Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)
Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 5
2015
An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and Professional An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and Professional
Development for Teachers of Engineering Development for Teachers of Engineering
Jackson E. Reimers Vanderbilt University, [email protected]
Cheryl L. Farmer University of Texas, [email protected]
Stacy S. Klein-Gardner Vanderbilt University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer
Part of the Other Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Reimers, J. E., Farmer, C. L., & Klein-Gardner, S. S. (2015). An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information.
This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and Professional Development An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering for Teachers of Engineering
Abstract Abstract The past 30 years have yielded a mature body of research regarding effective professional development for teachers of science and mathematics, leading to a robust selection of professional development programs for these teachers. The current emphasis on connections among science, technology, engineering, and mathematics underscores the need for similar research into the nature of effective professional development for teachers of engineering. With this in mind, this paper completes a review of the literature concerning effective professional development for teachers of engineering, both as a unique discipline and as a context for teaching and learning in other subjects. The results of this review serve as the foundation for five research-based design standards for professional development initiatives in the field of engineering education, which have been published on the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) website along with a matrix that will enable providers and consumers of engineering professional development to determine the extent to which a given program focuses on each of those standards.
Keywords Keywords professional development, literature review, standards
Document Type Document Type Research Article
This research article is available in Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER): https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer/vol5/iss1/5
Available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer
Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 5:1 (2015) 40–60
An Introduction to the Standards for Preparation and ProfessionalDevelopment for Teachers of Engineering
Jackson E. Reimers,1 Cheryl L. Farmer,2 and Stacy S. Klein-Gardner1
1Vanderbilt University2University of Texas
Abstract
The past 30 years have yielded a mature body of research regarding effective professional development for teachers of science andmathematics, leading to a robust selection of professional development programs for these teachers. The current emphasis on connectionsamong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics underscores the need for similar research into the nature of effectiveprofessional development for teachers of engineering. With this in mind, this paper completes a review of the literature concerningeffective professional development for teachers of engineering, both as a unique discipline and as a context for teaching and learning inother subjects. The results of this review serve as the foundation for five research-based design standards for professional developmentinitiatives in the field of engineering education, which have been published on the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)website along with a matrix that will enable providers and consumers of engineering professional development to determine the extent towhich a given program focuses on each of those standards.
Keywords: professional development, literature review, standards
Introduction
A discussion of the nature of effective professional development for teachers is predicated on the belief that effectiveteaching is not an innate ability, but a skill that can be acquired. The idea of the natural-born teacher has been displaced byresearch that points to the positive correlation between effective professional development and improved teacher practice,which has in turn been linked to improved student performance (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, &Orphanos, 2009). In an educational system that prioritizes continuous improvement of student performance across subjectsand grade levels, the ability to identify and implement such professional development programs has the potential to supportschools in achieving important strategic objectives. Fortunately, an extensive and growing body of research into effectiveprofessional development programs, accompanied by initiatives to identify the essential elements of such programs, offersinsight to guide those who are tasked with creating or selecting professional development programs for teachers across corecontent areas.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the American Society for Engineering Education. Correspondence concerning this article should be sentto Jackson E. Reimers at [email protected].
1http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
While the nature and impact of professional developmentfor teachers of science and mathematics has been studied togreat effect over the past 30 years, the current emphasis onconnections among science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) requires new efforts to understandand explain the nature of professional development forteachers of engineering, both as a unique discipline and as acontext for teaching and learning in other subjects. Such anunderstanding is exigent in light of engineering’s inclusionin the Next Generation Science Standards, which willrequire all elementary teachers and all secondary scienceteachers to engage students in authentic, engineering-centered learning.
In response to this urgent need for guidance, both forproviders and for consumers of professional developmentfor K-12 teachers of engineering, Farmer, Nadelson, andKlein-Gardner have identified standards for preparationand professional development for teachers of engineeringthat are aligned with current research in professionaldevelopment and teaching and learning, including sig-nificant work by Custer and Daugherty. Additionally,Farmer and Klein-Gardner have developed a matrix toillustrate how a given professional development programmight address each element of each standard with high,moderate, or low emphasis. These standards and thesupporting matrix, which may be found following thispaper, are not intended to be used in the evaluation ofprofessional development, but rather as a framework to aidin designing, improving, and selecting professional devel-opment experiences that will appropriately and effectivelyequip in-service teachers to improve their practice asteachers of engineering. This paper provides the rationalefor the standards and their supporting elements.
Standard A: Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering should Address the Fundamental Nature,Content, and Practices of Engineering to PromoteEngineering Content Knowledge
An extensive body of research supports the need forprofessional development to focus on the development ofsubject matter content knowledge. In particular, Desimone(2009) states that ‘‘the content focus of teacher learningmay be the most influential issue’’ (p. 184) in designingeffective professional development, while Little (1993)emphasizes the importance of teaching specific, transfer-able skills. In support of this, Guskey (2003) reports thatone of the most frequently cited aspects of effectiveprofessional development in the literature is the enhance-ment of teachers’ content knowledge. Furthermore, evi-dence indicates a positive correlation between contentfocus in professional development and increased teacherknowledge, improved pedagogy, and moderate increases instudent achievement (Blank, de las Alas, & Smith, 2007;Cohen, 1990; Garet, Porter, & Desimone, 2001).
While enhancing participants’ content knowledge is acritically important component of all professional develop-ment, strong evidence indicates that it may be especiallyimportant in the field of engineering education. Very fewclassroom teachers were taught engineering in their own K-12 student experiences or pre-service teacher preparationprograms, making the need to enhance engineering contentknowledge particularly important even when comparedwith mathematics or science. Research indicates a need forK-12 teachers to ‘‘become comfortable and proficient withthe engineering process’’ (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, &Rogers, 2008, p. 381), especially through participation inan engineering design process (Hsu, Purzer, & Cardella,2011). Custer and Daugherty (2009) note that effectiveprofessional development programs for teachers of engi-neering are geared toward engaging participants in activeexperimentation and problem solving, encouraging them tobecome more familiar with the methodology of engineeringand the processes of engineering design. The authorsobserve that many effective programs engage teachers inauthentic and exploratory design challenges to teach themto use the tools of engineering comfortably and tosignificant effect; at the same time, their article stressesthat effective programs should comprise more than simpleopportunities for learning how to implement the latest pre-packaged instructional aid. Research shows that practicingstrategies for success in engineering (e.g., design essentialssuch as collaboration and teamwork, asking questions,cooperative communication about ideas and design speci-fics, careful documentation) is highly effective in developingteachers’ content knowledge (Custer & Daugherty, 2009;Donna, 2012; English, Hudson, & Dawes, 2013; Moore etal., 2014). Additionally, studies show benefits for includingcorresponding opportunities for teachers to think about howthese tools and strategies would affect their students’ learn-ing, reflecting as both learners and engineering educators onmultiple design experiences both within and beyond theprofessional development program (Custer & Daugherty,2009; Donna, 2012).
Standard B: Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering should Emphasize EngineeringPedagogical Content Knowledge
In addition to enhancing participants’ content knowl-edge, effective professional development must focus on thedevelopment of engineering pedagogical content knowl-edge. Adult learning theory indicates that adults in theirthirties and forties become more reflective and context-oriented (Sheehy, 1976), making it imperative that pro-fessional development programs engage participants inboth metacognitive and concrete thought as they seek toimprove both conceptions of teaching and learning andactual teaching practice. With this in mind, Rogers, Abell,
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 41
2http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
and Lannin (2007) stress the importance of engagingteachers in complex thought instead of simply presentingthem with information in order to challenge pedagogicalknowledge and confront teachers with a transformativecognitive dissonance. An exemplary development programshould engage its participants beyond the point of simplysitting and listening; discussion, reflection, and criticalthinking are necessary if real learning is to take place. Insupport of this, several studies note the benefits ofencouraging teachers to reflect on the whole of theirdevelopment experience and how it can be translated intothe classroom (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher,2007; Rogers et al., 2007; Thompson & Zeuli, 1999).Johnson and Saylor (2014) advocate staunchly for the sameemphasis on reflection in programs designed specificallyfor STEM teachers.
A review of the literature reveals several trends with regardto deepening pedagogical content knowledge in the field ofengineering education. First, professional development mustprovide opportunities for participants to experience andexplore the ways in which the engineering design process canbe used to teach both engineering-specific concepts andconcepts common to multiple STEM disciplines (Narode,2011). In particular, Donna (2012) reports that ‘‘professionaldevelopment experiences that allow interdisciplinary teamsof teachers to engage in engineering design activities can helppromote connections within and across STEM domains’’(p. 7). Additional research points to both reasons andopportunities to address classroom management strategiesfor handling the unique challenges that accompany anengineering design curriculum. For instance, theSTAR.Legacy Cycle (Schwartz, Brophy, Lin, & Bransford,1999) has been proposed as a means of incorporating modernlearning theory into a classroom-ready, ‘‘pedagogicallysound’’ inquiry cycle and has been used as an effectiveframework for teaching engineering-design-based lessons(Corday, Harris, & Klein, 2009). Alongside this, Klein andHarris (2007) provide a ‘‘user’s guide’’ to implementing theLegacy Cycle successfully, complete with discussions of thechallenges and corresponding suggested management strate-gies accompanying each step in the cycle.
