Asee peer logo

Evaluating the Risk: In an Age of High Stakes Testing, Should Teachers Integrate Engineering Design into Traditional Science and Math Courses?

Download Paper |


2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition


Columbus, Ohio

Publication Date

June 24, 2017

Start Date

June 24, 2017

End Date

June 28, 2017

Conference Session

Pre-College: Teacher Impact on Student Mastery

Tagged Division

Pre-College Engineering Education Division

Page Count




Permanent URL

Download Count


Request a correction

Paper Authors


Julie Steimle University of Cincinnati

visit author page

Julie Steimle received her Bachelor of Arts in English and Secondary Education from Thomas More College. She served as development director and managed academic programs in two non-profit organizations, Pregnancy Care of Cincinnati and the Literacy Network of Greater Cincinnati, before coming to the University of Cincinnati in 2009. Ms. Steimle initially coordinated UC’s Supplemental Educational Services Program. Currently, she is the Project Director of the Cincinnati Engineering Enhanced Math and Science Program.

visit author page


Anant R. Kukreti University of Cincinnati

visit author page

ANANT R. KUKRETI, Ph.D., is Director for Engineering Outreach and Professor in the Department of Biomedical, Chemical and Environmental Engineering at the University of Cincinnati (UC), Cincinnati Ohio, USA. He joined UC on 8/15/00 and before that worked 22 years at University of Oklahoma. He teaches structural mechanics, with research in steel structures, seismic analysis and design, and engineering education. He has won five major university teaching awards, two Professorships, two national ASEE teaching awards, and is internationally recognized in his primary research field.

visit author page

author page

Helen Meyer University of Cincinnati

Download Paper |


Evaluating the Risk: In an Age of High Stakes Testing, Should Teachers Integrate Engineering Design into Traditional Science and Math Courses? (RTP)

With an increased focus on STEM and the importance of students using 21st Century skills to solve real world problems, K-12 educators are being encouraged to expose students to engineering design principles. However, in an age of standardized testing and high stakes accountability, many traditional math and science teachers are reluctant to include engineering design projects in courses where students will take statewide assessments or AP exams. As a result, engineering design is often relegated to engineering elective courses or courses not subject to high stakes testing or required academic standards. This is particularly true in states that have not formally adopted the Next Generation Science Standards.

This paper examines the impact of integrating engineering design challenges in traditional math and science courses with required academic standards and high stakes tests that measure student mastery of those standards. Using evaluation and research results from an NSF funded project that involved a partnership between a large research university and surrounding local K-12 school districts, this paper will detail the advantages, as well as the barriers, of integrating engineering design into these courses.

While many educators laud engineering design as a way to engage students and teach problem solving and valuable 21st Century skills, they worry that these projects will require too much instructional time when they have so many standards to teach prior to testing season. Direct instruction is perceived as a much more efficient way to teach a large amount of material in a short period of time.

However, new evaluation data from the NSF project referenced in this paper indicates that engineering design challenges can result in increased mastery of academic content, as compared to traditional instruction. Yet, teaching using design challenges does take more instructional time than didactic approaches, which is a concern for teachers. As a result, teachers need to weigh whether or not the increased mastery is worth the additional time spent and, if so, find creative compromises, such as incorporating several academic standards into one engineering design challenge or reserving engineering design challenges for select standards that are difficult for students to grasp without hands-on activities. In addition to presenting and comparing pre and post assessment quantitative data from the project participants and a control group, the paper will also examine qualitative data from the participants. In interviews, participants outlined the key benefits and drawbacks of using engineering design challenges to teach math and science content. When creating instructional units featuring engineering design, the participants also identified in writing the reasons they selected certain academic standards to be taught using this pedagogy.

Examining results from all three data sources may help other teachers determine when and how often to incorporate engineering design and which standards are best fits for this type of instruction.

Steimle, J., & Kukreti, A. R., & Meyer, H. (2017, June), Evaluating the Risk: In an Age of High Stakes Testing, Should Teachers Integrate Engineering Design into Traditional Science and Math Courses? Paper presented at 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio. 10.18260/1-2--28306

ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2017 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015