own affinity, which may be aligned to yours or may not. What about then if they go to a school where they're having to teach a different direction? Does that, do you think that causes them attention? Do they find it difficult to understand? But yeah, does it? Does it cause attention? Does it affect where they apply and then how long they stay, and things like that? Do you think?

Scott Bartholemew: 15:18

Yeah, I don't, I don't think so. And the reason is one I don't think so and the reason is one most of the history lesson that I just gave you on technology education in the United States, I think most teachers don't know. Yeah, they probably learned it in college but they've probably long since forgotten. And they go teach at a school and, by and large, if their world is ACTE then that's their world. If their world is ITEA, then that's their world. And I don't know that because I live in both worlds, I understand. I think I have a different perspective than my students.

Scott Bartholemew: 16:30

The other thing is both ITEEA and ACTE, the two organizations have recognized they have a subgroup within them that is generalist technology education, and ITEA, which is generalist technology education, also has a substrand of presentations at their conference and a subgroup that is traded technical career preparation. And so they both I think they both recognized that they not all of the teachers are fitting nicely, and so then they just kind of opened up a subgroup to the other side, and so, yeah, I think the result is for most teachers. I know, and I'll speak from experience when I was a middle school teacher, it was never on my radar. I went to ACTE every year. But I was a middle school teacher so I was teaching generalist technology education, so I went to the generalist strand of presentations that were at ACTE, even though ACTE is not generalist and it just it was great.

Alison Hardy: 17:22

I didn't worry about it.

Scott Bartholemew: 17:22

I didn't worry about it, I didn't think about it, it didn't bother me.

Alison Hardy: 17:26

OK, ok, so. So what does? If we stick to the general, then and that's indicating my own preference what does that look like in a lesson or a physical space? You know, if I'm a deity teacher and I go into my classroom space, what does it look like and what's the sort of things that I'm teaching and what sort of things that pupils are learning?

Scott Bartholemew: 17:51

Yeah. So, and here's another thing that's kind of interesting In the United States, by and large any technology and engineering education that happens at the middle school or junior high level is generalist, and then when you move to the high school level, it's almost always siloed more towards a career Right. And so my background is manage and evaluate and create technologies, interact with technologies and do those kinds of things, and I use that broadly, technologies being in the woods area or it could be on a computer, microcontrollers, pneumatics, whatever that might be. And at the middle school level, I think the curriculum is largely focused on exposing students to potential areas of technology that they would find interested, whether that's in woods technology or metals or microcontrollers or robotics or whatever that might be. And that's what I loved too. That was my preference, obviously.

Scott Bartholemew: 19:06

I taught middle school and I really enjoyed just exposing kids to all these different ideas. We would do lots of fairly quick projects that were, um, shall we say, an inch deep and a mile wide, right? So we're not going to dive really, really, really deep into this, but I want to give you enough that you can see. If you like it, you can get a taste of it and then if that is something you really like, great, you can go take another class or do a project or something like that. But by and large the curriculum at that level is very just introductory. We're just giving kids an opportunity to try something that they've maybe never seen before.

Alison Hardy: 19:48

And so you say that this is in middle and elementary, but it's not in middle and junior high but it's not in elementary, it's not in what we would call primary.

Scott Bartholemew: 20:02

There is some in the primary, but it's not well. Okay, this is a whole other can of worms. It's there and a lot of it is there because of professors like me. I do a lot of work in the elementary schools. In the state of Utah. They released what's called the SEED standards, which is the science and engineering design. So you can see, there's another example of science claiming engineering right. They said oh, yeah, this is part of our standards.

Alison Hardy: 20:34

And design.

Scott Bartholemew: 20:36

And design. Yeah, science claimed it all at the elementary level here in Utah, at the elementary level here in Utah. But that's because we technology and engineering education wasn't, we weren't claiming it right. And so science just said, well, if you're not going to claim it, we're going to take design. But then the reality is these elementary school teachers haven't ever been trained on it and they don't know how to do it.

Scott Bartholemew: 21:01

So then I end up going to a lot of schools and helping these teachers do that. But the elementary school or the primary school curriculum is so packed, it's so full of content that they need to teach that. Even though design and engineering is now brought into the curriculum, the teachers are finding it very difficult to allocate the time and resources to teach it, and so a lot of what I'm doing is trying to help them take their existing curriculum and modify it so that it includes design in their assignments so they can meet those standards.

Scott Bartholemew: 21:45

But there is no technology and engineering standards at the elementary school level in Utah Now ITEA has published standards that include elementary strands and standards and topics, but Utah has not adopted those and standards and topics but Utah has not adopted those Right, and so that's another area where it goes by state right, and so there are some states that have and Utah hasn't, and so you're kind of, you have to be governed by where you're at.