Also important to consider is the contextualization ofprofessional development in the larger school culture. Sincewhat occurs in the classroom is subject to the demands ofmultiple factors (e.g., state standards, school-wide reforms,the needs of various student populations), effectiveprofessional development must be embedded in andinformed by the cultures of school, district, and localcommunity (Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman,2002; Garet et al., 2001; Stiles, Loucks-Horsley, Mundry,& Hewson, 2009). Evidence also strongly emphasizesthe importance of giving engineering educators multiplechances to reflect upon their own teaching practice and howit might be informed by their professional developmentexperience. In fact, numerous studies have found that
professional development activities that encourage teachersto consider thoughtfully how their knowledge might affecttheir teaching have an especially high chance of influencingteacher performance and student achievement (Cohen &Hill, 2001; Desimone et al., 2002; Knapp, 2003; McGill-Franzen, Allington, & Yokoi, 1999; Supovitz, Mayer, &Kahle, 2000; Weiss & Pasley, 2006).
Beyond offering practitioners the opportunity to reflectindividually on their teaching, effective professional devel-opment also supports the evolution of teachers’ engineeringpedagogical skills by building community between partici-pants and other teachers (Stiles et al., 2009) as well asbetween participants and scientists (Cantrell, Pekan, Itani, &Velasquez-Bryant, 2006; Custer & Daugherty, 2009;Klein, 2009; Nugent, Kunz, Rilett, & Jones, 2010). Theserelationships have been reported to deepen teachers’ under-standing of scientific inquiry and to improve their delivery ofinquiry-based lessons (Caton, Brewer, & Brown, 2000;Klein-Gardner, Johnston, & Benson, 2012; Odom, 2001), aswell as to provide a support structure for teachers who mayfind themselves at schools where no other teachers adhere tothe same practices (Dresner & Worley, 2006). Some authorshave noted that collaboration and collegiality can just aseasily be harmful in some respects and have advocatedfor solitary autonomy in equal measure (Clement &Vandenberghe, 2000; Guskey, 2003); however, this is notso much an indictment as it is a reinforcement, since trulyeffective professional development should also fosterautonomous individual experience and reflection bothduring and after the program.
Standard C: Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering should Make Clear How EngineeringDesign and Problem Solving Offer A Context forTeaching Standards of Learning in Science,Mathematics, Language Arts, Reading, and OtherSubjects
In light of modern learning theory, which holds thatlearners are not ‘blank slates’ and that knowledge isconstructed in reference to pre-existing ideas, beliefs, andconceptions, many education professionals advocate forintegrated multidisciplinary instruction, especially in theSTEM disciplines. With this in mind, addressing and harness-ing the potential of engineering design to serve as a versatileand powerful platform from which to teach standards oflearning in multiple subjects is a highly relevant endeavor.
Many studies have found engineering design challenges tobe supportive of learning in science, resulting in improve-ment in student academic achievement (Fortus, Dershimer,Krajcik, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2004; Klein &Sherwood, 2005; Kolodner et al., 2003). For instance,Fortus and colleagues (2004, 2005) report enhanced studentunderstanding of science concepts after participation in anengineering design-based science curriculum, as well as
42 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
3http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
increased ability to transfer this understanding to differentcontexts. Furthermore, Klein and Sherwood (2005) reportstatistically higher gains in science learning by students whohave participated in an engineering-oriented, challenge-based science curriculum. Findings such as these reify theimportance of equipping teachers to use engineering design-based curricula to enhance student academic achievementand to strengthen students’ ability to manipulate and transfertheir own understandings.
Several articles cite the need for interdisciplinary curriculathat integrate engineering with not only science, but also withmathematics, the humanities, and the arts (Carson & Chiu,2011; English et al., 2013; Katehi & Ross, 2007). Indeed,collaboration between engineering students and students ofother disciplines has been shown to enhance the abilities ofboth groups to solve engineering design challenges. Forexample, Costantino, Kellam, Cramond, and Crowder (2010)found that a majority of engineering students paired with artstudents considered collaboration beneficial to the project andto their own learning experience. In light of this, effectiveprofessional development for teachers of engineering shouldprepare participants to craft design challenges that encourageinterdisciplinary collaboration.
Some literature places emphasis on the need for engineer-ing education to be more than just a transfer of knowledge;21st century skills such as creativity, communication, criticalthinking, and collaboration are frequently cited as necessary toany modern engineering curriculum (Berland, 2013; Conwell,Catalano, & Beard, 1993; Petroski, 1992; Rugarcia, Felder,Woods, & Stice, 2000). With this in mind, it is imperative thatprofessional development draw teachers’ attention to the waysin which engineering design might reinforce these modernskills and practices in their students.
Standard D: Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering should Empower Teachers to IdentifyAppropriate Curriculum, Instructional Materials, andAssessment Methods
Effective teachers must be able to identify and evalu-ate appropriate curriculum, instructional materials, andassessment methods if they intend to incorporate ever-changing educational tools successfully into their practice.The need for this skill is ubiquitous in K-12 teaching, andapplies to engineering as much as it does to other subjects.As such, its development should be an essential elementof effective professional development for all teachers.In support of this, Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, and Fung(2008) claim that ‘‘to establish a firm foundation forimproved student outcomes, teachers must integrate theirknowledge about the curriculum, and about how to teachit effectively and how to assess whether students havelearned it’’ (p. 11). Furthermore, research points to theneed for teachers to teach in ways that are cognitivelyand developmentally appropriate for their students, and for
instruction to be situated within a conceptual framework forstudents’ learning patterns and processes (Wilson & Berne,1999). Teacher participation in professional developmentprograms that emphasize this knowledge has yieldedincreased teacher focus on problem solving and improvedstudent performance (Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson,Chiang, & Loef, 1989; Fennema, Franke, Carpenter, &Carey, 1993). Additionally, many authors regard it asessential that professional development help teachers toselect and design curricula that will adequately addressvarious sets of learning standards; in fact, evidenceindicates a positive correlation between the reportedeffectiveness of in-service professional development pro-grams and their alignment with academic standards (Elmore& Burney, 1997; Fullan, 1993; Garet et al., 2001; Penuelet al., 2007; Rosenholtz, 1989).
While much of what is known about curriculum andassessment as a whole can be applied to the case ofengineering in particular, the nature of engineeringpractices as distinct from scientific practices will requirethat teachers be able to distill and assess student thinkingfrom outcomes of the engineering design process. Inparticular, Brophy et al. (2008) point out that teachersunfamiliar with engineering ‘‘must learn a level ofengineering analysis to determine the quality of a student’ssolution’’ (p. 381), suggesting that it would be beneficialfor engineering professional development to engageteachers in practicing the interpretation of unique, design-based student solutions in order to equip them for fullutilization of the assessments embedded in an engineeringdesign-based curriculum. Furthermore, Hjalmarson andDiefes-Dux (2008) and Diefes-Dux, Zawojewski, Hjalmarson,and Cardella (2012) propose frameworks for classifying andanalyzing the tools K-12 teachers create for assessing studentlearning based on open-ended products in engineeringdesign-based curricula. Teachers who are unfamiliar withthis form of assessment should gain from practice usingthese frameworks for the design and use of evaluativeassessment tools.
Standard E: Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering should be Aligned to Current EducationalResearch and Student Learning Standards
Current educational research presents a strong consensussurrounding teaching and learning, especially in adults,which may be applied to the design of professionaldevelopment programs. In particular, Bransford, Brown,and Cocking’s book How People Learn (2000) indicatesfour interdependent factors that characterize effectivelearning communities. The authors describe effectiveinstruction as being knowledge-centered in that it isgrounded in domain knowledge of the subject, learner-centered in that it is informed by the learners’ context and
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 43
4http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
current state of knowledge, assessment-centered in that it isshaped by continual and thoughtful assessment of studentlearning, and community-centered in that it facilitatesthe formation of a community committed to pursuing aparticular body of knowledge. These factors provide auseful framework for thinking about professional develop-ment in general and certainly apply to programs forteachers of engineering. Such a framework has significantimplications for both the design and the implementation ofprofessional development programs.
Before professional development efforts are undertaken,their design should be informed by a How People Learn-inspired framework through collaboration with educationalresearchers and learning experts. Multiple studies cite thecrucial role that collaboration plays in the planning andorganization of an effective development program (Burden &Wallace, 1983; Borko, 2004; Desimone, Garet, Birman,Porter, & Yoon, 2003; Johnson, 2006; Little, 1993;Rosenholtz, 1989). This evidence points to the efficacy ofincluding stakeholders, content experts and pedagogy expertsin the planning and design of the professional development,and supports the conclusion that effective professionaldevelopment is informed by a variety of relevant voices.
With regard to the design of professional development,the research suggests that several considerations should betaken into account. First, Darling-Hammond et al. (2009)write that it is ‘‘often useful for teachers to be put in theposition of studying the very material that they intend toteach to their own students’’ (p. 44). Evidence indicates thatthis is important in STEM, and in engineering in particular(Caton et al., 2000; Jeanpierre, Oberhauser, & Freeman,2005; Kennedy, 1999; Klein-Gardner et al., 2012; Odom,2001). To this end, Donna (2012) suggests engagingparticipants in a cooperative engineering design activity‘‘designed for adult learners…to provide an experience thatcan add to their content and pedagogical knowledge relatedto engineering design’’ (p. 2).
A knowledge-centered approach to teaching good engi-neering pedagogy should, naturally, exhibit good engineer-ing pedagogy. The learner-centered aspect of effectiveinstruction would require that the professional development‘‘allow for differing kinds of background training and forvariations in [participants’] readiness to learn’’ (Bransfordet al., 2000, p. 204). Special care ought to be taken so as notto discomfort some teachers, who may be used to feeling likeexperts in control of their classrooms, by confronting themwith the demanding reality that all teachers have much tolearn, especially in light of the newness of engineering instate standards and the unfamiliarity of many teachers withits practice. On the other side of this, though, there is anadvantage in the fact that ‘‘engineering design-basedinstruction can level the playing field for students withlearning differences if teachers are prepared for thechallenge’’ (Schnittka, 2012, p. 35). With this in mind,engineering professional development ought to—and has
great potential to—offer differentiated instruction to accountfor its variegated participants (Custer & Daughterty, 2009).
In line with the assessment-centered nature of soundinstruction, professional development should also beinformed largely by formative assessments that wouldprovide learners with opportunities to revise and improveupon their own understandings and provide facilitators withinsight into otherwise invisible misconceptions and falsebeliefs. Such formative assessment, however, dependslargely upon participants’ willingness to take risks, makemistakes, and learn from failures. As is the case with allsubjects, learning in engineering is built upon the ability—and willingness—to make and learn from mistakes. In lightof this, and in adherence to the community-centered aspectof good instruction, effective engineering professionaldevelopment should endeavor to create a culture of curi-osity and vulnerability among its participants and shouldoffer many opportunities for risk-taking.
Additional research characterizes effective professionaldevelopment as prolonged and ongoing, allowing forcontinuous follow-up with and feedback from participants.This includes not only span of time (e.g., two days), butalso time spent in the activity. Often, attempts at staffdevelopment in schools are conducted as single-servingworkshops or one-shot teacher enrichment seminars; theresearch strongly indicts such half-hearted measures infavor of more longitudinal approaches (Stein, Smith, &Silver, 1999). In fact, in-service activities are most oftenviewed as effective by teachers when they are sustainedover time (Cohen & Hill, 2001; Garet et al., 2001; Fullan,1993). Effective professional development should provideample time for practice, discussion, and reflection, andshould ideally be spread out over a long period of time inorder to accommodate trial and error in the classroom aswell as feedback and follow-up from the participants(Guskey, 1986; 1994; Penuel et al., 2007; Supovitz &Turner, 2000). The impact of lengthening and intensifyinga professional development program is not insubstantial:Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss and Shapley (2007) foundthat a set of programs, each taking place over a course ofsix to twelve months and offering at least thirty contacthours, showed ‘‘a positive and significant effect on studentachievement’’ (p. 3). Some authors also encourage theestablishment of a continual process of evaluation andrevision in the planning process, based upon multipleavenues of feedback such as participant assessments andinterviews and corresponding student achievement scores(Custer & Daugherty, 2009; Guskey, 2003).
Conclusion
The five standards presented above are drawn fromcurrent research in the areas of K-12, postsecondary, andadult and teacher education, and from research intoeffective teaching practices in the areas of science,
44 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
5http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
mathematics, and engineering. This research indicates thateffective professional development for teachers of engi-neering is conscious of, and promotes deepening of, bothsubject content knowledge and pedagogical content knowl-edge; that it instills in its participants an understanding ofengineering as a natural context for the reinforcement ofstandards of learning in other, non-engineering subjects;that it empowers teachers to identify appropriate curricu-lum, instructional tools, and assessment methods; and thatit models effective teaching methodology as described bycurrent education research. These standards and theirsupporting matrix are intended to inform the design offuture professional development efforts and, while notevaluative, may be used informally as a tool for describingand providing formative assessment of the content andcharacteristics of current professional development pro-grams. It is the authors’ hope that these standards will serveto inform the efforts of those who design and deliverprofessional development in support of teachers seeking tointegrate engineering into K-12 classrooms across thenation. Future work may include analyses of the applicationand use of the standards and matrix to specific professionaldevelopment offerings.
References
Berland, L. K. (2013). Designing for STEM integration. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(1), 3.
Blank, R. K., de las Alas, N., & Smith, C. (2007). Analysis of the qualityof professional development programs for mathematics and scienceteachers: Findings from a cross-state study. Washington, DC: Councilof Chief State School Officers. Retrieved February, 29, 2008.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning:Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How peoplelearn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brophy, S. B., Klein, S. S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, S. (2008).Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal ofEngineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
Burden, P. R., & Wallace, D. (1983). Tailoring staff development to meetteachers’ needs. Proceedings of Association of Teacher Educators Mid-America Mini-Clinic. Wichita, KS.
Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006).The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middleschool science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4),301–309.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C., & Loef, M.(1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking inclassroom teaching: An experimental study. American EducationalResearch Journal, 26, 499–532.
Carson, E., & Chiu, J. (2011). ‘E’ is for innovation—how does solvingauthentic engineering problems impact students’ comprehension skillsand application skills in mathematics and science? In, Koehler, M., &Mishra. P. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA.
Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientistpartnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Scienceand Mathematics, 100(1), 7–15.
Clement, M., & Vandenberghe, R. (2000). Teachers’ professionaldevelopment: A solitary or collegial (ad)venture? Teaching andTeacher Education, 16(1), 81–101.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs.Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state educationreform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Conwell, J. C., Catalano, G. D., & Beard, J. E. (1993), A case study increative problem solving in engineering design. Journal of EngineeringEducation, 82, 227–231.
Corday, D. S., Harris, T. R., & Klein, S. S. (2009). A research synthesisof the effectiveness, replicability, and generality of the VaNTHChallenge-based instructional modules in bioengineering. Journal ofEngineering Education, 98(4), 335–348.
Costantino, T., Kellam, N., Cramond, B., & Crowder, I. (2010). Aninterdisciplinary design studio: How can art and engineeringcollaborate to increase students’ creativity? Art Education, 63(2),49–53.
Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Professional development forteachers of engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge,39(3), 18–24.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., &Orphanos, S. (2009). State of the profession: Study measures status ofprofessional development. Journal of Staff Development, 30(2), 42–44.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’professional development: Toward better conceptualizations andmeasures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F.(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction:Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.
Desimone, L. M., Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., & Yoon, K. S.(2003). Improving teachers’ in-service professional development inmathematics and science: The role of postsecondary institutions.Educational Policy, 17(5), 613–649.
Diefes-Dux, H. A., Zawojewski, J. S., Hjalmarson, M. A., & Cardella,M. E. (2012). A framework for analyzing feedback in a formativeassessment system for mathematical modeling problems. Journal ofEngineering Education, 101(2), 375–406.
Donna, J. D. (2012). A model for professional development to promoteengineering design as an integrative pedagogy within STEM education.Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(2), 2.
Dresner, M., & Worley, E. (2006). Teacher research experiences,partnerships with scientists, and teacher networks sustaining factorsfrom professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17(1), 1–14.
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staffdevelopment and instructional improvement in Community SchoolDistrict #2, New York City. National Commission on Teaching &America’s Future, Box 117, Teachers College, Columbia University,New York, NY10027.
English, L. D., Hudson, P., & Dawes, L. (2013). Engineering-basedproblem solving in the middle school: Design and construction withsimple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering EducationResearch, 3(2), 5.
Fennema, E., Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Carey, D. (1993). Usingchildren’s mathematical knowledge in instruction. American EducationalResearch Journal, 30, 555–583.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science (DBS) and real-worldproblem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7),855–879.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents.Educational Leadership, 50, 12–12.
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 45
6http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Desimone, L. M. (2001). What makesprofessional development effective? Results from a national sample ofteachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacherchange. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–12.
Guskey, T. R. (1994). Results-oriented professional development: Insearch of an optimal mix of effective practices. Journal of StaffDevelopment, 15, 42–50.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748–750.
Hjalmarson, M. A., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2008). Teacher as designer:A framework for teacher analysis of mathematical model-elicitingactivities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,2(1), 5.
Hsu, M.-C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal ofPre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 5.
Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C. (2005). Characteristics ofprofessional development that effect change in secondary scienceteachers’ classroom practices. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 42(6), 668–690.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change inpractice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications forreform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150–161.
Johnson, C. C., & Saylor, L. L. (2014). The role of reflection in elementarymathematics and science teachers’ training and development: A meta-synthesis. School Science and Mathematics, 114(1), 30–39.
Katehi, L., & Ross, M. (2007). Technology and culture: Exploringthe creative instinct through cultural interpretations. Journal ofEngineering Education, 96(2), 89–90.
Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Form and substance in mathematics and scienceprofessional development. NISE Brief, 3(2), n2.
Klein, S. S. (2009). Effective STEM professional development: Abiomedical engineering RET site project. International Journal ofEngineering Education, 25(3), 523–533.
Klein, S. S., & Harris, A. H. (2007). A user’s guide for the Legacy Cycle.Journal of Education and Human Development, 1(1), 1–16.
Klein, S. S., & Sherwood, R. D. Biomedical engineering and your highschool science classroom: Challenge-based curriculum that meets theNSES standards. In Yager, R. E., ed., Exemplary Science in Grades 9–12.Standards-based Success Stories. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press, 2005.
Klein-Gardner, S. S., Johnston, M. E., & Benson, L. (2012). Impact ofRET teacher-developed curriculum units on classroom experiences forteachers and students. Journal of Pre-College Engineering EducationResearch, 2(2), 21–35.
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as policy pathway. Reviewof Research in Education, 27(1), 109–157.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook,J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-basedreasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learningby design (tm) into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4),495–547.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate ofeducational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,15(2), 129–151.
McGill-Franzen, A., Allington, R. L., &Yokoi, L. (1999). Putting books inthe classroom seems necessary but not sufficient. Journal ofEducational Research, 93(2), 67–74.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A.,& Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineeringeducation: Research and development. Journal of Pre-CollegeEngineering Education Research, 4(1), 2.
Narode, R. B. (2011). ‘‘Math in a can’’: Teaching mathematics andengineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering EducationResearch, 1(2), 3.
Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extendingengineering education to K-12. Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14–19.
Odom, A. L. (2001). Inquiry-based field studies involving teacher-scientistcollaboration. Science Educator, 10(1), 29–37.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007).What makes professional development effective? Strategies that fostercurriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal,44(4), 921–958.
Petroski, H. (1992) To engineer is human: The role of failure in successfuldesign. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Rogers, M. P., Abell, S., & Lannin, J. (2007). Effective professionaldevelopment in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ andfacilitators’ views. International Journal of Science & MathematicsEducation, 5(3), 507–532.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher qualityand commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs.Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 420–439.
Rugarcia, A., Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., & Stice, J. E. (2000). Thefuture of engineering education I. A vision for a new century. ChemicalEngineering Education, 34(1), 16–25.
Schnittka, C. G. (2012). Engineering education in the science classroom: Acase study of one teacher’s disparate approach with ability-trackedclassrooms. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,2(1), 5.
Schwartz, D. L., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Software formanaging complex learning: Examples from an educational psychologycourse. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2),39–59.
Sheehy, G. (1976). Passages: Predictable crises of adult life. New York,NY: Dutton.
Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development ofprofessional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings innew ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237–269.
Stiles, K. E., Loucks-Horsley, S., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (Eds.).(2009). Designing professional development for teachers of scienceand mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professionaldevelopment on science teaching practices and classroom culture.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963–980.
Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professionaldevelopment in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy,14(3), 331–356.
Thompson, C. L., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry:Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession:Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2008). Teacherprofessional learning and development. International Academy ofEducation Working Paper, International Academy of Education,London. Educational Practices Series 18.
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2006). Scaling up instructional improvementthrough teacher professional development: Insights from the LocalSystemic Change Initiative. CPRE Policy Briefs. RB-44. Consortiumfor Policy Research in Education.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition ofprofessional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporaryprofessional development. Review of Research in Education, 24(1),173–209.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L.(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional develop-ment affects student achievement. National Center for EducationalEvaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,U.S. Department of Education.
46 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
7http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Appendix A: Standards for Preparation andProfessional Development for Teachers of Engineering
This document is intended to provide a comprehensivedescription of the professional preparation and develop-ment required to fully prepare teachers of engineering1. Apreservice teacher preparation program should address allaspects of all standards over a student’s four-year course ofstudy. By contrast, a one-day professional developmentopportunity for in-service teachers should focus deliber-ately on a subset of the standards (while aligning withcomplementary opportunities so that teachers receive, overtime, professional development that addresses all aspects ofall standards).
Nature, Content, and Practices of Engineering
Engineering is based on extensive bodies of knowledge.It is a unique disciplinary field, yet shares some featureswith science, technology, and mathematics. Engineeringliteracy requires understanding the fundamental nature,content, and practices of engineering, which may beorganized into three categories.
Literacy in the category of engineering design (ED)requires an understanding that engineering:
1. Is inherently innovative and creative;2. Requires critical thinking and problem solving;3. Is collaborative and team-oriented;4. Involves solving problems via an engineering design
process (e.g., involving design under constraints,iterative design, optimization, improvement);
5. Requires the combination of engineering subjectmatter knowledge with engineering practices;
6. Involves systems thinking (e.g., considering solutionsas they are a part of larger systems);
7. Uses failure as a learning experience (e.g., whendesigned solutions fail, engineers learn from thisfailure and improve based on this new knowledge);
8. Addresses problems that have multiple possiblesolutions; and
9. Involves multiple means of communicating outcomes(e.g., technical reports, graphs, data, models, recom-mendations).
Literacy in the category of engineering careers (EC)requires an understanding that:
10. Engineering includes multiple areas of specialization(e.g., mechanical, electrical, petroleum, civil, biome-dical, aerospace, environmental, industrial); and
11. Engineering career pathways are accessible via avariety of educational routes.
Literacy in the category of engineering and society (ES)requires an understanding that engineering:
12. Has a long and rich history;13. Is relevant to current events;14. Generates technological solutions that add value to
society, yet may also have negative (and largelyunintended) consequences for society; and
15. Is influenced by cultures and societies.
Standards for Professional Development for Teachers ofEngineering
The following standards are intended to ensure thatteachers develop engineering literacy (as defined above)sufficient to teach engineering to their students at theappropriate level.
Standard A: Engineering Content and Practices
Professional development for teachers of engineeringshould address the fundamental nature, content, andpractices of engineering as defined above. To promoteliteracy in the category of engineering design, it should:
1. Engage teams of participants in authentic engineeringpractices and processes (i.e., participating in theengineering design process as initiated by a designchallenge statement, through at least one improve-ment cycle, and involving communication of results);
2. Introduce participants to tools that enable success inengineering; such tools include engineering note-books, simple tools (e.g., rulers) and more sophisti-cated technologies (e.g., computer probeware andsoftware, digital multimeters);
3. Introduce participants to strategies that enablesuccess in engineering; key strategies include enga-ging in teams, asking questions, communicationabout design, and carefully documenting work;
4. Encourage participants to reflect on multiple experi-ences with the engineering design process, whetherthese have occurred within or outside the context ofthe current professional development opportunity, toreinforce learning about engineering content andpractices; and
5. Enable participants to compare design in engineeringto design in other fields (e.g., fashion, architecture,art).
To promote literacy in the category of engineeringcareers, such professional development should:
6. Provide opportunities for participants to learn aboutengineering fields and professions;
1 Teachers of engineering are all teachers who (1) are required to teachengineering learning standards (note that under the Next GenerationScience Standards this includes all elementary school teachers andsecondary teachers of science) or (2) employ engineering as a contextfor learning in other subjects.
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 47
8http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
7. Engage participants in comparing engineering withnon-engineering content areas (e.g., mathematics,science, social studies, English language arts, the arts,technology education);
8. Engage participants in comparing classroom-basedengineering experiences with professional engineer-ing practice; and
9. Provide opportunities for educators to learn about thepre-collegiate and collegiate academic preparationrequired for engineering careers.
To promote literacy in the category of engineering andsociety, such professional development should:
10. Provide opportunities for participants to explore thework of engineers and their contributions to society,as well as ways in which some engineered solutionshave caused societal challenges.
Standard B: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for TeachingEngineering
Professional development for teachers of engineeringshould emphasize engineering pedagogical content knowl-edge. It should:
1. Engage participants in exploring teaching and learning inengineering and how it is similar to, and different from,teaching and learning in science and/or mathematics;
2. Introduce participants to effective classroom man-agement strategies for enabling learning in engi-neering;
3. Foster participants’ ability to develop design chal-lenges that are appropriate for their student popula-tion, teaching environments, and/or local community;
4. Facilitate participants’ reflection upon their ownteaching practice and encourage participants to seekfeedback from others to refine and optimize theirengineering teaching practice; and
5. Promote and support participants’ engagement withengineering mentors who can, in turn, support par-ticipants’ teaching of engineering through a variety ofapproaches (e.g., field experiences, field trips, intern-ships, collaborations, classroom visits).
Standard C: Engineering as a Context for Teaching andLearning
Professional development for teachers of engineeringshould make clear how engineering design and problemsolving offer a context for teaching standards of learning inscience, mathematics, language arts, reading, and othersubjects. It should:
1. Enable participants to explore research that demon-strates how using engineering design and problem
solving as a context for learning improves students’critical thinking skills and academic achievement;
2. Engage participants in engineering design challengesthat require horizontal integration with non-engineer-ing content (e.g., mathematics, science, socialstudies, English language arts, the arts, technologyeducation);
3. Draw attention to the way in which engineeringdesign and problem solving reinforce skills (e.g., 21stcentury skills such as creativity, communication,critical thinking, and collaboration) and practices(e.g., modeling, data analysis, and presentation) thatare relevant to many fields; and
4. Encourage participants to integrate engineering intothe existing curriculum.
Standard D: Curriculum and Assessment
Professional development for teachers of engineeringshould empower teachers to identify appropriate curri-cula, instructional materials, and assessment methods.It should:
1. Enable participants to identify engineering curricu-lum that is developmentally, instructionally, andcognitively appropriate for their students;
2. Engage participants in evaluating the potential ofengineering curriculum to address one or more setsof student learning standards (e.g., ITEEA learningstandards, Next Generation Science Standards, statestandards);
3. Engage participants in evaluating the potential ofengineering curriculum to support a particular set ofengineering learning objectives;
4. Engage participants in evaluating the adaptability ofengineering curriculum to local conditions (e.g.,scheduling/timing, emphasis on content/methods,cultural context, similarity to other activities in anexisting curriculum);
5. Engage participants in evaluating the available teachersupport for a particular engineering curriculum;
6. Engage participants in examining the authenticity andappropriateness of formative and summative assess-ments embedded in a curriculum; and
7. Demonstrate connections and alignment betweenengineering curriculum, instruction, learning, andassessment.
Standard E: Alignment to Research, Standards, andEducational Practices
Professional development for teachers of engineeringshould be aligned to current educational research andstudent learning standards. It should:
48 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
9http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
1. Be developed and refined in collaboration with expertsin the fields of engineering, engineering pedagogy,and teacher professional development;
2. Be developed and refined in collaboration with stake-holders (e.g., state education agency personnel, schooladministrators, teachers);
3. Enable participants to experience the curriculum thatthey will teach;
4. Model effective engineering teaching practices;5. Employ differentiated instruction techniques;6. Be guided by formative assessment;7. Encourage risk-taking by participants;8. Be longitudinal; and9. Evolve through a process of continuous improvement
that employs ongoing evaluation, assessment, andrevision.
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 49
10http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Stan
dard
A:
Eng
inee
ring
Con
tent
and
Pra
ctic
es:
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tfo
rte
ache
rsof
engi
neer
ing
shou
ldad
dres
sth
efu
ndam
enta
lna
ture
,con
tent
and
prac
tices
ofen
gine
erin
gas
defi
ned
inSt
anda
rds
for
Pre
para
tion
and
Pro
fess
iona
lD
evel
opm
ent
for
Tea
cher
sof
Eng
inee
ring
.
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MP
HA
SIS
LO
WE
MPH
AS
ISN
OE
MPH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FE
RE
NC
E
To
prom
ote
liter
acy
inth
eca
tego
ryof
engi
neer
ing
desi
gn,s
uch
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
shou
ld:
Eng
age
team
sof
part
icip
ants
inau
then
ticen
gine
erin
gpr
actic
esan
dpr
oces
ses
(i.e
.,pa
rtic
ipat
ing
inth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
asin
itiat
edby
ade
sign
chal
leng
est
atem
ent,
thro
ugh
atle
ast
one
impr
ovem
ent
cycl
e,an
din
volv
ing
com
mun
icat
ion
ofre
sults
);
Par
ticip
ants
have
the
oppo
rtun
ityto
com
plet
em
ultip
lede
sign
chal
leng
esas
initi
ated
byde
sign
chal
leng
est
atem
ents
.
Par
ticip
ants
have
one
oppo
rtun
ityto
com
plet
ea
desi
gnpr
oces
sas
initi
ated
bya
desi
gnch
alle
nge
stat
emen
t.
Part
icip
ants
have
the
oppo
rtun
ityto
perf
orm
mul
tiple
step
sof
ade
sign
proc
ess
asin
itiat
edby
ade
sign
chal
leng
est
atem
ent;
the
rem
aini
ngst
eps
are
cons
ider
edbu
tno
tpe
rfor
med
byth
epa
rtic
ipan
ts.
Part
icip
ants
dono
tha
veth
eop
port
unity
tope
rfor
mm
ultip
lest
eps
ofa
desi
gnpr
oces
sas
initi
ated
bya
desi
gnch
alle
nge
stat
emen
t.
A1-
1
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
afa
cilit
ated
proc
ess
tode
velo
pa
clea
ran
dco
ncis
epr
oble
mst
atem
ent
for
agi
ven
desi
gnch
alle
nge.
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
desi
gnch
alle
nges
that
are
guid
edby
expl
icit,
clea
ran
dco
ncis
epr
oble
mst
atem
ents
.
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
desi
gnch
alle
nges
that
are
guid
edby
impl
icit
prob
lem
stat
emen
ts,
but
noex
plic
it,cl
ear
and
conc
ise
prob
lem
stat
emen
tsar
epr
ovid
ed.
Des
ign
chal
leng
esar
eno
tgu
ided
bycl
ear
impl
icit
orex
plic
itpr
oble
mst
atem
ents
.
A1-
2
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
one
orm
ore
desi
gnch
alle
nges
that
refl
ect
auth
entic
loca
lor
glob
alen
gine
erin
gne
eds,
and
anal
yze
the
usef
ulne
ssof
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sto
addr
ess
such
chal
leng
es.
Parti
cipa
nts
cons
ider
the
usef
ulne
ssof
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sin
addr
essi
ngau
then
ticlo
calo
rgl
obal
engi
neer
ing
chal
leng
es.
Part
icip
ants
are
pres
ente
dw
ithin
form
atio
nab
out
the
usef
ulne
ssof
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sin
addr
essi
ngau
then
ticlo
cal
orgl
obal
engi
neer
ing
chal
leng
es.
No
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
eus
eful
ness
ofth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
inad
dres
sing
auth
entic
loca
lor
glob
alen
gine
erin
gch
alle
nges
.
A1-
3
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
,and
refl
ect
onth
eim
port
ance
of,i
tera
tion
inen
gine
erin
gde
sign
.Par
ticip
ants
prot
otyp
ea
solu
tion,
test
the
solu
tion,
anal
yze
the
resu
lts,g
ener
ate
rede
sign
idea
s,an
dcr
eate
ane
wpr
otot
ype.
Part
icip
ants
may
com
plet
efu
rthe
rcy
cles
ofim
prov
emen
t,or
sim
ply
cons
ider
the
role
ofsu
chcy
cles
inen
gine
erin
g.
Par
ticip
ants
prot
otyp
ea
solu
tion
and
cons
ider
the
proc
ess
that
they
wou
ldun
dert
ake
toite
rate
the
solu
tion,
but
dono
tco
mpl
ete
the
itera
tive
cycl
e.
Part
icip
ants
are
info
rmed
ofth
ero
leof
itera
tion
inen
gine
erin
gde
sign
.Pro
toty
ping
,tes
ting
and
rede
sign
are
desc
ribe
dfo
rpa
rtic
ipan
ts.
No
expl
icit
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
ero
leof
itera
tion
inen
gine
erin
gde
sign
.
A1-
4
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
docu
men
ting,
refl
ectin
gon
,and
disc
ussi
ngth
eke
yst
eps
ofth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
each
time
the
proc
ess
isun
dert
aken
.
Parti
cipa
nts
enga
gein
docu
men
ting,
refle
ctin
g,an
ddi
scus
sing
the
key
step
sof
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sat
leas
tonc
e.
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
one
ofth
efo
llow
ing
atle
ast
once
:do
cum
entin
g,re
flec
ting,
ordi
scus
sing
the
key
step
sof
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
ten
gage
inan
expl
icit
disc
ussi
onof
orre
flec
tion
onth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess.
A1-
5
Part
icip
ants
docu
men
tan
dco
mm
unic
ate
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnso
lutio
nsto
peer
sor
faci
litat
ors
ofth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tan
did
entif
yho
wth
eyw
ould
mod
ify
this
com
mun
icat
ion
for
pres
enta
tion
toa
clie
nt.
Par
ticip
ants
docu
men
tan
dco
mm
unic
ate
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnso
lutio
nsto
peer
sor
faci
litat
ors
ofth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t.
Part
icip
ants
docu
men
ten
gine
erin
gde
sign
solu
tions
but
dono
tco
mm
unic
ate
solu
tions
tope
ers
orfa
cilit
ator
sof
the
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tdo
cum
ent
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnso
lutio
ns.
A1-
6
App
endi
xB
:P
rofe
ssio
nal
Dev
elop
men
tM
atri
x
50 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
11http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MPH
AS
ISL
OW
EM
PHA
SIS
NO
EM
PH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Intr
oduc
epa
rtic
ipan
tsto
tool
sth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
g;su
chto
ols
incl
ude
engi
neer
ing
note
book
s,si
mpl
eto
ols
(e.g
.,ru
lers
)an
dm
ore
soph
istic
ated
tech
nolo
gies
(e.g
.,co
mpu
ter
prob
ewar
ean
dso
ftw
are,
digi
tal
mul
timet
ers)
;
Par
ticip
ants
use
tool
sth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
gan
dre
flec
ton
why
thes
eto
ols
are
impo
rtan
tto
engi
neer
s.
Par
ticip
ants
use
tool
sth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
gan
dar
eto
ldw
hyth
ese
tool
sar
eim
port
ant
toen
gine
ers.
Par
ticip
ants
use
tool
sth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
gan
dar
eto
ldth
atth
ese
tool
sar
eim
port
ant
toen
gine
ers.
Whi
leth
eym
ayus
eso
me
tool
s,pa
rtic
ipan
tsar
eno
ten
gage
din
eval
uatin
gw
heth
eran
dw
hysu
chto
ols
mig
hten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
g.
A2-
1
Intr
oduc
epa
rtic
ipan
tsto
stra
tegi
esth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
g;ke
yst
rate
gies
incl
ude
enga
ging
inte
ams,
aski
ngqu
estio
ns,c
omm
unic
atio
nab
outd
esig
n,an
dca
refu
llydo
cum
entin
gw
ork;
Par
ticip
ants
use
appr
opri
ate
stra
tegi
esto
supp
ort
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
san
dre
flec
ton
why
thes
est
rate
gies
are
impo
rtan
tto
engi
neer
s.
Par
ticip
ants
use
stra
tegi
esth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
gan
dar
eto
ldw
hyth
ese
stra
tegi
esar
eim
port
ant
toen
gine
ers.
Par
ticip
ants
use
stra
tegi
esth
aten
able
succ
ess
inen
gine
erin
gan
dar
eto
ldth
atth
ese
stra
tegi
esar
eim
port
ant
toen
gine
ers.
Whi
leth
eym
ayus
eso
me
stra
tegi
es,
part
icip
ants
are
not
enga
ged
inev
alua
ting
whe
ther
and
why
such
stra
tegi
esm
ight
enab
lesu
cces
sin
engi
neer
ing.
A3-
1
Enc
oura
gepa
rtic
ipan
tsto
refl
ect
onm
ultip
leex
peri
ence
sw
ithth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess,
whe
ther
thes
eha
veoc
curr
edw
ithin
orou
tsid
eth
eco
ntex
tof
the
curr
ent
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
oppo
rtun
ity,t
ore
info
rce
lear
ning
abou
ten
gine
erin
gco
nten
tan
dpr
actic
es;
and
Part
icip
ants
artic
ulat
em
ultip
leex
peri
ence
sw
ithth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess,
whe
ther
thes
eha
veoc
curr
edw
ithin
orou
tsid
eth
eco
ntex
tof
the
curr
ent
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
oppo
rtun
ity,
and
anal
yze
how
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sen
able
dan
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
the
Nat
ure,
Con
tent
and
Pra
ctic
esof
Eng
inee
ring
.
Part
icip
ants
artic
ulat
ea
sing
leex
peri
ence
with
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
s,w
heth
erth
isha
soc
curr
edw
ithin
orou
tsid
eth
eco
ntex
tof
the
curr
ent
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
oppo
rtun
ity,a
ndan
alyz
eho
wth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
enab
led
anun
ders
tand
ing
ofth
eN
atur
e,C
onte
ntan
dPr
actic
esof
Eng
inee
ring
.
Par
ticip
ants
are
give
nan
exam
ple
ofho
wa
part
icul
arex
peri
ence
with
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sm
ight
enab
lean
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
the
Nat
ure,
Con
tent
and
Pra
ctic
esof
Eng
inee
ring
.
No
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toho
wth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
mig
hten
able
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
the
Nat
ure,
Con
tent
and
Pra
ctic
esof
Eng
inee
ring
.
A4-
1
Ena
ble
part
icip
ants
toco
mpa
rede
sign
inen
gine
erin
gto
desi
gnin
othe
rfi
elds
(e.g
.,fa
shio
n,ar
chite
ctur
e,ar
t).
Par
ticip
ants
are
give
nop
port
uniti
esto
refl
ect
onth
eir
prio
rkn
owle
dge
ofth
em
eani
ngs
ofth
ew
ord
‘‘des
ign’
’;to
atte
ndex
plic
itly
toth
edi
ffer
ent
mea
ning
sof
the
wor
d‘‘d
esig
n’’
asus
edin
ever
yday
lang
uage
and
bydi
ffer
ent
fiel
ds;
and
toco
mpa
reth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
toot
her
conc
eptio
nsof
‘‘des
ign’
’.
Par
ticip
ants
refl
ect
onho
wth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
isan
exam
ple
ofa
broa
der
conc
eptio
nof
desi
gn,
with
out
com
pari
ngen
gine
erin
gde
sign
toot
her
way
sth
at‘‘d
esig
n’’
may
beco
ncei
ved.
Par
ticip
ants
are
pres
ente
dw
ithin
form
atio
nab
out
how
the
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnpr
oces
sis
anex
ampl
eof
abr
oade
rco
ncep
tion
ofde
sign
,w
ithou
tco
mpa
ring
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnto
othe
rw
ays
that
‘‘des
ign’
’m
aybe
conc
eive
d.
No
expl
icit
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
een
gine
erin
gde
sign
proc
ess
asan
exam
ple
ofa
broa
der
conc
eptio
nof
desi
gn.
A5-
1
Sta
ndar
dA
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 51
12http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MP
HA
SIS
LO
WE
MP
HA
SIS
NO
EM
PHA
SIS
RO
WR
EF
ER
EN
CE
To
prom
ote
liter
acy
inth
eca
tego
ryof
engi
neer
ing
care
ers,
such
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
shou
ld:
Pro
vide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
part
icip
ants
tole
arn
abou
ten
gine
erin
gfi
elds
and
prof
essi
ons;
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
refl
ect
onm
ultip
leen
gine
erin
gfi
elds
and
prof
essi
ons.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tm
ultip
leen
gine
erin
gfi
elds
and
prof
essi
ons.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
ton
een
gine
erin
gfi
eld
and
prof
essi
on.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
noin
form
atio
nab
out
engi
neer
ing
fiel
dsan
dpr
ofes
sion
s.R
athe
r,en
gine
erin
gis
desc
ribe
da
sing
lege
nera
lpr
ofes
sion
alfi
eld.
A6-
1
Par
ticip
ants
iden
tify
the
type
sof
engi
neer
sw
how
ould
wor
kon
ate
amad
dres
sing
apa
rtic
ular
desi
gnch
alle
nge
ina
prof
essi
onal
setti
ng.
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
the
repr
esen
ted
fiel
ds(i
.e.,
prof
essi
ons,
proj
ects
rese
arch
area
s)on
whi
chsu
chen
gine
ers
curr
ently
wor
k.
Part
icip
ants
iden
tify
the
type
sof
engi
neer
sw
how
ould
wor
kon
ate
amad
dres
sing
apa
rtic
ular
desi
gnch
alle
nge
ina
prof
essi
onal
setti
ng.
Par
ticip
ants
are
info
rmed
ofth
ety
pes
ofen
gine
ers
who
wou
ldw
ork
ona
team
addr
essi
nga
part
icul
arde
sign
chal
leng
ein
apr
ofes
sion
alse
tting
.
No
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
ety
pes
ofen
gine
ers
who
wou
ldw
ork
ona
team
addr
essi
nga
part
icul
arde
sign
chal
leng
ein
apr
ofes
sion
alse
tting
.
A6-
2
Par
ticip
ants
iden
tify
the
role
san
dre
spon
sibi
litie
sof
diff
eren
ten
gine
ers
who
wou
ldw
ork
ona
team
addr
essi
nga
part
icul
arde
sign
chal
leng
ein
apr
ofes
sion
alse
tting
.F
orat
leas
ton
ero
le/r
espo
nsib
ility
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsre
sear
chot
her
engi
neer
ing
prof
essi
ons
inw
hich
such
role
sar
eav
aila
ble.
