On the teaching of engineering and technology

Or the competency-based nonsense in the technology curriculum

License Creative Commons

Antoni Hernández-Fernández

In a recent article, Cristina Simarro has presented a detailed and rigorous analysis of the new secondary school curriculum on Technology and Digitalization in Catalonia. Her article offers a precise diagnosis of the shortcomings of this curricular approach. However, despite Simarro’s (2025) commendable efforts to clarify concepts and propose alternatives, educational laws remain stubborn: the LOMLOE –Spanish current Educational Law- has diluted the Technology subject curriculum still remains unadequately adressed either the engineering perspective or a solid technological education, which is essential to maintaining part of the battered current social mobility. The result is a curriculum where the transversal takes precedence over the essential, and where engineering is, frankly, an uninvited guest. On the other hand, I do actually rather say nothing about the Lomloist nonsense of changing the subject’s name, which was already noted in “La educación cancelada” (Navarra and Rabadà (eds.), 2022).

The Cocktail of Specific Competencies

Thus, we talk about “Competence in Science, Technology, and Engineering,” as if these three disciplines were interchangeable or, even worse, subsumable within a single subject. Simarro (2025) shows that this epistemologically impoverished view completely dilutes the unique ways of doing, speaking, and thinking about engineering, subordinating them to science, something that had already been pointed out previously (Couso and Simarro, 2020). The consequence is obvious: if there is no explicit recognition of the inherent entity of technology (or engineering), any science department can claim to teach it, with the consequent marginalization of technology teachers. By the way, this is somethig that is happening in accordance with the widespread idea of teaching by áreas, instead of by subjects. Perhaps specialization has no interest anymore, and administrations, unable to recruit specialized professionals, open the floodgates to the “multi-skilled” teachers. Professionalism takes precedence over academics and rigor.

The attempt to specify the key competencies in each subject has turned out to be a “shake up before use” curriculum. Simarro (2025) points out that the specific competencies for Technology and Digitalization, the accumulation of cross-cutting elements, without a clear prioritization criterion, makes the whole difficult to apply. References to methodologies, values, and skills are mixed together without hierarchy or distinction. The result is a competency-based mishmash in which autonomy, creativity, sustainability, and collaboration appear erratically, with no one clear on how they should be integrated into teaching practice.

In addition to this we must consider as well the lack of a clear definition of the specific competencies to engineering, notes Simarro (2025), who reviews how, instead of developing fundamental skills such as optimizing solutions or empirically validating technological proposals, arbitrary or complementary requirements are included, such as the need to apply interdisciplinary knowledge: but why just in this subject and not in other so-called STEM subjects? In my opinion, this is a clear bias that places technological subjects as second-class subjects.

Knowledge: The Art of Hiding the Essential

As far as knowledge is concerned, the approach is equally problematic. Instead of presenting fundamental concepts that structure learning, with technological knowledge as the authentic cognitive scaffolding (Ruiz, 2020), the LOMLOE chooses to formulate knowledge as actions. As Simarro (2025) explains, this obsession with operability generates unnecessary redundancy and relegates key technological concepts to the background. While in science, the thematic blocks maintain a certain coherence with respect to previous curriculum models, in Technology and Digitalization, we find an erratic categorization and structure. Materials, processes, and electricity are reduced to marginal notes in a diffuse “problem-solving and project-solving” block, for example.

This blurring of knowledge is not innocent. It enables the adoption of short-term teaching, based on immediate and concrete application, to the detriment of reflection, abstraction, and knowledge transfer. Thus, instead of fostering a deep understanding of technological principles and their application to different contexts, students end up, at best, learning technological anecdotes with little chance of generalization or integration into their cognitive repertoire. The curriculum seems more concerned with fitting technology into a socially acceptable framework and politically correct than ensuring a rigorous, robust, and well-structured technological education.

