Wa sh in gt on C ent er &
tel
1.202.785.3756
C en t er for R es ea rch Techn ology
fax
1.202.429.9417
1828 L St reet NW, Suit e 906
www.asme.org
Wa sh in gt on, DC
20036 -5104
U. S. A.
January 29, 2013
Next Generation Science Standards Writing Committee
c/o Achieve
1400 16th Street NW, Suite 510
Washington, D.C. 20036
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of the ASME Board on Education, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
comments on the second public draft of the next generation science standards (NGSS). The ASME Board
on Education commends the state-led writing team’s work on the standards, and is very pleased to see the
continued inclusion of engineering design and practices in the NGSS. We urge you to strengthen this level
of inclusion in the final document.
Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a more than 120,000member professional organization focused on technical, educational and research issues of the
engineering and technology community. Since 1992, the ASME Committee on Pre-college Education has
been actively developing and supporting programs and materials that strengthen STEM education in the K12 classroom through its own initiatives and in partnerships with many other organizations.
The ASME Board on Education is very supportive in general of the efforts taken to both define engineering
design, and to integrate engineering practices throughout science learning from K-12, in the NGSS. The
meaningful integration of engineering practices in the NGSS will promote critical thinking, provide new
levels of relevancy to motivate students to learn science content, make engineering and engineering
careers more accessible to all students, and prepare the next generation to solve global problems facing
humanity.
We are particularly pleased to see strong improvements in the integration of engineering in the January
2013 draft, especially in the many additions of practices that require students to do things (use tools,
mathematical concepts, experimentation, etc.), to compare and contrast proposed engineering design
solutions and, therefore, justify their solution and design decisions based on evidence.
For the final version of the NGSS, the ASME Board on Education offers three recommendations we feel are
necessary to strengthen the standards (draft of Jan 2013) for accurate representation and understanding of
engineering in K-12 classrooms. Most important is the first recommendation below, ensuring that a
systematic process for engineering is correctly integrated throughout the standards. The recommendations
are as follows:
1) Guidelines on the engineering design process steps need to be clearly articulated in the
NGSS Science and Engineering Practices (Appendix F) or Crosscutting Concepts
(Appendix G) that affect all grade-level science standards. The correct application of
the engineering design process should also be reinforced by providing distinct
Performance Expectations in the standards to evaluate whether students have
understood and followed the process appropriately.
2) The term “engineer” and/or “engineering” should be incorporated more often
throughout the standards where appropriate.
3) Reinforcement of the implementation of practical levels of math throughout the
standards wherever possible.
A broader concern by our reviewers should also be met by the first two of these suggestions. Too often,
and especially in the performance expectations at the High school level, our reviewers observed little or no
distinction made between science and engineering. While this may be to some degree a necessary
consequence of integrating the ED and ETSS performance expectations throughout the more traditional
disciplines, we are concerned about the potential confusion for teachers and students. In the appendices
to this draft, consistent with the Framework’s intents, the nature of engineering and the goals of including
engineering design topics and practice in the NGSS are clearly delineated; however, this clarity is
somewhat blurred or lost at the level of the performance expectations.
On one hand, we appreciate that (as observed in the Frameworks, p. 32) “the line between applied science
and engineering is fuzzy. It is impossible to do engineering today without applying science in the
process…” But this should not obscure how important it is that educators convey, and students be
expected to know and understand, the most basic differences in mindset between science and engineering
challenges. As the NGSS website so succinctly states, “Scientific Inquiry involves the formulation of a
question that can be answered through investigation; Engineering Design involves the formulation of a
problem that can be solved through design.” Starting with a hypothesis that can be investigated through
experimentation is quite different than starting with a need and designing a solution. In both cases the
“science and engineering practices” may pertain, but only the second one involves engineering, and
students should know that. Suggestion 1 above (and expanded, below) about more clearly articulating
steps in the design process, and Suggestion 2 about using the term “engineering,” may help educators and
students understand this distinction. The current draft of the NGSS includes a section on “the nature of
Science.” It would be consistent with the importance of Engineering introduced by the Frameworks
document to ask teachers and students to demonstrate understanding of the “Nature of Engineering,” and
we feel that including such expectations would strengthen the NGSS.
The following elaborates on each of the three points listed above.
1) Inclusion of the Steps of the Engineering Design Process (EDP) and Incorporation of EDP into
Performance Expectations
As stated in the NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education, “ …We use the term ’engineering’ in a very
broad sense to mean any engagement in a systematic practice of design to achieve solutions to particular
human problems.” The authors have defined engineering well, and their elaboration to break it down into
three phases of solving problems (A. Defining and delimiting engineering problems, B. Designing solutions
to engineering problems, and C. Optimizing the design solution) is excellent. The reality that must be
addressed is that the systematic process of performing engineering design is unfamiliar to the vast majority
of teachers. Without some guidance for teachers that highlights steps of the systematic design process,
the NGSS actually risks reinforcing the notion that the integration of engineering means simply “..fun,
hands-on activities like packaging eggs so they can be dropped without breaking, or building bridges or
catapults” without students learning to solve problems systematically (NGSS Appendix I, Jan 2013, page
4).
As updates are made to the current NGSS draft, we strongly encourage the writers to better
articulate that the engineering design process is a process with distinct steps that often require
iterations (redesigns), and clearly articulate what those steps are. Providing a basic version of the
engineering design process structure (steps) in the NGSS for teachers to follow for application to their own
individual disciplinary interests will help facilitate the ease of implementation of engineering practices for
teachers in their own classrooms. Providing a basic structure, with appropriate engineering design
terminology, will also facilitate teachers’ investigation of engineering design resources available in the
public domain. Having the process spelled out, and offering some of the places teachers can find further
information about it, will help meet the Frameworks’ goals.
While there are variations on the steps of the engineering design process supported by different members
of the engineering community, you will find that the different variations are generally very similar. Multiple
models exist that could be adopted by the NGSS, including some with which NGSS writers and engineering
educators are familiar.
One example is taken from the text, Product Design and Development, by Ulrich and Eppinger, which is the
required design text used in the Virginia Tech Department of Mechanical Engineering at the sophomore
and senior levels (over 500 college students a year use the text at VT alone). The text represents a good
overview of a solid design process with examples and tools to use at each step. The depth of the process
will vary depending on grade-level, but following the process structure (which is really a structure for critical
thinking at its essence) is possible at all grade levels. Specific steps do not have to be onerous, and each
step can also be modified and/or strengthened based on an individual teacher’s evaluation of what is best
suited to his/her classroom. An example of simplified basic design process steps (based on the Ulrich and
Eppinger approach) that can be articulated in the NGSS for use in elementary through high-school
classrooms is as follows:
1. Identify (restate) the problem that is being asked and what the solution must achieve (Identify
Customer Needs)
2. Identify criteria to which the problem solution must adhere (Product or Solution Specifications).
That is, what are the goals as well as the constraints for the solution?
3. Brainstorm multiple solutions (Concept Generation)
4. Prototype/test or model all solution concepts or a sub-set of the best solution concepts as
necessary to obtain more knowledge/information for evaluation of how well concepts meet criteria
(Concept Testing)
5. Select the most viable solution (or sub-set of solutions) based on how well each solution meets the
criteria you determined in Step 2 (Concept Selection). Your selection should be made on the basis
of knowledge and evidence and not opinion.
6. Reflect on the concept(s) selected for solving the problem. Justify the selection(s) based on
evidence, recommend new testing for further evaluation of one or more concepts, or recommend
going through another iteration of all or parts of the design process (Steps 1-6) based on
knowledge gained to optimize the solution
7. Explain the results and the final recommended solution(s) based on evidence and knowledge
8. Reflect on the process. What was done well? What would you do differently next time? Are there
other possible solutions that you didn’t address?
It will be helpful for students and teachers to see the entire engineering design process spelled out as an
analytical cycle, comparable to that of scientific inquiry, lab routines, etc. It is highly recommended that
engineering design process steps also be articulated as Performance Expectations (PE) –
integrating particular design steps into different PEs, as they sometimes appear now. For example, PEs
could be worded such that students demonstrate that they can i) identify and define a problem, ii) identify
solution goals and constraints, iii) generate multiple concepts or solutions, iv) test concepts to gain
knowledge, v) select a concept based on knowledge of how well concepts meet goals and constraints, and
vi) reflect, evaluate, and iterate on their design process if necessary, among other steps.
As long as the engineering design process is followed, students will learn how to critically analyze and
evaluate a problem and its possible solutions, no matter what level of depth is undertaken at each of the
design process steps. A clearer articulation of the engineering design process steps will significantly
strengthen the NGSS, better support teachers in their implementation of engineering design in their
classrooms, and facilitate the wider adoption of the new standards. By articulating the basic engineering
design process in the NGSS, teachers will get a basic idea of what is expected, which will help facilitate
their search for, and utilization of, educational resources and professional development opportunities that
work best for them.
In summary, we strongly recommend that the engineering design process steps be clearly
articulated in the NGSS for applications to all grade levels as well as included as Performance
Expectations (PE) in the individual standards where appropriate. The engineering design process
steps can be applied to everything from choosing solutions to reduce human impact on the environment
(such as reducing garbage or water usage) to determining the best alternative chemical solution for solving
a problem requiring releasing or storing energy as listed, and beyond! A clearer articulation of the
engineering design (i.e. critical thinking) process will significantly strengthen the NGSS and facilitate the
wider adoption of the new standards.
2) Incorporating the Term “Engineering” More Often in the Text
Regarding the second major recommendation, there are many opportunities to preface some of the
excellent inclusions of components in the current draft of the standards that involve “design” and “solutions”
with vocabulary that identifies these activities as engineering activities. If this vocabulary was added, the
standards will further support demystifying the field of engineering for students from kindergarten through
high school. More specifically, there are distinct opportunities to incorporate the term “engineer” and/or
“engineering” in the text of the Science and Engineering Practices with a few examples as follows:
Wording under “Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions” in Appendix I can be
reworded as, “Constructing Explanations and Engineering Design Solutions…,” particularly since
this is the wording from the Science and Engineering Practices that most often gets quoted in the
specific standards.
Under this same topic in Appendix I (in “3-5 Condensed Practices”), wording can be changed to
“Use evidence… to construct a scientific explanation or engineer a solution to a problem.”
In “6-8 Condensed Practices” that is also in this section, you can reword to state, “Undertake
engineering design projects, engaging in the engineering design cycle, to construct…”
These are just a few examples, and there are many opportunities to preface the many very good inclusions
of wording involving “design” and “solutions” currently in the NGSS January draft with vocabulary that
supports demystifying the field of engineering, and what engineers actually do, for students from
kindergarten through high school.
3) Reinforcing the Use of Math Using the practical application of math is critical to justify engineering
design decisions. We are very pleased to see that the NGSS authors have included math throughout the
standards and aligned the performance expectations with the appropriate Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in Mathematics. It is worth mentioning that any strengthening of the integration and use of math in
the standards is strongly encouraged.
Finally, let us also offer our assistance to you if you would like to discuss engineering concepts and
processes (including the engineering design process) and how you might refine the inclusion of engineering
in the NGSS in some instances. If you would like to discuss anything further, please contact Dr. Mary
Kasarda, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech (VT) at [email protected]. Dr.
Kasarda has co-developed and co-delivered professional development for middle-school math and science
teachers to give them educational strategies involving engineering design to help them motivate students
and meet their standardized test goals.
Thank you for all of your efforts in developing the NGSS, and the opportunity to comment on these drafts.
We give you our best wishes on finalizing this important work you are doing!
Sincerely,
Mo Hosni, Ph.D.
Vice President, Board on Education
This statement represents the views of the Board on Education of ASME Public Affairs & Outreach Sector and is not necessarily
a position of ASME as a whole.