Part
icip
ants
iden
tify
the
role
san
dre
spon
sibi
litie
sof
diff
eren
ten
gine
ers
who
wou
ldw
ork
ona
team
addr
essi
nga
part
icul
arde
sign
chal
leng
ein
apr
ofes
sion
alse
tting
.
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
ero
les
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
ofdi
ffer
ent
engi
neer
sw
how
ould
wor
kon
ate
amad
dres
sing
apa
rtic
ular
desi
gnch
alle
nge
ina
prof
essi
onal
setti
ng.
No
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
ero
les
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
ofdi
ffer
ent
engi
neer
sw
how
ould
wor
kon
ate
amad
dres
sing
apa
rtic
ular
desi
gnch
alle
nge
ina
prof
essi
onal
setti
ng.
A6-
3
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inco
mpa
ring
engi
neer
ing
with
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent
area
s(e
.g.,
mat
hem
atic
s,sc
ienc
e,so
cial
stud
ies,
Eng
lish
lang
uage
arts
,th
ear
ts,
tech
nolo
gyed
ucat
ion)
;For
apa
rtic
ular
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nge
orac
tivity
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsan
alyz
eco
nnec
tions
betw
een
the
engi
neer
ing
and
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent.
Thi
san
alys
ishi
ghlig
hts
both
the
uniq
uena
ture
ofen
gine
erin
gan
dho
wth
een
gine
erin
gco
nten
tov
erla
psw
ith,
utili
zes,
orsu
ppor
tsth
eno
n-en
gine
erin
gco
nten
t.
For
apa
rtic
ular
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nge
orac
tivity
,par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
eco
nnec
tions
betw
een
the
engi
neer
ing
and
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent.
Thi
sin
form
atio
nhi
ghlig
hts
both
the
uniq
uena
ture
ofen
gine
erin
gan
dho
wth
een
gine
erin
gco
nten
tov
erla
psw
ith,u
tiliz
es,o
rsu
ppor
tsth
eno
n-en
gine
erin
gco
nten
t.
Part
icip
ants
refl
ect
onan
d/or
rece
ive
gene
ral
info
rmat
ion
abou
tco
nnec
tions
betw
een
engi
neer
ing
and
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent.
No
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
eco
nnec
tions
betw
een
engi
neer
ing
and
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent.
A7-
1
Sta
ndar
dA
52 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
13http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MPH
AS
ISL
OW
EM
PHA
SIS
NO
EM
PH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FE
RE
NC
E
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inco
mpa
ring
clas
sroo
m-b
ased
engi
neer
ing
expe
rien
ces
with
prof
essi
onal
engi
neer
ing
prac
tice;
and
Inre
fere
nce
toa
part
icul
aren
gine
erin
gde
sign
chal
leng
eor
activ
ity,
part
icip
ants
anal
yze
how
the
activ
ityha
sbe
ensi
mpl
ifie
dfo
rcl
assr
oom
use
and
com
pare
this
sim
plif
icat
ion
with
the
com
plex
ityof
sim
ilar
activ
ities
that
mig
htbe
unde
rtak
enby
prof
essi
onal
engi
neer
s.T
his
nece
ssita
tes
inte
ract
ion
with
prac
ticin
gen
gine
ers
ifth
epa
rtic
ipan
tsdo
not
have
engi
neer
ing
expe
rien
ceof
thei
row
n.
Inre
fere
nce
toa
part
icul
aren
gine
erin
gde
sign
chal
leng
eor
activ
ity,
part
icip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tho
wth
eac
tivity
has
been
sim
plif
ied
for
clas
sroo
mus
e.T
his
info
rmat
ion
incl
udes
com
pari
son
ofth
issi
mpl
ific
atio
nw
ithth
eco
mpl
exity
ofsi
mila
rac
tiviti
esth
atm
ight
beun
dert
aken
bypr
ofes
sion
alen
gine
ers.
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
age
nera
ldi
scus
sion
and/
orre
ceiv
ege
nera
lin
form
atio
nab
out
the
sim
plif
ied
natu
reof
engi
neer
ing
activ
ities
asad
apte
dfo
rcl
assr
oom
use.
No
expl
icit
atte
ntio
nis
paid
toth
ew
ays
inw
hich
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
orac
tiviti
esde
sign
edfo
rcl
assr
oom
use
repr
esen
tsi
mpl
ifie
dve
rsio
nsof
sim
ilar
activ
ities
that
mig
htbe
unde
rtak
enby
prof
essi
onal
engi
neer
s.
A8-
1
Prov
ide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
educ
ator
sto
lear
nab
out
the
pre-
colle
giat
ean
dco
llegi
ate
acad
emic
prep
arat
ion
requ
ired
for
engi
neer
ing
care
ers.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
path
way
sfo
rm
ultip
leca
reer
s/jo
bsin
engi
neer
ing,
incl
udin
ghi
ghsc
hool
inte
rnsh
ips,
tech
nica
lce
rtif
icat
ions
,tw
o-ye
arde
gree
s,an
dfo
ur-y
ear
degr
ees.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
the
pre-
colle
giat
ean
dco
llegi
ate
acad
emic
prep
arat
ion
requ
ired
for
limite
dpa
thw
ays
toen
gine
erin
gca
reer
s(e
.g.,
only
form
altw
o-or
four
-yea
ren
gine
erin
gpr
ogra
ms)
.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
the
pre-
colle
giat
ean
dco
llegi
ate
acad
emic
prep
arat
ion
requ
ired
for
only
one
path
way
toen
gine
erin
gca
reer
s(e
.g.,
afo
ur-y
ear
engi
neer
ing
prog
ram
).
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
epr
e-co
llegi
ate
and
colle
giat
eac
adem
icpr
epar
atio
nre
quir
edfo
ren
gine
erin
gca
reer
s.
A9-
1
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
refl
ect
onen
gine
erin
gca
reer
path
way
san
dth
eco
nnec
tions
betw
een
thes
epa
thw
ays.
The
impo
rtan
ceof
mul
tiple
path
way
sis
cons
ider
edin
the
cont
exto
fth
ela
bor
mar
ket
and
stud
ent
enga
gem
ent.
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
refl
ect
onen
gine
erin
gca
reer
path
way
s.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
ten
gine
erin
gca
reer
path
way
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
eren
gine
erin
gca
reer
path
way
s.A
9-2
To
prom
ote
liter
acy
inth
eca
tego
ryof
engi
neer
ing
and
soci
ety,
such
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
shou
ld:
Prov
ide
oppo
rtun
ities
for
part
icip
ants
toex
plor
eth
ew
ork
ofen
gine
ers
and
thei
rco
ntri
butio
nsto
soci
ety,
asw
ell
asw
ays
inw
hich
som
een
gine
ered
solu
tions
have
caus
edso
ciet
alch
alle
nges
.
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
refl
ect
onho
wen
gine
ers
have
cont
ribu
ted
toso
ciet
y.
Par
ticip
ants
refl
ect
onho
wen
gine
ers
have
cont
ribu
ted
toso
ciet
y.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tho
wen
gine
ers
have
cont
ribu
ted
toso
ciet
y.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erho
wen
gine
ers
have
cont
ribu
ted
toso
ciet
y.
A10
-1
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
refl
ect
onho
wen
gine
ered
solu
tions
have
been
,or
mig
htbe
,pr
oble
mat
ic.
Thi
sre
flec
tion
coul
din
clud
ean
exam
inat
ion
ofth
ena
ture
ofth
epr
oble
m,
how
the
engi
neer
sbe
hind
the
solu
tion
mig
htha
vean
ticip
ated
and
avoi
ded
the
prob
lem
,an
dho
wen
gine
ers
wor
king
toda
ym
ight
miti
gate
the
prob
lem
.
Part
icip
ants
refl
ect
onho
wen
gine
ered
solu
tions
have
been
,or
mig
htbe
,pro
blem
atic
.Thi
sre
flec
tion
coul
din
clud
ean
exam
inat
ion
ofth
ena
ture
ofth
epr
oble
m,h
owth
een
gine
ers
behi
ndth
eso
lutio
nm
ight
have
antic
ipat
edan
dav
oide
dth
epr
oble
m,a
ndho
wen
gine
ers
wor
king
toda
ym
ight
miti
gate
the
prob
lem
.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
exam
ples
ofen
gine
ered
solu
tions
that
have
been
,or
mig
htbe
,pr
oble
mat
ic.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erho
wen
gine
ered
solu
tions
have
been
,or
mig
htbe
,pr
oble
mat
ic.
