k 12 engineering education

Attention NAE Members

Starting June 30, 2023, login credentials have changed for improved security. For technical assistance, please contact us at 866-291-3932 or [email protected] . For all other inquiries, please contact our Membership Office at 202-334-2198 or [email protected] .

Click here to login if you're an NAE Member

Recover Your Account Information

• Publications
• Fall Issue of The Bridge on K-12 Engineering Education

The Status and Nature of K-12 Engineering Education in the United States

Author: Linda Katehi, Greg Pearson, and Michael Feder

K–12 engineering education has significant implications for the future of STEM education. K–12 engineering education has slowly been making its way into U.S. K–12 classrooms. Today several dozen different engineering programs and curricula are offered in schools around the country. In the past 15 years, several million K–12 students have received some formal engineering education, and tens of thousands of teachers have attended professional development sessions to learn how to teach engineering-related coursework.

The presence of engineering in K–12 classrooms is an important phenomenon, not because of the number of students impacted, which is still small compared to other school subjects, but because of the implications of engineering education for the future of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

In recent years, educators and policy makers have reached a consensus that the teaching of STEM subjects in U.S. schools must be improved. The focus on STEM topics is closely related to concerns about U.S. competitiveness in the global economy and about the development of a workforce with the knowledge and skills to address technical and technological issues (e.g., CCNY, 2009; NAS et al., 2007; NSB, 2007). To date, most efforts to improve STEM education have been concentrated on mathematics and science, but an increasing number of states and school districts have been adding technology education to the mix, and a smaller but significant number have added engineering.

In contrast to science, mathematics, and even technology education, all of which have established learning standards and a long history in the K–12 curriculum, the teaching of engineering in elementary and secondary schools is still very much a work in progress, and a number of basic questions remain unanswered. How should engineering be taught in grades K–12? What types of instructional materials and curricula are being used? How does engineering education “interact” with other STEM subjects? In particular, how does K–12 engineering instruction incorporate science, technology, and mathematics concepts, and how are these subjects used to provide a context for exploring engineering concepts? Conversely, how has engineering been used as a context for exploring science, technology, and mathematics concepts? And what impact have various initiatives had? Have they, for instance, improved student achievement in science or mathematics? Have they generated interest among students in pursuing careers in engineering?

In 2006 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and National Research Council Center for Education established the Committee on K–12 Engineering Education to begin to address these and other questions. Over a period of two years, the committee held five face-to-face meetings, two of which accompanied information-gathering workshops. The committee also commissioned an analysis of many existing K–12 engineering curricula; conducted reviews of the literature on areas of conceptual learning related to engineering, the development of engineering skills, and the impact of K–12 engineering education initiatives; and collected preliminary information about a few pre-college engineering education programs in other countries. This article summarizes some of the committee’s findings and presents selected recommendations from the committee’s report.

General Principles

The way engineering is taught varies from school district to school district, and what takes place in classrooms in the name of engineering education does not always align with generally accepted ideas about the discipline and practice of engineering. To provide a vision of what K–12 engineering might look like, the committee set forth three general principles. These principles, particularly Principle 3, which relates to engineering “habits of mind,” are aspirational rather than a reflection of current K–12 engineering education, or even post-secondary engineering education.

Principle 1. K–12 engineering education should emphasize engineering design.  The design process, the engineering approach to identifying and solving problems, is (1) highly iterative, (2) open-ended, in that a problem may have many possible solutions, (3) a meaningful context for learning scientific, mathematical, and technological concepts, and (4) a stimulus to systems thinking, modeling, and analysis. In all of these ways, engineering design is a potentially useful pedagogical strategy.

Principle 2. K–12 engineering education should incorporate important and developmentally appropriate mathematics, science, and technology knowledge and skills.  Some science concepts, and some methods of scientific inquiry, can support engineering design activities. Some mathematical concepts and computational methods can also support engineering design, especially in the areas of analysis and modeling. Technology and technology concepts can illustrate the outcomes of engineering design, provide opportunities for “reverse engineering,” and encourage the consideration of social, environmental, and other impacts of engineering design decisions. The following concepts and methods should be used, as appropriate, to support engineering design, particularly at the high-school level: testing and measurement technologies, such as thermometers and oscilloscopes; software for data acquisition and management; computational and visualization tools, such as graphing calculators and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing) programs; and the Internet.

Principle 3. K–12 engineering education should promote engineering “habits of mind.”  Engineering habits of mind 2 are aligned with what many believe are essential skills for citizens in the 21st century. 3  These include (1) systems thinking, (2) creativity, (3) optimism, (4) collaboration, (5) communication, and (6) ethical considerations. Systems thinking equips students to recognize essential interconnections in the technological world and to appreciate that systems may have unexpected effects that cannot be predicted from the behavior of individual subsystems. Creativity is inherent in the engineering design process. Optimism reflects a world view in which possibilities and opportunities can be found in every challenge and every technology can be improved. Engineering is a “team sport”; collaboration leverages the perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities of team members to address design challenges. Communication is essential to effective collaboration, to understanding the particular wants and needs of a “customer,” and to explaining and justifying the final design solution. Ethical considerations draw attention to the impacts of engineering on people and the environment, including possible unintended consequences of a technology, the potential disproportionate advantages or disadvantages for certain groups or individuals, and other issues.