Learning Situations: Packaging Over Content

Learning situations are a cornerstone of the LOMLOE. The subject of Technology and Digitalization is no exception to this trend. As though teachers in the past didn’t contextualize activities, or context were more relevant than content. The emphasis is on the need for each situation to have a clear purpose and connect with cross-cutting objectives. But the problem is that the design of these learning situations has prioritized the definition of specific knowledge and skills. And the it comes that before defining what knowledge should be acquired and how, it has already been decided that it should be learned through contextualized challenges or projects. Should all content be conveyed through the same teaching methodology?

Simarro (2025) reminds us that a context-centered design can be a double-edged sword. If the abstraction of knowledge is not carefully maintained, learning is reduced to the anecdote, to mere application to a specific case, with little room for extrapolation and cognitive scaffolding. The inclusion of vectors such as gender perspective, democratic citizenship, or emotional well-being must be done coherently and progressively, and not as an imperative in each learning situation, since it may be often difficult to fit into any classroom activities. The key is to structure learning in a way that ensures both an understanding of the technological foundations and their applicability in real-life contexts. But to know how to apply knowledge, it must first be acquired.

In conclusion

Simarro’s (2025) analysis is an essential wake-up call, a review that should be undertaken from every secondary school subject onwards. His reasoned reform proposals attempt to restore coherence to a diffuse curriculum lacking a clear hierarchy. But the underlying issue remains open: technology has become an ideological battlefield, where the priority, it is said, is no longer to forge the scaffolding of competent potential future engineers or technologists in secondary school (because, it is said, not everyone who completes compulsory education will be a technologist or engineer), but rather to develop sensitive and socially responsible citizens. And it’s not that the latter is irrelevant, on the contrary, it’s fundamental: but it’s not incompatible with defending the teaching of solid technological knowledge.

And be careful, we know where we started, but not how far this can lead. Many voices have already been heard from those who want to impose cutesy maths because “not everyone has to become a mathematician”.

And meanwhile, engineering, with its particularities, continues to wait for its own place in the curriculum. The LOMLOE has turned Technology and Digitalization into a second-class subject, blurring its content and obscuring engineering in a welter of cross-references with other disciplines. The opportunity to structure a good technological education has been lost, and transversality prevails over disciplinary rigor in the current approach. Perhaps, for the next educational reform, someone should  remember that technology is not only a matter of values, but also of knowledge. Because, how can one be critical or ethically responsible with something that is unknown?

The term “engineer” appeared in the 14th century, referring to specialists in military construction, so that during modern Europe, figures like Leonardo da Vinci designed machines, weapons, and fortifications for wealthy patrons, such as the Medici or the Duke of Milan (Johri, 2023). The training of those military engineers, and other master builders, was based on practical learning. With the Industrial Revolution, much of technical knowledge became tied to workshops dominated by men with a warlike bent: the founding of the École Polytechnique in France (1792) and West Point in the United States (1802) reinforced the connection between engineering, manual labor, and military culture (Johri, 2023). In a context where the media emphasizes a pre-war climate in Europe, with alarmist recommendations (at least today) included about the need to stockpile food and household survival kits, in order to justify the increase in military spending, it is pertinent, in conclusion, to recall how engineering emerged linked to war. A war to which the media occasionally bring us closer, while teachers continue with our daily educational struggles. Will they force us to return to the origins of engineering?

References:

Couso, Digna, and Simarro, Cristina. (2020). STEM education through the epistemological lens: Unveiling the challenge of STEM transdisciplinarity. In C. C. Johnson et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on STEM Education (pp. 17–28). Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429021381-3/stem-education-epistemological-lens-digna-couso-cristina-simarro

Johri, Aditya.(2023). International handbook of Engineering Education research. Taylor & Francis, 2023. Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003287483/international-handbook-engineering-education-research-aditya-johri

Navarra Andreu, and Rabadá, David (eds.) (2022). Canceled education. Palma de Mallorca: Sloper.

Ruiz, Hector (2020). How we learn. Barcelona: Graó.

Simarro, Cristina (2025). Reflections and orientations for the deployment of the new Technology and Digitalization curriculum at ESO. Ciències: Journal of the primary and secondary teachers, (49), 60–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ciencies.525

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons