If you want to read the PDF, try requesting it from the authors.


https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer/vol10/iss1/4/ Engineering education has increasingly become an area of interest at the P-12 level, yet attempts to align engineering knowledge, skills, and habits to existing elementary and secondary educational programming have been parochial in nature (e.g., for a specific context, grade, or initiative). Consequently, a need exists to establish a coherent P-12 content framework for engineering teaching and learning, which would serve as both an epistemological foundation for the subject and a guide for the design of developmentally appropriate educational standards, performance expectations, learning progressions, and assessments. A comprehensive framework for P-12 engineering education would include a compelling rationale and vision for the inclusion of engineering as a compulsory subject, content organization for the dimensions of engineering literacy, and a plan for the realization of this vision. The absence of such a framework could yield inconsistency in authentically educating students in engineering. In response, this study was conducted to establish a taxonomy of concepts related to both engineering knowledge and practices to support the development of a P-12 curricular framework. A modified Delphi method and a series of focus groups—which included teachers, professors, industry professionals, and other relevant stakeholders—were used to reach a consensus on engineering concepts deemed appropriate for secondary study. As a result, a content taxonomy for knowledge and practices appropriate for P-12 engineering emerged through multiple rounds of refinement. This article details the efforts to develop this taxonomy, and discusses how it can be used for standards creation, curriculum development, assessment of learning, and teacher preparation.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... However, minimal attempts in the United States have been made by the education community to establish the deliberate and coherent study of engineering from a national perspective (Chandler, Fontenot, and Tate, 2011;Moore et al., 2014; National Academy of Engineering (NAE), 2017; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2020; Samuels and Seymour, 2015). Specifically, few efforts have been undertaken to identify developmentally appropriate content and practices for scaffolding the teaching of engineering (Strimel, Huffman, Grubbs, Kim, and Gurganus, 2020). Regardless, engineering continues be taught in P-12 schools, but without a defined and consistent goal specific to engineering as a discipline. ...
... The framework development process involved iterative cycles of research, design, and experimentation in order to gather the data necessary to (1) articulate a vision for achieving engineering literacy for all, (2) establish a coherent theoretical and practical structure for the three dimensions of engineering learning, and (3) detail the understanding that students should acquire by the end of secondary school. (See Strimel, Huffman, Grubbs, Kim, and Gurganus, 2020.) This process specifically involved bringing together teachers, administrators, researchers, outreach coordinators, and educational organizations, as well as industry representatives, through a series of actionoriented symposia to (a) identify and refine an agreed upon taxonomy of concepts and sub-concepts for secondary engineering knowledge and practice, (b) formulate an instructional sequence for Progressions of Learning in Engineering at the secondary level, (c) create curricular examples for implementation using socially relevant/culturally situated learning activities, and (d) engage with a pilot site for testing and refining this work within secondary classrooms. ...
... Achieving engineering literacy for all requires that equity be at the forefront of any engineering learning initiative (Marshall and Berland, 2012;Strimel et al., 2020). Whether at the national, state, district, or school level, instruction and classroom culture should be affected by deliberate efforts to ensure equitable approaches to engineering. ...
Download @ https://www.p12engineering.org/framework - Engineering touches every aspect of human life, from providing access to clean drinking water to 5G telecommunications and vaccine development. Yet few young people ever encounter the subject in school or graduate with the foundational skills and knowledge to pursue engineering studies and careers. Now more than ever, we must inspire and prepare our students to grow into the informed designers and innovators the world needs to solve the tough challenges facing us today and in the future. In short, engineering learning is essential for every child in every school, town, city, and county in the country. Many of us within the P-12 education community recognize that there is something special about engineering learning. When given the opportunity to engineer, students of a variety of ages and backgrounds are motivated and eager to tackle difficult problems. They work together. They communicate. They are critical and creative and resourceful. We’ve seen it with our own eyes, experienced it as teachers and professional development coordinators, and advocated for it at parent/teacher nights, school board meetings, and legislative briefings. We know that engineering should be taught in parallel with science and math to ensure an equitable, authentic, relevant, and exciting STEM education experience. However, there have been minimal efforts at the state and local level toward adopting engineering as a distinct component of every child’s schooling. The Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning is a step toward changing that status quo and democratizing engineering learning across all grade levels, preschool through high school. The framework was developed with teachers, school administrators, and researchers working in concert with leaders of the Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (AE3) research collaborative and the American Society of Engineering Education. It provides practical guidance by identifying common P-12 engineering learning goals that all students should reach to become engineering literate. The document will add structure and coherence to the P-12 engineering community by serving as a foundation for the development of any and all engineering programs in schools, informing state and national standards-setting efforts, and providing researchers with a common starting point to better investigate and understand P-12 engineering learning. The framework is envisioned as both a practical guide and critical first step in a national movement to make engineering a part of every child’s educational experience. Whether you are a state education policy leader, district administrator, teacher, researcher, industry partner, or educational company, we invite you to join us in our mission.
... Engineering learning is considered to be three-dimensional; whereas, learning experiences should provide opportunities for all students to (1) develop their Engineering Habits of Mind, (2) build their competence in Engineering Practice, and (3) recognize, appreciate, and draw upon Engineering Knowledge to inform their practice (Strimel, Hu man, Grubbs, Kim, & Gurganus, 2020). Providing engineering learning opportunities can then include sca olded teaching that enables students to develop engineering habits of mind and then perform engineering practices with increased sophistication, along the path toward engineering and technological literacy (see Figure 2). ...
This article, focused on Engineering in Action, presents a socially relevant lesson designed to intentionally teach elementary students engineering concepts related to the practices of Engineering Design and Quantitative Analysis as well as provide opportunities for them to develop Engineering Habits of Mind. The lesson also situates learning within the contexts of computation and medical/health-related technologies as described in Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (2020) and addresses the standards focused on design (STEL-Core Disciplinary Standard 7) and technological innovation/impacts (STELCore Disciplinary Standard 4). The lesson example includes (a) class discussions to engage students in a socially relevant problem (children’s hydration and clean water access) and (b) a design activity to help students develop Engineering Habits of Mind (i.e., Systems Thinking, Creativity, and Persistence) as well as learn concepts related to Engineering Practices (i.e., Computational Thinking and Prototyping). At the end of this lesson, students are expected to (1) design health-related technology for their own water bottle, (2) explore methods of programming a timer using a Micro:bit (See Figure 1), and (3) create a working prototype (including both digital and physical elements) of their design. Additionally, students should be able to showcase as well as reflect on their engineering habits.
... Their framework aims to transform educational policy with a vision of including engineering and engineering technology as a compulsory school subject. The design of this comprehensive framework for P-12 engineering education starts with a taxonomy of engineering content as a dimension of engineering literacy (Strimel et al., 2020). This taxonomy, which emerged from a modified Delphi study with a focus group of expert panels, including K-12 teachers, university professors, and industry professionals, outlines engineering knowledge (such as statics and circuit theory), engineering practices (such as design and materials processing), and engineering habits of mind (such as optimism and creativity). ...
Full-text available
Background Understanding the nature of engineering is important for shaping engineering education, especially precollege education. While much research has established the pedagogical benefits of teaching engineering in kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12), the philosophical foundations of engineering remain under-examined. Purpose This conceptual paper introduces the honeycomb of engineering framework, which offers an epistemologically justified theoretical position and a pedagogical lens that can be used to examine ways engineering concepts and practices are taught in precollege education. Scope/Method The honeycomb of engineering was developed as a descriptive framework by examining existing literature over a wide range of related disciplines such as the philosophy of engineering and technology, as well as design thinking and practice. The pedagogical translation of the framework was then developed to examine published precollege engineering curricula. Results The framework categorizes the multiple goals of engineering using an ontological classification of engineering inquiries anchored in the central practice of negotiating risks and benefits (i.e., trade-offs). This framework also illustrates the adaptability of design methodology in guiding six inquiries: (1) user-centered design, (2) design-build-test, (3) engineering science, (4) optimization, (5) engineering analysis, and (6) reverse engineering. The published curricula represented these inquiries with varying degrees, with design-build-test lessons seeing the most representation followed by user-centered design. Conclusions The honeycomb of engineering framework delineates variations in engineering education based on an epistemological explanation. The pedagogical translations offer guidance to educators, researchers, and curriculum designers for differentiating curricular aims and learning outcomes resulting from participation in different engineering inquiries.
... Initially, this study's focus was on kindergartners' engagement in one epistemic practice: making trade-offs between constraints and criteria (hereafter, ''making trade-offs''). This epistemic practice has been advanced as an important practice within engineering education (American Board for Engineering and Technology, 2019; Crismond & Adams, 2012;Moore et al., 2014;Strimel et al., 2020). Making trade-offs is about compromising or prioritizing during the engineering design process among constraints and/or criteria. ...
... In a continued effort to develop and provide well-informed engineering literate citizens, the Advancing Excellence in P12 Engineering Education research collaborative, in partnership with American Society of Engineering Education and a range of national experts, set forth to create and develop a Framework for P12 Engineering Learning that would help inform and reform standards, curriculum and enhance engineering literacy [1,2]. Beyond the P-12 curricular experience are outreach efforts facilitated by many colleges and universities. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning was developed through a synergistic collaboration of teachers, school administrators, and researchers alongside the leaders of the Advancing Excellence in P-12 Engineering Education (AE3) research collaborative and the American Society of Engineering Education. The framework provides practical guidance by identifying common P-12 engineering learning goals that all students should reach to become engineering literate. The Framework aims to add structure and coherence to the P-12 engineering community by serving as a foundation for the development of any and all engineering programs in schools, informing state and national standards-setting efforts, and providing the research community with a common “starting point” to better investigate and understand P-12 engineering learning. Key among the implementation targets for the Framework is educational outreach programs at schools and colleges of engineering throughout the country. These outreach programs reach thousands of students in every state and territory in the United States. Many of these programs, such as University of Colorado's TeachEngineering initiative, provide services to P-12 schools including high quality teacher professional development and access to curricular resources. The following paper will describe how the Framework and documents such as the Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering can advance outreach efforts currently being carried out by engineering schools and colleges.
... Despite the fact that students across the country engage in formal P-12 engineering-related coursework [13], the foremost gap lies in the absence of widely accepted P-12 engineering expectations, which would have the ability to provide a mutual understanding of engineering's place and impact throughout the education of primary and secondary students, along with the ability to respond to the inequities of engineering experiences within schools [8] [9] [14]- [16]. For example, the NAE [8] report specifically states that ''one need is for a better understanding of what engineering content knowledge teachers need for different grade bands." ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The REPS project seeks to investigate how to best implement engineering learning as defined by the Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning. As put forth in the framework, “associated grade-band specific implementation guides will leverage the content of this report to describe and propose appropriate engineering learning across the grades for all children to engage in rigorous and authentic learning experiences to think, act, and learn like an engineer". The Framework set the conceptual organization for P-12 engineering learning and provided preliminary Engineering Literacy Expectations and Engineering Performance Matrices for high school learners. Leveraging this roadmap provided in the Framework, REPS completes the vision by adding the Preschool (P)-Grade 8 components. The REPS project engages the broader P-12 engineering education community in articulating expectations for engineering learning for early learning, elementary, and middle school students to serve as the connecting elements necessary for authentic engineering learning efforts across the grades. The REPS project brings to bear the combined expertise of educators, professional engineers, and researchers in the field of engineering education to refine and complete a consensus on the nature of engineering literacy development for all students from preschool through high school.
The 21st century has seen a growing movement in the United States towards the adoption of engineering and technology as a complement to science education. Motivated by this shift, this article offers insights into engineering education for grades P-12, based on a landscape review of 263 empirical research studies spanning the two decades from January 2000 to June 2021. These insights are organized around three core themes: (1) students’ understandings, skills, and attitudes about engineering and technology; (2) effective methods of P-12 engineering education; and (3) benefits of P-12 engineering education. The insights are captured in the form of evidence-based claims summarized as a set of ten findings. The findings start with the recognition that students at all age levels in the United States—though not in many other countries—have narrow conceptions of technology and engineering. A key finding is that for students to pursue science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, it is important to develop their interest at an early age. Several findings address effective strategies for engaging students in engineering, both in schools and in afterschool and summer programs. These include generalizable teaching methods suitable across a wide range of educators and students, as well as topical approaches around specific themes such as the design of robots, or biomedical devices. One of the most encouraging findings is that multiple methods have successfully addressed a major social inequity: improving the attitudes, STEM skills, and career aspirations of girls, students of color, and students from low-income families. The last group of findings addresses the benefits of engineering education including not only increased knowledge and skills, but also lifelong skills such as teamwork, communication, and creativity, as well as persistence, motivation, self-confidence, and STEM identity. We hope that these insights may be of value to researchers, educators, administrators, and policy leaders.
Full-text available
This study examined the design cognition and achievement results of both kindergarten and fourth grade students engaged in engineering design-based instructional activities. Relationships between design cognition and student grade level, as well as quality of student work, were investigated. 30 concurrent think-aloud protocols were collected from individual primary students as they worked in groups to design and make a solution to a design task. The concurrent think-aloud protocols were examined and coded to determine the duration of time the participants devoted to a pre-established set of mental processes for technological problem solving. Significant differences between kindergarten and fourth grade participants were found in the amount of time various cognitive processes were employed. Fourth grade students dedicated significantly more time to the mental processes of Creating, Defining Problems, Measuring, and Testing than kindergarten students. In addition, when examining the think-aloud protocols along with the evaluations of the participant’s design work, it was found that more time devoted to the cognitive process of Managing could be a significant predictor of lower design achievement. These findings can highlight potential areas for improving educational practice based on the cognitive abilities of students at different grade levels and the quality of their design work. As engineering design-based activities become more prevalent for the teaching of STEM-related content and practices, the results of this research, and the employed methodology, may demonstrate a promising practice for better understanding and assessing such education efforts.
Full-text available
This study investigated the design cognition and performance results of secondary and post-secondary engineering students while engaged in an engineering design task. Relationships between prototype performance and design cognition were highlighted to investigate potential links between cognitive processes and success on engineering design problems. Concurrent think-aloud protocols were collected from eight secondary and 12 post-secondary engineering students working individually to design, make, and evaluate a solution prototype to an engineering design task. The collected protocols were segmented and coded using a pre-established coding scheme. The results were then analyzed to compare the two participant groups and determine the relationships between students' design cognition, engineering experience level, and design performance. Significant differences between participants with secondary engineering experiences and those without were found in regards to the amount of time various cognitive processes were employed to complete a design task. For the given design scenario, students with secondary engineering experiences achieved significantly higher rubric scores than those without. Improved design performance was also found to be significantly correlated with more time employing the mental processes of analyzing, communicating, designing, interpreting data, predicting, and questioning/hypothesizing. Important links between educational experiences in engineering design, prior to college, and student success on engineering design problems may indicate necessary shifts in student preparation.
Full-text available
This article presents a culturally situated and socially relevant lesson for intentionally teaching secondary students the fundamental engineering concepts related to Problem Framing and Project Management. This lesson includes: (a) class discussions to engage students in a socially relevant problem (food waste and sustainability) within a culturally situated context (connection between food and culture) and (b) an experiential, team-based design activity to provide students with opportunities to learn and apply two fundamental core concepts of engineering design (Problem Framing and Project Management). At the end of this lesson, students are expected to be able to develop a problem statement by identifying explicit and implicit goals, determining the constraints involved in a given problem, and considering multiple perspectives regarding the design scenario to help eliminate any perceived assumptions that unnecessarily limit the problem-solving process. Additionally, students will be able to plan and manage a design project by applying a variety of project management strategies.
Full-text available
Interest in engineering at the P-12 level has increased in recent years, largely in response to STEM educational reform (Strimel, Grubbs, & Wells, 2016). One of the driving forces is to expose young people to the field of engineering, in an effort to cultivate a pipeline for a STEMcapable workforce (NAE & NRC, 2009). Another motivator, is to engage all students in more meaningful and authentic activities, to spark their curiosity, and develop their critical thinking skills (Grubbs & Strimel, 2015; Kaplan-Leiserson, 2015). Simply, engineering is viewed as beneficial to student learning and success in life, not just for workforce preparation. Consequently, engineering, as a process, is increasingly being utilized across all P-12 school subjects (e.g. Next Generation Science Standards, Standards for Technological Literacy, K-12 Computer Science Framework) and other outreach efforts (e.g. Maker Spaces and Maker Movements). Despite greater attention to the value, importance, and use of engineering for teaching and learning, the educational community has engaged minimally in the deliberate and coherent study of it (NAE & NRC, 2014). Specifically, few efforts have been conducted to examine the engineering content and skillsets that are developmentally appropriate for P-12 education (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2017; NRC, 2010). Yet, the recent report, Increasing the Roles and Significance of Teachers in Policymaking for K-12 Engineering Education: Proceedings of a Convocation (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, & Medicine, 2017), recommends, that there needs to be greater awareness of what engineering content knowledge teachers need to address different grade bands. Furthermore, experienced teachers, could work with content experts to “develop a framework or taxonomy for engineering education in different contexts” (p. 15). As there have been no updates to the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), despite adding the word engineering to the profession’s title in 2009, the school discipline of Technology and Engineering Education (TEE), can lead this charge. Action would align, with the notion that the STLs were recommended as not being “static and immutable”, rather, they “as is true for all good standards will undergo periodic reassessment and reevaluation. It is very much a living document." (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007, pg. vi). Thus, an update, including a more focused and in depth attempt to illustrate engineering and design as a content base and way of thinking, is necessary, and timely, given the recent release of the Next Generation Science Standards, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Technology and Engineering Literacy (TEL) assessment results, American Society of Engineering Education Professional Development Standards, and upcoming Advanced Placement Engineering course. Consequently, preliminary attempts have been conceived and proposed by the authors of this article to provide a curricular framework for the coherent study of engineering, in relation to the currently existing discipline. The frameworks proposed within, are meant to be working documents, reviewed by stakeholders within and external of our own professional community, with the purpose of more explicitly detailing the experiences of P-12 students, their development of engineering literacy, and the subsequent learning progressions associated with said development. Lastly, given the vague nature of the term engineering education, and historical misconception of Technology Education (e.g. Dugger & Naik, 2001), an interpretation of what P-12 engineering education is, and is not, will also be discussed.
Full-text available
The emphasis on and implementation of P-12 engineering education has continued to gain momentum in the United States (Grubbs & Strimel, 2016). Yet, the struggle to keep the technology and engineering education (TEE) school subject strongly positioned in elementary and secondary schools endures (Starkweather, 2015), which de Vries (2015) believes may be result of a lacking epistemic basis for the subject. For example, TEE worldwide can be viewed as deficient of agreed upon fundamental concepts, laws, and principles that could put it on a distinguishable level with science and mathematics education (De Vries, 2015). Unlike these other school subjects, TEE has had a history of evolving dynamic content. This content once involved woodworking and metalworking but now embraces topics such as computer-aided design, robotics, and control systems and fosters student abilities to tinker, design, create, critique, make, and invent (Starkweather, 2015). While increased focus on these more recent topics may be the main reason that a student chooses to become an engineer, engineering technologist, technician, computer scientist, and even a TEE teacher (See Figure 1), the subject continues to have a positioning problem (Starkwether, 2015). Strimel, Grubbs, and Wells (2016) offered an approach to harness the engineering momentum and realign TEE with post-secondary engineering-related studies. The purpose is to use engineering as the epistemic or knowledge base for the subject, thus establishing stable content and creating a better position for TEE within schools. As a result, more students could be exposed to coursework focused on engineering and technological literacy and consequently, improve their capabilities to design, invent, innovate, and address societal problems. It can be difficult, however, for students to understand what they will experience as they leave high school TEE programs and enter post-secondary studies. While all of the career fields listed in Figure 1 are important, this article focuses specifically on demystifying the transition from TEE to post-secondary engineering studies in an effort to outline some foundational content for the evolving TEE school subject and to provide a guide for teachers to use with students who may show interest in pursuing an engineering career.
Full-text available
As the presence of engineering content and practices increases in science education, the distinction between the two fields of science and technology education becomes even more vague than previously theorized. Furthermore, the addition of engineering to the title of the profession raises the question of the true aim of technology education. As a result, the technology and engineering education community must effectively communicate its role in an evolving STEM education landscape. During this time of change, it is important that we understand how the technology education profession has transitioned in the past while we figure out how to balance traditions and contemporary needs. The authors present three pathways that appear most salient in moving forward: (1) adhering to the fundamental goals of technology education, (2) collaborating with science education to potentially become a core discipline, or (3) revitalizing the field through a shift to engineering education. A final recommendation is made to energize the field by centering on becoming a true provider of K–12 engineering education.
Full-text available
The core subjects in P-12 education have a common key characteristic that makes them stable over time. That characteristic is a steady content. For example, in the sciences, the basics of biology remain the same—the cell is the basic building block around which organisms are defined, characterized, structured, etc. Similarly, the basics of physics and chemistry are relatively constant, with incremental increases in understanding adding to those basics when impacted by new discoveries over time. The same case can be made for mathematics, whose basic content has been unchanged for centuries and only expanded upon as old theories make way for new. In the same sense, the content of language arts has remained relatively constant over time. As a result, these subjects have maintained their relevancy in P-12 schooling as core knowledge all students should acquire.
Full-text available
nd biology) and engineering. There is a danger in directing such instruction at a narrow segment of the student population. That which serves the specialists does not necessarily fit the needs of the majority. In particular for biotechnology, a broad scientific and technological education is required that fits the overall goals of general education. 1 John G. Wells is an Assistant Professor in the Technology Education Program, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. -59- The increased attention currently being given to biotechnological advances has brought with it an increased understanding of the technical aspects inherent in the various biotechnical processes. In light of this, contemporary professionals in technology education are recognizing that biotechnology has a natural place within their general education curricula, and must be made part of the instructional program (Wittich, 1990). Recently strong support for this move was presented in A Conceptual Framework for Technology
Learning progressions have been demarcated by some for science education, or only concerned with levels of sophistication in student thinking as determined by logical analyses of the discipline. We take the stance that learning progressions can be leveraged in mathematics education as a form of curriculum research that advances a linked understanding of students learning over time through careful articulation of a curricular framework and progression, instructional sequence, assessments, and levels of sophistication in student learning. Under this broadened conceptualization, we advance a methodology for developing and validating learning progressions, and advance several design considerations that can guide research concerned with engendering forms of mathematics learning, and curricular and instructional support for that learning. We advance a two-phase methodology of (a) research and development, and (b) testing and revision. Each phase involves iterative cycles of design and experimentation with the aim of developing a validated learning progression. In particular, we gathered empirical data to revise our hypothesized curricular framework and progression and to measure change in students. thinking over time as a means to validate both the effectiveness of our instructional sequence and of the assessments designed to capture learning. We use the context of early algebra to exemplify our approach to learning progressions in mathematics education with a focus on the concept of mathematical equivalence across Grades 3-5. The domain of work on research on learning over time is evolving; our work contributes a broadened role for learning progressions work in mathematics education research and practice.
We report the results of a study focused on identifying and articulating an ‘‘epistemic foundation’’ underlying a pre-collegiate focus on engineering. We do so in the context of UTeachEngineering (UTE), a program supported in part by funding by the National Science Foundation and designed to develop a model approach to address the systematic challenges facing this work—from identifying learning goals, to certifying pre- and in-service teachers for engineering courses to developing a research-based high school engineering course. Given the systemic nature of the UTE approach, this model is positioned to serve as a starting point to further the conversation around two of the National Academy of Engineering Committee on Standards in K-12 Engineering Education (2010) central recommendations for future work in this area: (1) Identification of core ideas in engineering, and (2) creation of guidelines for instructional materials. Toward that end, project faculty and staff were interviewed and/or surveyed about their views on the goals and outcomes of engineering and engineering teacher education, as well as strategies design to reach these goals and the warrants for them. Data were analyzed following a grounded protocol. The results align well with previous efforts to identify ‘‘core engineering concepts, skills, and dispositions for K-12 education’’ (National Academy of Engineering Committee on Standards in K-12 Engineering Education, 2010, Annex to Chapter 3).
American education policy seems poised to escalate and shift its two decade long commitment to standards and outcome-based reform. That commitment has involved a set of “grand bargains”, in which the federal government provides Title I (The “No Child Left Behind Act” or NCLB) disadvantaged education funds in return for the states’ agreeing to set ambitious content standards, and define performance or “proficiency” standards associated with them that all students in the states’ schools will be expected to meet by the 2013/2014 school year. The disadvantaged children targeted by Title I are expected to meet the same standards as all of the rest of the children in each state. In return for agreeing to hold their schools accountable for meeting these expectations, the states are left free to set their standards and their related measures of proficiency as they wish, within some broadly defined parameters. And the local school systems and schools in each state, in return for their share of the Title I/NCLB money are left free, for the most part, to choose their preferred approaches to instruction as long as they agree to be held accountable for ensuring that all their students are making adequate progress towards meeting the state’s proficiency goals. So, the general form of each bargain is an agreement to reduce or forgo regulation of inputs in return for a commitment to define, and meet, outcome expectations. But, having agreed to do something they had never before tried to do—to succeed with essentially all students—schools and educators face the problem that they don’t know how to meet their side of the bargain. Proponents and observers of reform claim to be shocked that some states are setting their performance standards in ways that minimize or disguise the degree to which their students are likely to fail to meet the hopes of reform. In addition, schools and teachers are resorting to approaches, such as relentless test preparation and focusing on students who are just at the edge of meeting proficiency requirements, that try to meet the letter of the bargains’ requirements while leaving the more ambitious spirit of the reforms’ hopes well behind, along with all too many children.
Recent arguments in science education have proposed that school science should pay more attention to teaching the nature of science and its social practices. However, unlike the content of science, for which there is well-established consensus, there would appear to be much less unanimity within the academic community about which “ideas-about-science” are essential elements that should be included in the contemporary school science curriculum. Hence, this study sought to determine empirically the extent of any consensus using a three stage Delphi questionnaire with 23 participants drawn from the communities of leading and acknowledged international experts of science educators; scientists; historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science; experts engaged in work to improve the public understanding of science; and expert science teachers. The outcome of the research was a set of nine themes encapsulating key ideas about the nature of science for which there was consensus and which were considered to be an essential component of school science curriculum. Together with extensive comments provided by the participants, these data give some measure of the existing level of agreement in the community engaged in science education and science communication about the salient features of a vulgarized account of the nature of science. Although some of the themes are already a feature of existing school science curricula, many others are not. The findings of this research, therefore, challenge (a) whether the picture of science represented in the school science curriculum is sufficiently comprehensive, and (b) whether there balance in the curriculum between teaching about the content of science and the nature of science is appropriate. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 692–720, 2003
Science educators express wide consensus about the importance of a modern scientific literate society. But focussing on the public understanding of science in Germany, there seems to be no general consensus, neither about how to enhance scientific literacy in the educational practice nor about what the major topics and dimensions of a modern science education are. With the help of the "Curricular Delphi-Study in Chemistry" (CDSC) a working group, this study analyzed topics and dimensions as well as fields of dissent and consensus in the opinions of 114 experts from different stakeholder groups (students, teachers, educators, and scientists). Knowledge about this helps to improve science lessons and makes clear that projects, like PARSEL, are urgently needed to enhance the popularity and relevance of science education for scientific literacy. (Contains 5 tables and 2 pictures.)
The Framework for K-12 Science Education details ambitious goals for students' learning of science content and practices. However, this document provides science teachers little guidance about instructional practices that are central to helping students achieve these goals. Research indicates that a teacher's instructional practice can impact student interest and achievement more than advanced degrees or teaching experience and thus, identifying a core set of science teaching practices may be one key to improving science education. Based on a practice-based theory of teaching, this study used a panel of expert science teachers and university faculty to identify a set of core science teaching practices. The Delphi methodology used in this study engaged the expert panel in three anonymous and iterative rounds of voting and justification of science teaching practices. Nine of the fifty-one suggested practices met the pre-determined consensus criteria. Three major themes emerged from the results. First, a majority of practices, like “Engaging Students in Investigations” and “Facilitating Classroom Discourse,” promote an interactive and dialogic science classroom. Second, the discussion among panel members across the three rounds indicates the need to develop a more common language and understanding of science teaching practice. Third, the panel highlighted the important role that on-going assessment plays in science teaching with practices like “Eliciting, Using, and Assessing Student Thinking about Science” and “Providing Feedback.” This study lays the groundwork for the further decomposition of these core teaching practices and provides the foundation for further empirical research on how these practices are learned and executed by teachers, and their impact on student learning. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 9999: 1–33, 2014
Background Federal initiatives promoting STEM education to bridge the achievement gap and maintain the nation's creative leadership inspired this study investigating engineering content in elementary education standards. The literature review concluded that common national P-12 engineering education standards are beneficial, particularly when amplified by the common core standards movement. Purpose (Hypothesis)Compilation and analysis of engineering present in states' academic standards was performed to determine if a consensus on the big ideas of engineering already exists and to organize and present those big ideas so that they can be infused into state or national standards. Design/Method Extensive examination and broad coding of mathematics, science, technology and vocational/career standards in all 50 states identified instances of engineering content in existing standards. Explicit coding categorized engineering-relevant standards by subject area. Manual and electronic content analysis identified key engineering skills and knowledge in existing standards. Inter-rater reliability verified consistency among five individuals through descriptive statistical measures. ResultsEngineering skills and knowledge were found in 41 states' standards. Most items rated as engineering through strict coding were found in either science or technology and vocational standards. Engineering was found in only one state's math standard. Some states explicitly mentioned engineering standards without any specifics. A consensus of big ideas found in standards is provided in the discussion. Conclusions While engineering standards do exist, uniform or systematically introduced engineering standards are less prevalent. Now is the time to move forward in the formation of national standards based on the state standards identified in this study.
The ranking-type Delphi method is well suited as a means for consensus-building by using a series of questionnaires to collect data from a panel of geographically dispersed participants. This method allows a group of experts to systematically approach a particular task or problem. While information systems researchers have been using this method for almost three decades, no research to date has attempted to assess the extent to which Delphi studies have been rigorously conducted. Using the guidelines that have been prescribed by the leading Delphi methodologists, our descriptive review reveals many positive signs of rigor such as ensuring the anonymity of experts and providing clear and precise instructions to participants. Nevertheless, there are still several areas for improvement, such as reporting response and retention rates, instrument pretesting, and explicitly justifying modifications to the ranking-type Delphi method.
In this paper I will seek to identify and explain the primary rationale for having the field of technology education to direct its focus on engineering. The basis of this proposal stems from a combination of observations that I have had over a 25 year career as a teacher/teacher educator of industrial arts/technology education and a broad based review of the critical literature in the field. It is hoped that educators within technology education will appreciate the value of this rationale and begin to reorganize their curricula to focus on engineering. I consider the publication of the Jackson Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum Theory document (Snyder and Hales, 1981) as the starting point of the modern era of technology education. Of course there were other significant contributions that helped to set the stage for this document. William E. Warner's A Curriculum to Reflect Technology (1947), Delmar Olson's Technology and Industrial Arts: A Derivation of Subject Matter from Technology with Implications for Industrial Arts Programs (1957), Paul DeVore's Technology: An Intellectual Discipline (1964) and the development and implementation of the Industrial Arts Curriculum Project (IACP), the American Industry Project, and the Maryland Plan (1960's and 1970's) all created a progressive stimulus that paved the way for the field of technology education. However, it was the Jackson Mill's document that provided the needed systemic refocus of the curriculum formerly known as industrial arts. The 20+ contributors to Jackson Mill redefined industrial arts as "comprehensive educational programs concerned with technology, its evolution, utilization, and significance; with industry, its organization, personnel, systems, techniques, resources, and products; and their societal impact." (Snyder and Hales, 1981, pp. 1-2). Many other important events and milestones followed the Jackson Mill document; in March of 1985, the American Industrial Arts Association changed to the International Technology Education Association. During the summer of 1987 Michael Neden and Max Lunquist, middle school teachers in Pittsburg, Kansas, redesigned and reconfigured their teaching laboratory to reflect modular learning experiences in technology education. Their model classroom started a nation wide redesign in both physical characteristics of the technology education laboratory and the curricular format in the delivery of technology content. Ernest Savage and Leonard Sterry (1990) directed and edited the development of A Conceptual Framework for Technology Education which helped to clarify and extrapolate the applications of the technological methods identified in the Jackson Mill document.
Scholarship on learning progressions (LPs) in science has emerged over the past 5 years, with the first comprehensive descriptions of LPs, on the nature of matter and evolution, published as commissioned reports (Catley, Lehrer, & Reiser, 2005; Smith, Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, 2006). Several recent policy reports have advocated for the use of LPs as a means of aligning standards, curriculum, and assessment (National Research Council [NRC], 2005, 2007). In some ways, LPs are not a new idea; developmental psychologists have long been examining the development of childrens' ideas over time in several scientific domains. However, the emerging research offers renewed interest, a new perspective, and potentially new applications for this construct. For these reasons, this special issue of the Journal for Research in Science Teaching is timely. Our goal in this introduction is to explain the motivation for developing LPs, propose a consensual definition of LPs, describe the ways in which these constructs are being developed and validated, and finally, discuss some of the unresolved questions regarding this emerging scholarship. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 46: 606–609, 2009
This is a new epistemological approach to the inexact sciences. The purpose of all science is to explain and predict in an objective manner. While in the exact sciences explanation and prediction have the same logical structure, this is not so in the inexact sciences. This permits various methodological innovations in the inexact sciences, e.g., expert judgment and simulation.
The role of learning progressions in competency-based pathways
  • Achieve
Achieve. (2015). The role of learning progressions in competency-based pathways. https://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve-LearningProgressionsinCBP.pdf
K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. Workshop on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education
  • R W Bybee
Bybee, R. W. (2009). K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. Workshop on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Left to chance: U.S. middle schoolers lack in-depth experience with technology and engineering
  • J Chandler
  • A D Fontenot
  • D Tate
Chandler, J., Fontenot, A. D., & Tate, D. (2011)of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(1), 40-48. Change the Equation. (2016). Left to chance: U.S. middle schoolers lack in-depth experience with technology and engineering. Vital Signs. https://www. ecs.org/wp-content/uploads/TEL-Report_0.pdf
Engineering and technology education
  • R L Custer
  • T L Erekson
Custer, R. L., & Erekson, T. L. (2008). Engineering and technology education. Woodland Hills, CA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.
Criteria for accrediting engineering programs
Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2016). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.
Standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering
  • C Farmer
  • S Klein-Gardner
  • L Nadelson
Farmer, C., Klein-Gardner, S., & Nadelson, L. (2014). Standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. American Society for Engineering Education. https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/papers/outreach/Standards_for_Preparation_and_ Professional_Development.pdf
What is engineering's place in STEM certification ? ASEE responds
  • N Fortenberry
Fortenberry, N. (2018, January 25). What is engineering's place in STEM certification ? ASEE responds [Blog post]. http://blog.nsta.org/2018/01/25/whatis-engineerings-place-in-stem-certification-asee-responds/
Aspects of the nature of engineering for K-12 science education: A Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation
  • B D Hartman
Hartman, B. D. (2016). Aspects of the nature of engineering for K-12 science education: A Delphi study [Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University].
Teaching the nature of engineering for K-12 science education: A Delphi study (Fundamental)
  • B Hartman
  • R L Bell
Hartman, B., & Bell, R. L. (2017). Teaching the nature of engineering for K-12 science education: A Delphi study (Fundamental). 2017 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
This is disciplinary literacy: Reading, writing, thinking, and doing…Content area by content area
  • R C Lent
Lent, R. C. (2015). This is disciplinary literacy: Reading, writing, thinking, and doing…Content area by content area. Singapore: Corwin Press, Inc. Magana, A. (2017). Modeling and simulation in engineering education: A learning progression. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143, 1-19.
2015 talent shortage survey
  • Manpowergroup
Manpowergroup. (2015). 2015 talent shortage survey. https://www.manpowergroup.com/wps/wcm/connect/db23c560-08b6-485f-9bf6-f5f38a43c76a/ 2015_Talent_Shortage_Survey_US-lo_res.pdf?MOD5AJPERES
Formative assessment and standards-based grading
  • R J Marzano
Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.
Journal of National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
  • C Merrill
  • R L Custer
  • J Daugherty
  • M Westrick
  • Y Zeng
Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). (2017). The fundamentals of engineering (FE) exam. https://ncees.org/ engineering/fe/ NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
What is technological literacy and why does it matter?
  • R Noonan
Noonan, R. (2017). STEM jobs: 2017 update (ESA issue brief # 02-17). https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/reports/stem-jobs-2017-update.pdf Ollis, D., & Pearson, G. (2006). What is technological literacy and why does it matter? Paper No. 2006-695 presented at the Proceedings of the 2006
Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Reed
  • J Popham
Popham, J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Reed, P. A. (2018). Reflections on STEM, standards, and disciplinary focus. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 77(7), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.21061/ jte.v21i2.a.4
The middle school curriculum: Engineering anyone? Technology and Engineering Teacher
  • K Samuels
  • R Seymour
Samuels, K., & Seymour, R. (2015). The middle school curriculum: Engineering anyone? Technology and Engineering Teacher, 74(6), 8-12.
Towards a vision for engineering education in science and mathematics standards. In Standards for K-12 engineering education
  • C Sneider
  • L Rosen
Sneider, C., & Rosen, L. (2009). Towards a vision for engineering education in science and mathematics standards. In Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.