No reliable data are available on the precise number of U.S. K–12 students who have been exposed to engineering-related coursework. With a few notable exceptions, 4 the first formal K–12 engineering curriculum programs in the United States emerged in the early 1990s. Since that time, fewer than 5 million students are estimated to have had some kind of formal engineering education. By comparison, the projected enrollment for grades pre-K–12 for U.S. public and private schools in 2008 was nearly 56 million (DOEd, 2008).

No reliable data are available on the number of teachers involved in K–12 engineering education. At most, 18,000 teachers have received pre- or in-service professional development training to teach engineering-related coursework. The relatively small number of curricular and teacher professional development initiatives for K–12 engineering education were developed independently, often have different goals, and vary in how they treat engineering concepts, engineering design, and relationships among engineering and the other STEM subjects.

Claims for the benefits of teaching engineering to K–12 students range from improved performance in related subjects, such as science and mathematics, and increased technological literacy to improvements in school attendance and retention, a better understanding of what engineers do, and an increase in the number of students who pursue careers in engineering.

The most intriguing possible benefit of K–12 engineering education is improved student learning and achievement in mathematics and science. For example, students who took courses developed by “Project Lead the Way,” currently the largest K–12 engineering program in the United States, scored significantly higher on science and mathematics in the federally administered National Assessment of Educational Progress than students in a random, stratified comparison group (Bottoms and Anthony, 2005; Bottoms and Uhn, 2007).

Overall, however, the small number, uneven quality, and small size of these studies cannot provide unqualified support for any of these claims. For engineering to become a mainstream component of K–12 education, there will have to be much more, and much higher quality outcomes-based data to guide its development.

To address this challenge, the committee recommends that foundations and federal agencies with an interest in K–12 engineering education support long-term research to confirm and refine the findings of earlier studies of the impacts of engineering education on student learning in STEM subjects, student engagement and retention, understanding of engineering, career aspirations, and technological literacy.

The committee identified more than 30 K–12 engineering education curricula, more than half of which were reviewed in detail. 5 The curriculum analyses revealed that engineering design, the central activity of engineering, is predominant in most curricula (and professional development programs). The treatment of key ideas in engineering, such as constraints, optimization, and analysis, is much more uneven and, in some cases, suggests a lack of understanding on the part of curriculum developers. These shortcomings may be the result, at least in part, of the absence of a clear description of the most important engineering knowledge, skills, and habits of mind, how they relate to and build on one another, and how and when (i.e., at what age) they should be introduced to students. Unlike the other three STEM subjects, no content standards for K–12 engineering education have been established. The topic of state-level standards for K–12 engineering is addressed by Foster in this issue.

Although there are a number of natural connections between engineering and the other STEM subjects, existing curricula in K–12 engineering education do not fully explore them. For example, scientific investigation and engineering design are closely related activities that can be mutually reinforcing. Although most curricula include some instances in which this connection is exploited (e.g., using scientific inquiry to generate data to inform engineering design decisions or using engineering design to provide contextualized opportunities for science learning), the connection is not systematically emphasized to improve learning in both domains. Similarly, mathematical analysis and modeling are essential to engineering design, but very few curricula or professional development initiatives use mathematics in ways that support modeling and analysis.

To help address these shortcomings, the committee recommends that the National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Education fund research to determine how science inquiry and mathematical reasoning can be integrated with engineering design in K–12 curricula and teacher professional development.

The review of curricula revealed that technology in K–12 engineering education has primarily been used to illustrate the products of engineering and to provide a context for thinking about engineering design. In only a few cases were examples of engineering used to elucidate ideas related to other aspects of technological literacy, such as the nature and history of technology or the cultural, social, economic, and political dimensions of technology development.

Teacher Professional Development

Compared with professional development for teaching science, technology, and mathematics, professional development programs for teaching engineering are few and far between. Nearly all in-service initiatives are associated with a few existing curricula, and many do not provide ongoing in-classroom or online support following formal training or other follow-up steps that have been proven to promote teacher learning. The issue of professional development is discussed at length by Custer and Daugherty and Cunningham in this issue.

There are no pre-service initiatives that are likely to contribute significantly to the supply of qualified engineering teachers in the near future. Indeed, the “qualifications” for engineering educators at the K–12 level have not even been described. Graduates from a handful of teacher preparation programs have strong backgrounds in STEM subjects, including engineering, but few if any of them teach engineering classes in K–12 schools.

To address this major gap, the committee suggests that the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), through its Division of K–12 and Pre-College Education, begin a national dialogue on preparing K–12 engineering teachers to address the very different needs and circumstances of elementary and secondary teachers and the pros and cons of establishing a formal credentialing process.

The lack of diversity in post-secondary engineering education and the engineering workforce in the United States is well documented (e.g., NACME, 2008). Based on evaluation data, analyses of curriculum materials, anecdotal reports, and personal observation, the committee concluded that the lack of diversity is probably an issue for K–12 engineering education as well. This problem is manifested in two ways. First, the number of girls and underrepresented minorities who participate in K–12 engineering education initiatives is well below their numbers in the general population. Second, with a few exceptions, curricular materials do not portray engineering in ways that seem likely to excite the interest of students from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. For K–12 engineering education to yield the many benefits its supporters claim, access and participation will have to be expanded considerably. 

To begin to address this problem, the committee recommends that K–12 engineering curricula be developed with special attention to features that appeal to students from underrepresented groups (see Cunningham this issue). In addition, programs that promote K–12 engineering education should be strategic in their outreach to these populations. Both curriculum developers and outreach organizations should take advantage of recent market research that suggests effective ways of communicating about engineering to the public (NAE, 2008).