Alison Hardy: 22:16

Yeah, yes, it's interesting. I mean, there's many similarities to what happens in England, but differences as well, because obviously the subject design and technology runs through from primary to secondary with the same aims, the same purpose. Obviously, the content is slightly different. So you've talked about the different technologies, but where does textiles technology or food technology sit? I presume that doesn't sit as part of.

Scott Bartholemew: 22:51

It does, but in the US it's its own area. It's called VACS Food and Consumer Science, and it is its own area. It has its own group, its own standards, its own organizations, everything. Now we work really well with them. I attend many meetings with the FACS professor here at BYU and because we're both kind of vying in the same way for space. But it is not part of technology and engineering, and so that class I mentioned earlier, the CCA class, college and career awareness. The way that class is structured is it's broken into three parts. The students rotate and they do a family and consumer science part, which would be the textiles and all those kinds of things.

Scott Bartholemew: 23:51

Then they do a technology and engineering education part and then they do a business part and it's called business but it really it means typing is what it means, and they might learn a few like word processing documents and things like that. But yeah, those are three separate areas that we coexist but we don't influence each other's standards or anything like that.

Alison Hardy: 24:16

Is there any similarities in any of the standards across the two? I suppose more than the business one. Yes.

Scott Bartholemew: 24:22

I would say so there are, and I would say a lot of times, even though they are their own areas, they often do projects that would overlap during classroom, even though that could fit just as easily in a FACS Family Consumer Science classroom and vice versa. You know, in the FACS they might be doing a project and they might be sewing something, and then they might do screen printing, which is something that you would also see in a technology and engineering education classroom. And so, yeah, I think there's lots of overlap and I think we get along well, but two different areas Right okay, so I suppose the commonality of it is almost the design and the production.

Scott Bartholemew: 25:19

Yes, I'd say the commonality would be the make aspect right is we're both designing and making. The make aspect right we're both designing and making. But family consumer science works in the realm of food and textiles, and technology engineering works in the realm of, I mean well, everything else, I guess wood, metal, plastics, 3d printing you know all that kind of stuff.

Scott Bartholemew: 25:44

Well, and I will say this this is another interesting thing that's happened, and this is I don't know if this is the same or not, but this goes to your question. Earlier you asked how does technology and engineering fit in the elementary level? Because there's not standards that are adopted by the state. Elementary school teachers have very little training in technology and engineering design.

Scott Bartholemew: 26:12

They have a very little bit, maybe one class with a few projects. So what has happened and I don't think this was anyone's intent, but this is what's happened is that the school librarians have become the technology and engineering educators at the primary level, and the reason that has happened is because principals will get money to buy supplies, 3d printing or robots or anything like that.

Alison Hardy: 26:44

As a result of the Perkins Act. Yes, because there's money to spend, yeah.

Scott Bartholemew: 26:48

They've got this money to spend and they say, oh yeah, I want my students to be doing robots. That sounds like a great idea. And so they get this money. They buy it, but they don't typically buy it for a teacher. They buy it for the school because none of their teachers have that training right.

Scott Bartholemew: 27:05

And so those supplies end up living in the common space which is the library, and then the librarian is kind of forced to learn how to use those technologies. And so if I go to schools primary level schools, elementary typically the person who is doing the most technology and engineering and design is actually the librarian, because they're the ones that have the tools. And so what happens is these elementary school teachers bring their class to the library and some students go read and other students go play with robots and the librarian becomes the one who's teaching them. And, like I said, I don't think that was ever anyone's intent.

Alison Hardy: 27:53

Yeah.

Scott Bartholemew: 27:54

But that's functionally what has happened.

Alison Hardy: 27:57

You've got to be pragmatic, haven't you, with these things. Sometimes the way the subject is viewed and valued sort of by parents, locally, state-wise, nationally, how is, you know and I'm really kind of thinking more about, um again, the, the general aspect, the general view of it as a subject, is it, is it seen as important? Do parents think it's important? Do the school principals see it as important?

Scott Bartholemew: 28:31

I think so, but I think we have battled for many years, and we continue to battle, a misperception among the public. The public doesn't. If I were to walk out onto the street and find an adult and say I teach technology and engineering education, their response would be what is that?

Alison Hardy: 28:58

Yeah.

Scott Bartholemew: 29:02

And that is difficult and in many ways that's why I actually prefer D&T. I think design and technology is easier to understand, but this is what I found myself doing. Parents will say you teach technology, engineering education, what is that? And I'd say well, I train woodshop teachers.

Alison Hardy: 29:24

Oh, I know what that is.

Scott Bartholemew: 29:29

Teachers. Oh okay, I know what that is, but the problem with that response, which that's the response, I give because I'm lazy and that helps move the conversation forward, but the problem with that response is that's only one very small part of what we do, right?