Policy and Program Issues

Although many questions about K–12 engineering education remain unanswered, engineering is being taught in K–12 schools around the country, and it appears that the trend is upward. Thus it is imperative that we begin thinking about ways to guide and support engineering education in the future. An underlying question for policy makers is how engineering concepts, skills, and habits of mind should be introduced into the school curriculum. There are at least three options—ad hoc infusion, stand-alone courses, and integrated STEM education. These options vary in terms of ease of implementation:

• Ad hoc infusion, or introduction, of engineering ideas and activities (i.e., design projects) into existing science, mathematics, and technology curricula is the most direct and least complicated option, because implementation requires no significant changes in school structure. The main requirements would be (1) willingness on the part of teachers and (2) access to instructional materials. Ideally, teachers would also have a modicum of engineering pedagogical content knowledge to deliver the new material effectively. The ad hoc option is probably most useful for providing an introductory exposure to engineering ideas rather than a deep understanding of engineering principles and skills.  
• Stand-alone courses for engineering, which are required for implementing many of the curricula reviewed for this project, presents considerably more challenges for teachers and schools. In high schools, the new material could be offered as an elective. If that is not possible, it would either have to replace existing classes or content, perhaps a science or technology course, or the school day would have to be reconfigured, perhaps lengthened, to accommodate a new course(s). Stand-alone courses would also require teacher professional development and approval of the program at various levels. This option has the potential advantage of providing a more in-depth exposure to engineering.  
• Fully integrated STEM education, that is, using engineering concepts and skills to leverage the natural connections between STEM subjects, would almost certainly require changes in school structures and practices. Research would be necessary to develop and test curricula, assessments, and approaches to teacher professional development. New interconnected STEM programs or “pilot schools” might be established to test changes before they are widely adopted.

These three options, as well as others that are not described here, are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, no single approach is likely to be acceptable or feasible for every district or school.

The need for qualified teachers to teach engineering in K–12 classrooms also raises a number of policy and program issues. The current ad hoc approach of mostly in-service training may not be adequate to train enough teachers if K–12 engineering education continues to grow. A variety of traditional and alternative mechanisms should be evaluated as part of the suggested ASEE-led initiative described above (“Teacher Professional Development”).

Moving toward STEM Literacy

The “siloed” teaching of STEM subjects has impeded efforts to generate student interest and improve performance in science and mathematics. It also inhibits the development of technological and scientific literacy, which are essential to informed citizens in the 21st century. Thus increasing the visibility of technology and, especially engineering, in STEM education in ways that address the interconnections in STEM teaching and learning could be extremely important.

In an ideal future for K–12 STEM education in the United States, all students who graduate high school would have a level of STEM literacy sufficient to (1) ensure their successful employment, post-secondary education, or both, and (2) prepare them to be competent, capable citizens in our technology-dependent, democratic society. Because of the natural connections between engineering education and science, mathematics, and technology, engineering might serve as a catalyst for achieving this vision.

A worthwhile subject for future study would be to determine the qualities that characterize a STEM-literate person. To this end, the committee suggested that the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education support research to characterize, or define, “STEM literacy.” Researchers should consider not only core knowledge and skills in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, but also the “big ideas” that link the four subject areas.

Pursuing the goal of STEM literacy in K–12 schools will require a paradigm shift for students, teachers, administrators, textbook publishers, and policy makers, as well as the many scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians involved in K–12 education. As a result of that shift, students would be better prepared for life in the 21st century and would have the tools they need to make informed career decisions or pursue post-secondary education.

  References

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). 1990. Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.

Bottoms, G., and K. Anthony. 2005. Project Lead the Way: A Pre-Engineering Curriculum That Works. Southern Regional Education Board. Available online at http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/ 05V08_Research_PLTW.pdf (accessed May 9, 2008).

Bottoms, G., and J. Uhn. 2007. Project Lead the Way Works: A New Type of Career and Technical Program. Southern Educational Review Board. Available online at http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/2007pubs/ 07V29_Research_Brief_PLTW.pdf (accessed January 15, 2009).

CCNY (Carnegie Corporation of New York). 2009. The Opportunity Equation—Transforming Mathematics and Science Education for Citizenship and the Global Economy. Available online at http://www.opportunityequation.org/TheOpportunityEquation. pdf (accessed July 15, 2009).

DOEd (U.S. Department of Education). 2008. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics, 2007 (NCES 2008-022), Table 3. Available online at http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65 (accessed October 1, 2008).

ECCP (Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project). 1971. The Man-Made World. New York: McGraw Hill.

NACME (National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering). 2008. Confronting the “New” American Dilemma—Underrepresented Minorities in Engineering: A Data-Based Look at Diversity. Available online at http://www.nacme.org/pdf/NACME 08 ResearchReport.pdf (accessed July 16, 2009).

NAE (National Academy of Engineering). 2008. Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NAE and NRC (National Research Council). 2009. Engineer-ing in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. L. Katehi, G. Pearson, and M. Feder, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NAS, NAE, and IOM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NSB (National Science Board). 2007. A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Education, and Mathematics Education System. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

  FOOTNOTES

  1  This article is adapted from the executive summary of Engineering in K–12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects (NAE and NRC, 2009).

2  The term “habits of mind,” as used by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Science for All Americans (1990), refers to the values, attitudes, and thinking skills associated with engineering.

  3  See, for example, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, online at www.21stcenturyskills.org .

4   See, for example, The Man-Made World (ECCP, 1971).

5  The review was overseen by Prof. Ken Welty, University of Wisconsin, Stout, a consultant to the project.

FREE K-12 standards-aligned STEM

curriculum for educators everywhere!

Find more at TeachEngineering.org .

• Why Teach Engineering in K-12?
• TeachEngineering
• K-12 Engineering

From soaring skyscrapers to tiny medical devices, it’s impossible to imagine our lives without engineering!

Engineering design is a vehicle for the integration of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) into K-12 settings, as well as an outlet for creative problem solving and design-thinking. Bottom line, engineering matters!

To actively engage students...

through design-based projects while deepening their understanding of fundamental concepts.

To improve student learning...

through hands-on, project-based experiences that connect them to everyday STEM applications, and let them experience that design truly is a contact sport.

To raise the level of technological literacy...

through practical skills and a deeper comprehension of our dynamic modern world.

To broaden participation in STEM fields...

through emphasizing that diverse teams result in the most innovative designs to improve our world.

To introduce exciting career paths...

by opening students’ eyes to how our lives are enriched by the work of engineers.

Engineering Habits of Mind

The National Academy of Engineering has identified six important engineering “habits of mind”: creativity, optimism, systems thinking, collaboration, communication and ethical considerations. These six ways of seeing the world are essential for all 21st century citizens as we seek to improve the ever-changing and increasingly complex world around us.

Engineers are creative problem solvers.

Engineers couple creativity and imagination with analytical skills to meet the needs of people while preserving our planet’s resources and cultures.

Engineers make a world of difference.

Engineers have a hand in designing nearly everything in our daily lives. Things like cars, computers, bubble bum and movie special effects are all products of imaginative engineering.

Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety.

The innovations of engineers fuel economic growth, fortify national security systems, improve healthcare and safeguard the environment.

Engineers help shape the future.

Engineers bring ideas to life; they are at the center of creative solutions to address current and future global challenges.

Now that you’ve looked into the world of engineering, learn even more in our What Is Engineering and What Is Design? lesson.

Explore the Various Types of Engineers!

Check out the 'what is engineering' video.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Center for Standards, Assessment, and Accountability

Resource Library

Engineering in k-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects.

This book resource is a report written by the Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, chaired by Dr. Linda P. B. Katehi. The report will be useful to advocates for greater public understanding of engineering, as well as to those working to boost citizens’ technological and scientific literacy. Educational researchers and cognitive scientists will also find that the document exposes a rich set of questions related to how and under what conditions students come to understand engineering. The document was created in response to the need to develop the country’s technical workforce, and to understand the status of engineering education and its educational policies and programs, so as to set a new direction for the 21st century. It is a product of a collaboration between the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering. The committee process involved meetings, sponsored data-gathering workshops, and solicitation of online input from the public. The committee also commissioned an analysis of a number of existing K-12 engineering curricula, and conducted reviews of the literature on areas of conceptual learning related to engineering, the development of engineering skills, and the impacts of K-12 engineering education initiatives. The authors also collected preliminary information about a few pre-college engineering education programs in other countries. Beyond this data gathering, the report reflects the personal and professional experiences and judgments of committee members. The aim is to provide carefully reasoned guidance to key stakeholders regarding the creation and implementation of K-12 engineering curricula and instructional practices, focusing on the connections among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education.

Content Comments

This 211-page book unveils the need, the call to action, the process, and the goals for engineering education with clarity. Key concepts such as engineering design, technological literacy, and impacts of K-12 engineering education are well laid out, and general principles facilitate a conceptual framework to understand the purpose and rationale of the report and its recommendations. Organizational gray boxes offer succinct key organizing ideas, such as benchmarks, and conceptual frameworks. Specific professional development programs and models for K-12 teachers on engineering (i.e. Project Lead the Way and Engineering is Elementary) are identified, along with descriptions of effective partnership approaches with universities, toward successful pre-service certification programs that include engineering. This resource is timely and informative for educators, industry, policymakers, and the general public at large. It uses easy-to-read language, and signals the imperative for K-12 engineering education, with steps to accomplish it and needed supports.  

Resource Type

Katehi, L., Pearson, G., Feder, M., Editors, Committee on K-12 Engineering Education

Organization

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies

Grade Level

Elementary School (K-5) High School (9-12) Higher Education Middle School (6-8)

Subject Area

Curriculum and Instruction Standards

Back to the library

This site and its contents copyright © WestEd 2024. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Accessibility | Visit WestEd.org

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

FAA STEM AVSED Program FY23 Annual Report

This FY23 Annual Report provides stakeholders with a summary of the FAA STEM AVSED Program’s activities throughout FY23 and includes a look forward for FY24. The report provides information on how the Program operates, its strategic goals, and recent achievements. It also provides data on the extent of the Program’s reach across the nation. In addition to being informative, our hope is that stakeholders see the value of continuing to support the Program to ensure its continued expansion and success. 

Click here to read the full STEM AVSED FY23 Annual Report .

Our mission.

Inspire youth from diverse backgrounds to pursue aerospace careers and create a consistent pipeline of professionals for a robust workforce of the future.

STEM AVSED FY23 Highlights

Outreach representatives from all lines of business., in-person and virtual events held across the country., 125,919 , total students.  , 49,392 female students and 40,103 ethnic minority students..

Total educators:

Airport design challenge participants from all 50 states and 33 countries. , ace academy summer aviation education programs, 16 adopted schools serving 496 students..

Our Four Goal Areas

F ocusing on developing robust pipeline and pathway activities leading to aerospace careers., airport design challenge.

In FY23, 1,969 students participated worldwide, 73 educators were enrolled, and more than 200 Outreach Representatives across the FAA’s nine regions have supported the challenge. Starting this year, ADC is being run year-round (beginning in September of each year) and can be accessed from anywhere in the world. 

ADC Dashboard

In FY23, the STEM AVSED Program implemented the use of a dashboard to display data regarding ADC Program participation. The dashboard can be used to share the following data:

• Geographic Data: displays the total number of students enrolled in the ADC Program.
• Survey Dashboard: displays data from an optional entry survey that students complete when enrolling in the ADC Program, including gender, race, grade level, and Minecraft software experience.
• Career Interest Survey: displays data about whether students have considered a career in aviation, specific fields of interest, and their experience traveling by aircraft and using airports.
• Assignment Dashboard: displays data about students assignments and which tests have been taken most by students.

Aviation Career Education (ACE) Academies

This year, approximately 2,000 students from across the U.S. and its territories participated in the ACE Academy experience at approximately 100 ACE Academies, with 40 of those being run by an FAA national partner, the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals (OBAP).

Events & Highlights

The FAA supported a number STEM AVSED-related events in 2023, to view more information about these events, click here .

Placing a strong emphasis on reaching diverse populations of students.

The STEM AVSED Program strives to ensure that K-12 students from all socio-demographic backgrounds receive access to STEM AVSED activities and events. The Program assesses its outreach practices on an ongoing basis, develops ways to measure student participation in FAA-sponsored outreach events, and strives to make improvements based on participation outcomes.

Expanded Use of the Equity Assessment Tool

The STEM AVSED Equity Assessment Tool was created in FY22 as part of an FAA Corporate Short-Term Incentive (CSTI) goal. The purpose of the Equity Assessment Tool is to identify strengths and areas of improvement to ensure equitable outreach at large events sponsored by the Agency that advance the STEM AVSED/FAA/DOT’s mission.

In FY23, four large STEM AVSED events were assessed. Participating in the equity assessment requires the event planning teams to complete both a pre-assessment and post-assessment with a post-assessment score. If an outreach planning team scores below 70%, the Equity Assessment team provides guidance on how to improve the equity of the events going forward. To view scores for the events assessed in 2023, click here .

For FY24, the FAA plans to continue use of the tool for large FAA-sponsored events with a goal of using the tool for all large events in the future.

Adopt-A-School

The FAA Adopt-a-School (AAS) Program provides fourth-grade classes with aerospace lessons, taught by FAA Outreach Representatives, that were created by aviation and education professionals. Elementary schools meeting certain criteria aimed at targeting underserved and underrepresented communities are selected to participate in the Adopt-a-School Program. 

From its launch in the 2021 school year, the AAS Program has reached 1,761. That includes 496 additional students reached through re-engagement with previously adopted schools. In FY24, the FAA aims to expand the AAS Program to include two schools in each of the FAA’s nine regions.

Conferences

The FAA supported multiple conferences with the goal of educating aerospace professionals on the STEM AVSED Program and providing more information on how to become an Outreach Representative.

• National Black Coalition of Federal Employees (NBCFAE) 46th National Training Conference
• National Hispanic Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (NHCFAE) Training Conference
• Professional Women's Controllers, Inc. Annual Conference

To view more information on additional events the FAA supported, click here .

Identifying opportunities to collaborate closely with industry, academia, non-profits and government.

One of the ways the STEM AVSED Program seeks to expand its outreach is by forming strategic relationships with other organizations that have a similar commitment to introducing students to aerospace careers and promoting access to academic and training opportunities. These organizations include other government agencies, stakeholders in industry and academia, and non-profit STEM organizations. The relationships may take a variety of forms, from local-level, informal collaborations to national-level formal partnerships which are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Memorandums of Understanding

The FAA currently has formal Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with 13 organizations. An organization being considered for a formal national partnership with the STEM AVSED Program must meet criteria that aligns with the Program’s mission and goals and undergo a comprehensive approval process. Once approved, an MOU is developed to outline agreed-upon roles and responsibilities.

Collaboration Highlights

Below are highlights of activities STEM AVSED Program staff collaborated on and supported this year through the Program’s relationships with several formal partners. Note that this list is not all-inclusive.

• Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals (OBAP)
• Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
• Real-World Design Challenge (RWDC)
• National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO)
• Women in Aviation International (WAI)
• Youth Aviation Adventure (YAA)
• The STEM AVSED Program has participated in several educator workshops with national partners. This year Program staff participated in five workshops. To find out more, click here .

Ensuring successful horizontal integration across the Agency to carry out the STEM AVSED mission.

Outreach representatives (or).

OR responsibilities include finding outreach events for K-12 students in their region, coordinating outreach activities with the STEM AVSED Program office, and attending outreach events to share information related to the STEM AVSED Program.

Throughout FY23, the STEM AVSED Program conducted ongoing internal outreach and recruitment new ORs. As a result, 280 FAA employees took the training to become ORs in 2023, bringing the total number of ORs at the end of the fiscal year to 2,240.

OR Mapping Tool

In FY23, the FAA created an interactive mapping tool to map the location of its Outreach Representative (OR) resources. The tool will allow the Program to make strategic decisions about where outreach events can be supported with existing levels of resources. It will also allow the Program to identify areas where targeted recruiting is needed in order to support events in those areas.

STEM AVSED Governance Structure

The STEM AVSED Program's governance structure consists of an Executive Board (EB) and a Steering Committee (SC). Together, they oversee the Program’s activities, ensure compliance with the strategic direction set forth in the STEM AVSED Strategic Plan, and coordinate STEM AVSED functions and activities across all FAA lines of business and staff offices. To learn more about the actions taken by the EB and SC in FY23 and the Federal Advisory Committee Recommendations Review, click here .

Looking Forward

As the STEM AVSED Program continues to reach more and more students, parents, and educators over the coming years, Program staff look forward to continually working to serve their mission of inspiring youth from diverse backgrounds to pursue aerospace careers and creating a consistent pipeline of professionals for a robust workforce of the future.

Additional Resources

• STEM AVSED Outreach by Region
• STEM AVSED Outreach by Line of Business (LOB)
• Learn more about the STEM AVSED communications strategy
• View more information about all STEM AVSED programs we have to offer on the FAA Education landing page .

• Climate Change
• Engineering

Museum of Science, Boston Designs New Interactive K-12 Curricula to Engage Students in Climate Solutions

New youth engineering solutions (yes) and engineering is elementary (eie) curricula, kahoot, and tinytap games empower kids to confront climate change  .

BOSTON, MA — As part of its yearlong Earthshot spotlight dedicated to climate solutions and sustainability, the Museum of Science, Boston has developed a suite of interactive curricula and educational games to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, and passionate problem solvers. Available in English and Spanish, the new Earthshot educational resources span grades preK-12 and formats, including Youth Engineering Solutions (YES) , Engineering is Elementary (EiE) , Kahoot! , and TinyTap , encouraging students of all ages to imagine and design innovative technologies to help solve pressing environmental problems.  Launched early this year, Youth Engineering Solutions (YES) brings the expertise and creativity of the Museum of Science into classrooms. YES lessons are equity-oriented and socially engaged, connecting engineering challenges to relevant real-world problems in students’ lives and communities and inviting them to consider the impacts of engineered designs on different individuals, groups, and systems. In 2024, the Museum is offering 21 units on environmental issues ranging from green energy and energy conservation to sustainable cooking, recycling, and bioplastics. “The preK-12 education division at the Museum of Science is integral to our mission to make public science learning accessible to everyone,” said Christine Cunningham, senior vice president of STEM Learning. “Those who cannot currently visit the Museum in person will find its high-quality educational materials online and in classrooms. As part of our yearlong Earthshot spotlight, our new YES curricula engage youth in grades K-8 in activities focused on green engineering, sustainability, and climate solutions, empowering them to make sound environmental choices.”     YES and EiE lessons invite students to build solar ovens, create windmill blades, insulate model homes, redesign model cities to minimize storm water runoff, improve processes for cleaning up model oil spills, engineer trash collectors, program environmental computer games, and design water filters, tabletop maglev transportation systems, and vertical farms. Free of charge, YES units are designed for classroom, out-of-school, and at-home settings, drawing on more than three decades of research and development by the Museum’s education division. Each unit’s activities introduce green engineering through storybooks, covering science concepts, product life cycles, and environmental impacts. YES invites students to imagine, plan, create, test, and improve their solutions, engaging them in the systematic, iterative process of engineering design. Complementary to YES, the Museum’s eight Earthshot Kahoot! learning games—four in English, and four in Spanish—explore topics such as waste and recycling, mass transit, sustainable farming, and the green future of work and jobs. Created for grades 9-12 with a career readiness focus, Earthshot kahoots have been refined through input from the Museum’s Fenway High School student advisors. For younger learners in preschool, the Museum is releasing two TinyTap games on climate, with a focus on pollution and microplastics through storytelling and activities.  “The Museum brings public science learning to over 100M people every year through our digital content,” said Alexis Rapo, chief digital officer. “With our Kahoot! and TinyTap learning games, we are engaging and enabling budding scientists everywhere, fueling their interests, skills, and knowledge to pursue careers in STEM.” Aligned with the Year of the Earthshot onsite, the Museum of Science’s new curricula and digital learning games teach us how we can and will live sustainably on Earth, exploring the innovations that are transforming the ways we live, move, eat, and work.

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

6. teachers’ views on the state of public k-12 education.

Overall, teachers have a negative view of the U.S. K-12 education system – both the path it’s been on in recent years and what its future might hold.

The vast majority of teachers (82%) say that the overall state of public K-12 education has gotten worse in the last five years. Only 5% say it’s gotten better, and 11% say it has gotten neither better nor worse.

Looking to the future, 53% of teachers expect the state of public K-12 education to be worse five years from now. One-in-five say it will get better, and 16% expect it to be neither better nor worse.

We asked teachers who say the state of public K-12 education is worse now than it was five years ago how much each of the following has contributed:

• The current political climate (60% of teachers say this is a major reason that the state of K-12 education has gotten worse)
• The lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (57%)
• Changes in the availability of funding and resources (46%)

Elementary school teachers are especially likely to point to resource issues – 54% say changes in the availability of funding and resources is a major reason the K-12 education system is worse now. By comparison, 41% of middle school and 39% of high school teachers say the same.

Differences by party

Overall, teachers who are Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are as likely as Republican and Republican-leaning teachers to say that the state of public K-12 education is worse than it was five years ago.

But Democratic teachers are more likely than Republican teachers to point to the current political climate (65% vs. 54%) and changes in the availability of funding and resources (50% vs. 40%) as major reasons.

Democratic and Republican teachers are equally likely to say that lasting effects of the pandemic are a major reason that the public K-12 education is worse than it was five years ago (57% each).

K-12 education and political parties

We asked teachers which political party they trust to do a better job on various aspects of public K-12 education.

Across each of the issues we asked about, roughly a third or more of teachers say they don’t trust either party to do a better job. In particular, a sizable share (42%) trust neither party when it comes to shaping the school curriculum.

On balance, more teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job handling the things we asked about than say they trust the Republican Party.

About a third of teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job in ensuring adequate funding for schools, adequate pay and benefits for teachers, and equal access to high quality K-12 education for students. Only about one-in-ten teachers say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job in these areas.

A quarter of teachers say they trust the Democratic Party to do a better job in shaping the school curriculum and making schools safer; 11% and 16% of teachers, respectively, say they trust the Republican Party in these areas.

Across all the items we asked about, shares ranging from 15% to 17% say they are not sure which party they trust more, and shares ranging from 4% to 7% say they trust both parties equally.

A majority of public K-12 teachers (58%) identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. About a third (35%) identify with or lean toward the GOP.

For each aspect of the education system we asked about, both Democratic and Republican teachers are more likely to say they trust their own party to do a better job than to say they trust the other party.

However, across most of these areas, Republican teachers are more likely to say they trust neither party than to say they trust their own party.

For example, about four-in-ten Republican teachers say they trust neither party when it comes to ensuring adequate funding for schools and equal access to high quality K-12 education for students. Only about a quarter of Republican teachers say they trust their own party on these issues.

The noteworthy exception is making schools safer, where similar shares of Republican teachers trust their own party (41%) and neither party (35%) to do a better job.

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, ‘back to school’ means anytime from late july to after labor day, depending on where in the u.s. you live, among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Best Global Universities for Mechanical Engineering in Russia

These are the top universities in Russia for mechanical engineering, based on their reputation and research in the field. Read the methodology »

To unlock more data and access tools to help you get into your dream school, sign up for the  U.S. News College Compass !

Here are the best global universities for mechanical engineering in Russia

Tomsk polytechnic university.

See the full rankings

• Clear Filters
• # 74 in Best Universities for Mechanical Engineering
• # 879 in Best Global Universities  (tie)

100 Best universities for Mechanical Engineering in Russia

Updated: February 29, 2024

• Art & Design
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Liberal Arts & Social Sciences
• Mathematics

Below is a list of best universities in Russia ranked based on their research performance in Mechanical Engineering. A graph of 714K citations received by 136K academic papers made by 158 universities in Russia was used to calculate publications' ratings, which then were adjusted for release dates and added to final scores.

We don't distinguish between undergraduate and graduate programs nor do we adjust for current majors offered. You can find information about granted degrees on a university page but always double-check with the university website.

1. Moscow State University

For Mechanical Engineering

2. Tomsk State University

3. St. Petersburg State University

4. Bauman Moscow State Technical University

5. Ufa State Aviation Technical University

6. Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University

7. Tomsk Polytechnic University

8. Ural Federal University

9. South Ural State University

10. National Research University Higher School of Economics

11. Moscow Aviation Institute

12. Novosibirsk State University

13. ITMO University

14. N.R.U. Moscow Power Engineering Institute

15. National Research Nuclear University MEPI

16. Kazan Federal University

17. National University of Science and Technology "MISIS"

18. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology

19. Samara National Research University

20. Moscow State Technological University "Stankin"

21. Novosibirsk State Technical University

22. RUDN University

23. Southern Federal University

24. Saratov State University

25. Ufa State Petroleum Technological University

26. Samara State Technical University

27. Siberian Federal University

28. Kazan National Research Technical University named after A.N. Tupolev - KAI

29. Perm State Technical University

30. Omsk State Technical University

31. Saint Petersburg State Electrotechnical University

32. Moscow Polytech

33. Saint-Petersburg Mining University

34. Magnitogorsk State Technical University

35. Saratov State Technical University

36. Moscow State University of Railway Engineering

37. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni Novgorod

38. Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University

39. Tula State University

40. Belgorod State Technological University

41. Far Eastern Federal University

42. Novgorod State University

43. belgorod state university.

44. Finance Academy under the Government of the Russian Federation

45. Moscow Medical Academy

46. Kazan State Technological University

47. Russian State University of Oil and Gas

48. siberian state aerospace university.

49. Tambov State Technical University

50. Voronezh State University

51. Siberian State Industrial University

52. Saint Petersburg State Institute of Technology

53. Kalashnikov Izhevsk State Technical University

54. St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

55. Mendeleev University of Chemical Technology of Russia

56. Murmansk State Technical University

57. South-Western State University

58. Ogarev Mordovia State University

59. Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics

60. south-russian state university of economics and service.

61. Perm State University

62. Kuzbass State Technical University

63. Russian National Research Medical University

64. Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

65. Ulyanovsk State Technical University

66. Ulyanovsk State University

67. Penza State University

68. Kuban State University of Technology

69. Polzunov Altai State Technical University

70. Chelyabinsk State University

71. Yaroslavl State University

72. University of Tyumen

73. National Research University of Electronic Technology

74. Leningrad State University

75. Moscow State Pedagogical University

76. Udmurt State University

77. Irkutsk State University

78. North-Eastern Federal University

79. Bashkir State University

80. Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

81. Kuban State University

82. Kuban State Agricultural University

83. St. Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation

84. Kemerovo State University

85. Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

86. Orenburg State University

87. Baltic State Technical University "Voenmeh"

88. Tomsk State University of Architecture and Building

89. Chuvash State University

90. ivanovo state power university.