Scott Bartholemew: 29:41

I also train photography teachers and graphic design teachers and teachers that teach in welding and teachers that do all these different areas, but the public, when I say I teach technology and engineering, they don't. They can't grasp that, whereas if I were to say I'm an English teacher, oh okay, I know what an English teacher is, and so that is still a problem that we face, which is just that we haven't done a good job of educating the public of what that means the name design and technology is easier.

Alison Hardy: 30:29

Well, I, and I smiled when you said earlier about you don't like school, said it's got the word and in, and we have the word and in, although a lot of people I talk to forget that it's got the word and that they call it bt or design technology. I'm thinking, no, there's no sort of subject called that. But that whole understanding, and I do, I do like you know, if I did it this week, it was so what do you do? I said, like I'm involved in the training and the development of design and technology teachers. They look at you blankly and they go. I used to teach woodwork and I hate myself for doing it, but, as you say, to move the conversation on, it's just the most straightforward way of doing it and I'm thinking, oh, we're just just, but changing societal understanding, it's just hard work.

Scott Bartholemew: 31:11

It is and it's difficult, because if I were to say, I teach students to be technologically literate, they would say what, what does that even mean? And? But in the reality, that's what I try, try to do I want to introduce them to a lot of technologies.

Scott Bartholemew: 31:28

I want them to be able to use, manage, assess, create technologies, but that doesn't. People can't connect with that, and so I always say the same thing I, I trade woodshop teachers. Okay, perfect when that's when, of all my graduates, we we have woodshop teachers, but it's a fairly small percentage overall. I also have teachers that go and teach coding, and I have teachers that teach general technology, literacy, right, and but that doesn't. That's a difficult thing, and I think that's part of why STEM in the US is largely driven by science.

Alison Hardy: 32:07

Yeah.

Scott Bartholemew: 32:08

And it's because people don't know who we are and we haven't done a good job of making that very clear. Everybody knows what a science teacher does, even though if someone says I teach science, that could mean they teach chemistry or biology or physics or earth science. Chemistry or biology or physics or earth science, or but for one reason yeah, yeah, they've done a much better job branding themselves and the public can connect with that. And the public says, oh yeah, science, that's important, whereas the public says technological literacy you teach people how to use their phone. No, that's not what I do.

Alison Hardy: 32:45

But, anyway, it's taking the abstract and making it concrete, isn't it? And that's what we're doing when we say, you know, I teach woodshop teachers, it's taking something that's an abstract concept, making it concrete so that people can grasp hold of it. But then how do you have the conversation after that? And you think, well, I'm out for a walk with these people. I don't want to be describing in that sort of detail, it's a casual conversation, but yeah, it's interesting. That's a common, and I've had similar conversations with um. You know somebody, gabriel in in Argentina, um, adri in South Africa. You know very similar sort of issues. So, no, no, well, that's been really fascinating. Scott, thank you very much for sharing that and that complexity and I think it's refreshing to know that that complexity, whilst different to the complexity in England, isn't unique to the nature of the understanding we're all fighting the same battle.

Alison Hardy: 33:43

Yeah, we just call it different things. Really. Some of us have more money, some of us have less money, some of us have a national curriculum, some of us have a state. You know it's different, and at least you know. In England it's interesting that you've got two associations. We have one association, but then that makes it difficult for that association to kind of it's a broad church.

Scott Bartholemew: 34:05

Yeah, it's hard to make everyone happy if you're trying to be everything to everyone.

Alison Hardy: 34:10

Yeah, yeah. I think my dad used to say you can keep some of the people happy. Some of the time, yeah, and if you can manage that, you're doing well.

Scott Bartholemew: 34:19

You're doing okay, yeah.

Alison Hardy: 34:21

Well, thanks ever so much for your time, scott. It's a Friday, it's Friday afternoon for me and it's Friday morning for you, and we've got the timings right this time. But no, thanks ever so much for your time.

Scott Bartholemew: 34:30

I appreciate that okay, thank you so much.

Alison Hardy: 34:36

I'm Dr Alison Hardy and you've been listening to the Talking D&T podcast. If you enjoyed the podcast, then do subscribe on whatever platform you use, and do consider leaving a review, as it does help others find the podcast. I do the podcast because I want to support the D&T community in developing their practice, so please do share the podcast with your D&T community. If you want to respond to something I've talked about or have an idea for a future episode, then either leave me a voice memo via Speakpipe or drop me an email. You can find details about me, the podcast and how to connect with me on my website, dralisonhardycom. Also, if you want to support the podcast financially, you can become a patron. Links to Speakpipe, patreon and my website are in the show notes. Thanks for listening.