91. Irkutsk National Research Technical University

92. Orel State University

93. State University of Management

94. Tomsk State Pedagogical University

95. Volgograd State University

96. Petrozavodsk State University

97. Tver State University

98. Northern Arctic Federal University

99. Omsk State Transport University

100. Kaliningrad State Technical University

The best cities to study Mechanical Engineering in Russia based on the number of universities and their ranks are Moscow , Tomsk , Saint Petersburg , and Ufa .

Engineering subfields in Russia

• Our Program Divisions
• Our Three Academies
• Government Affairs
• Statement on Diversity and Inclusion
• Our Study Process
• Conflict of Interest Policies and Procedures
• Project Comments and Information
• Read Our Expert Reports and Published Proceedings
• Explore PNAS, the Official Scientific Journal of NAS
• Access Transportation Research Board Publications
• Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Economic Recovery
• Fellowships and Grants
• Publications by Division
• Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
• Division on Earth and Life Studies
• Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
• Gulf Research Program
• Health and Medicine Division
• Policy and Global Affairs Division
• Transportation Research Board
• National Academy of Sciences
• National Academy of Engineering
• National Academy of Medicine
• Publications by Topic
• Agriculture
• Behavioral and Social Sciences
• Biography and Autobiography
• Biology and Life Sciences
• Computers and Information Technology
• Conflict and Security Issues
• Earth Sciences
• Energy and Energy Conservation
• Engineering and Technology
• Environment and Environmental Studies
• Food and Nutrition
• Health and Medicine
• Industry and Labor
• Math, Chemistry, and Physics
• Policy for Science and Technology
• Space and Aeronautics
• Surveys and Statistics
• Transportation and Infrastructure
• Searchable Collections
• New Releases

VIEW LARGER COVER

Standards for K-12 Engineering Education?

The goal of this study was to assess the value and feasibility of developing and implementing content standards for engineering education at the K-12 level. Content standards have been developed for three disciplines in STEM education--science, technology, and mathematic--but not for engineering. To date, a small but growing number of K-12 students are being exposed to engineering-related materials, and limited but intriguing evidence suggests that engineering education can stimulate interest and improve learning in mathematics and science as well as improve understanding of engineering and technology. Given this background, a reasonable question is whether standards would improve the quality and increase the amount of teaching and learning of engineering in K-12 education.

The book concludes that, although it is theoretically possible to develop standards for K-12 engineering education, it would be extremely difficult to ensure their usefulness and effective implementation. This conclusion is supported by the following findings: (1) there is relatively limited experience with K-12 engineering education in U.S. elementary and secondary schools, (2) there is not at present a critical mass of teachers qualified to deliver engineering instruction, (3) evidence regarding the impact of standards-based educational reforms on student learning in other subjects, such as mathematics and science, is inconclusive, and (4) there are significant barriers to introducing stand-alone standards for an entirely new content area in a curriculum already burdened with learning goals in more established domains of study.

• Engineering and Technology — Engineering Education
• Education — Engineering Education

Suggested Citation

National Research Council. 2010. Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12990. Import this citation to: Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager

Publication Info

• Paperback:  978-0-309-16015-5
• Ebook:  978-0-309-16231-9

What is skim?

The Chapter Skim search tool presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter. You may select key terms to highlight them within pages of each chapter.

Copyright Information

The National Academies Press (NAP) has partnered with Copyright Clearance Center's Marketplace service to offer you a variety of options for reusing NAP content. Through Marketplace, you may request permission to reprint NAP content in another publication, course pack, secure website, or other media. Marketplace allows you to instantly obtain permission, pay related fees, and print a license directly from the NAP website. The complete terms and conditions of your reuse license can be found in the license agreement that will be made available to you during the online order process. To request permission through Marketplace you are required to create an account by filling out a simple online form. The following list describes license reuses offered by the NAP through Marketplace:

• Republish text, tables, figures, or images in print
• Post on a secure Intranet/Extranet website
• Use in a PowerPoint Presentation
• Distribute via CD-ROM

Click here to obtain permission for the above reuses. If you have questions or comments concerning the Marketplace service, please contact:

Marketplace Support International +1.978.646.2600 US Toll Free +1.855.239.3415 E-mail: [email protected] marketplace.copyright.com

To request permission to distribute a PDF, please contact our Customer Service Department at [email protected] .

What is a prepublication?

An uncorrected copy, or prepublication, is an uncorrected proof of the book. We publish prepublications to facilitate timely access to the committee's findings.

What happens when I pre-order?

The final version of this book has not been published yet. You can pre-order a copy of the book and we will send it to you when it becomes available. We will not charge you for the book until it ships. Pricing for a pre-ordered book is estimated and subject to change. All backorders will be released at the final established price. As a courtesy, if the price increases by more than $3.00 we will notify you. If the price decreases, we will simply charge the lower price. Applicable discounts will be extended.

Downloading and Using eBooks from NAP

What is an ebook.

An ebook is one of two file formats that are intended to be used with e-reader devices and apps such as Amazon Kindle or Apple iBooks.

Why is an eBook better than a PDF?

A PDF is a digital representation of the print book, so while it can be loaded into most e-reader programs, it doesn't allow for resizable text or advanced, interactive functionality. The eBook is optimized for e-reader devices and apps, which means that it offers a much better digital reading experience than a PDF, including resizable text and interactive features (when available).

Where do I get eBook files?

eBook files are now available for a large number of reports on the NAP.edu website. If an eBook is available, you'll see the option to purchase it on the book page.

View more FAQ's about Ebooks

Types of Publications

Consensus Study Report: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.