A10
-2
Sta
ndar
dA
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 53
14http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Stan
dard
B:
Ped
agog
ical
Con
tent
Kno
wle
dge
for
Tea
chin
gE
ngin
eeri
ng:
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tfo
rte
ache
rsof
engi
neer
ing
shou
ldem
phas
ize
engi
neer
ing
peda
gogi
cal
cont
ent
know
ledg
e.It
shou
ld:
HIG
HE
MP
HA
SIS
MO
DE
RA
TE
EM
PHA
SIS
LO
WE
MP
HA
SIS
NO
EM
PH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inex
plor
ing
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
inen
gine
erin
gan
dho
wit
issi
mila
rto
,and
diff
eren
tfr
om,
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
insc
ienc
ean
d/or
mat
hem
atic
s;
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
(or
reca
llpa
sten
gage
men
tin
)ac
tiviti
esin
volv
ing
the
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
ofen
gine
erin
gan
dsc
ienc
ean
d/or
mat
hem
atic
s,dr
awin
gon
thes
eex
peri
ence
sto
refl
ect
onth
esi
mila
ritie
san
ddi
ffer
ence
sbe
twee
nte
achi
ngan
dle
arni
ngin
thes
efi
elds
.
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
esi
mila
ritie
san
ddi
ffer
ence
sbe
twee
nsc
ienc
ean
d/or
mat
hem
atic
ste
achi
ngan
dle
arni
ngan
den
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngan
dle
arni
ng.P
artic
ipan
tsre
ceiv
eex
ampl
esto
illus
trat
eth
ese
sim
ilari
ties
and
diff
eren
ces.
Part
icip
ants
refl
ect
onth
epr
ovid
edin
form
atio
nan
dill
ustr
atio
ns.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
esi
mila
ritie
san
ddi
ffer
ence
sbe
twee
nsc
ienc
ean
d/or
mat
hem
atic
ste
achi
ngan
dle
arni
ngan
den
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngan
dle
arni
ng.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
exam
ples
toill
ustr
ate
thes
esi
mila
ritie
san
ddi
ffer
ence
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tcon
side
rex
plic
itly
the
sim
ilari
ties
and
diff
eren
ces
betw
een
scie
nce
and/
orm
athe
mat
ics
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
and
engi
neer
ing
teac
hing
and
lear
ning
.
B1-
1
Intr
oduc
epa
rtic
ipan
tsto
effe
ctiv
ecl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
esfo
ren
ablin
gle
arni
ngin
engi
neer
ing;
Part
icip
ants
rese
arch
effe
ctiv
ecl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
esfo
ren
ablin
gle
arni
ngin
engi
neer
ing,
iden
tify
mul
tiple
stra
tegi
esto
addr
ess
com
mon
chal
leng
esin
engi
neer
ing
educ
atio
n(e
.g.,
team
ing
stra
tegi
es,
mat
eria
lsm
anag
emen
t,pr
ojec
tst
orag
e),a
ndan
alyz
eth
ese
stra
tegi
esto
dete
rmin
ew
hich
will
bem
ost
effe
ctiv
ein
thei
row
ncl
assr
oom
s.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
info
rmat
ion
abou
tcl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
esth
atad
dres
sco
mm
onch
alle
nges
inen
gine
erin
ged
ucat
ion.
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
this
info
rmat
ion
inlig
htof
thei
row
nex
peri
ence
sto
dete
rmin
ew
hich
will
bem
ost
effe
ctiv
ein
thei
row
ncl
assr
oom
s.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
info
rmat
ion
abou
tcl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
esth
atad
dres
sco
mm
onch
alle
nges
inen
gine
erin
ged
ucat
ion.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
ercl
assr
oom
man
agem
ent
stra
tegi
esth
atad
dres
sco
mm
onch
alle
nges
inen
gine
erin
ged
ucat
ion.
B2-
1
Fos
ter
part
icip
ants
’ab
ility
tode
velo
pde
sign
chal
leng
esth
atar
eap
prop
riat
efo
rth
eir
stud
ent
popu
latio
n,te
achi
ngen
viro
nmen
ts,
and/
orlo
cal
com
mun
ity;
Par
ticip
ants
deve
lop,
pilo
tan
dre
fine
ane
wde
sign
chal
leng
e—or
adap
tan
exis
ting
desi
gnch
alle
nge—
soth
atth
ere
sult
isap
prop
riat
efo
rth
eir
stud
ent
popu
latio
n,te
achi
ngen
viro
nmen
tsan
d/or
loca
lco
mm
unity
.
Part
icip
ants
deve
lop
ane
wde
sign
chal
leng
e—or
adap
tan
exis
ting
desi
gnch
alle
nge—
soth
atth
ere
sult
isap
prop
riat
efo
rth
eir
stud
ent
popu
latio
n,te
achi
ngen
viro
nmen
tsan
d/or
loca
lco
mm
unity
.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
how
they
wou
ldde
velo
pa
new
desi
gnch
alle
nge—
orad
apt
anex
istin
gde
sign
chal
leng
e—so
that
the
resu
ltis
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
tpo
pula
tion,
teac
hing
envi
ronm
ents
and/
orlo
cal
com
mun
ity.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tcon
side
rho
wth
eyw
ould
deve
lop
orad
apt
desi
gnch
alle
nges
tom
ake
them
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
tpo
pula
tion,
teac
hing
envi
ronm
ents
,an
d/or
loca
lco
mm
unity
.
B3-
1
Part
icip
ants
cons
ider
and
refl
ect
onth
ede
man
dsan
dbe
nefi
tsof
deve
lopi
ngan
dem
ploy
ing
ade
sign
chal
leng
eth
atis
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
tpo
pula
tion,
teac
hing
envi
ronm
ent
and/
orlo
cal
com
mun
ity.P
artic
ipan
tsde
velo
pan
dim
plem
ent
apl
anfo
rad
dres
sing
and
over
com
ing
the
iden
tifie
dde
man
ds.
Part
icip
ants
cons
ider
and
refl
ect
onth
ede
man
dsan
dbe
nefi
tsof
deve
lopi
ngan
dem
ploy
ing
ade
sign
chal
leng
eth
atis
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
tpo
pula
tion,
teac
hing
envi
ronm
ent
and/
orlo
cal
com
mun
ity.P
artic
ipan
tsde
velo
pa
plan
for
addr
essi
ngan
dov
erco
min
gth
eid
entif
ied
dem
ands
.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
the
dem
ands
and
bene
fits
ofde
velo
ping
and
empl
oyin
ga
desi
gnch
alle
nge
that
isap
prop
riat
efo
rth
eir
stud
ent
popu
latio
n,te
achi
ngen
viro
nmen
tan
d/or
loca
lco
mm
unity
.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
ede
man
dsan
dbe
nefi
tsof
deve
lopi
ngan
dem
ploy
ing
ade
sign
chal
leng
eth
atis
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
tpo
pula
tion,
teac
hing
envi
ronm
ents
and/
orlo
cal
com
mun
ity.
B3-
2
54 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
15http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MP
HA
SIS
MO
DE
RA
TE
EM
PHA
SIS
LO
WE
MP
HA
SIS
NO
EM
PH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Faci
litat
epa
rtic
ipan
ts’
refl
ectio
nup
onth
eir
own
teac
hing
prac
tice
and
enco
urag
epa
rtic
ipan
tsto
seek
feed
back
from
othe
rsto
refi
nean
dop
timiz
eth
eir
engi
neer
ing
teac
hing
prac
tice;
and
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
mul
tiple
oppo
rtun
ities
tore
flec
ton
thei
ren
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
e.T
his
refl
ectio
ndr
aws
onal
lof
the
follo
win
g:ex
peri
ence
s(e
.g.,
inst
ruct
iona
lin
tera
ctio
ns,
prio
rle
arni
ng),
evid
ence
(e.g
.,fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ents
),an
dar
tifac
ts(e
.g.,
less
onpl
ans,
wor
kshe
ets,
asse
ssm
ents
,stu
dent
wor
k)co
llect
edin
thei
rcl
assr
oom
s.
Part
icip
ants
enga
gein
mul
tiple
oppo
rtun
ities
tore
flec
ton
thei
ren
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
e,T
his
refl
ectio
ndr
aws
onso
me
ofth
efo
llow
ing:
expe
rien
ces
(e.g
.,in
stru
ctio
nal
inte
ract
ions
,pri
orle
arni
ng),
evid
ence
(e.g
.,fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ents
),an
dar
tifac
ts(e
.g.,
less
onpl
ans,
wor
kshe
ets,
asse
ssm
ents
,st
uden
tw
ork)
colle
cted
inth
eir
clas
sroo
ms.
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
asi
ngle
refl
ectio
non
thei
ren
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
eth
atdr
aws
onso
me
oral
lof
the
follo
win
g:ex
peri
ence
s(e
.g.,
inst
ruct
iona
lin
tera
ctio
ns,
prio
rle
arni
ng),
evid
ence
(e.g
.,fo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ents
),an
dar
tifac
ts(e
.g.,
less
onpl
ans,
wor
kshe
ets,
asse
ssm
ents
,st
uden
tw
ork)
colle
cted
inth
eir
clas
sroo
ms.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
ten
gage
inre
flec
tion
onth
eir
engi
neer
ing
teac
hing
prac
tice
that
draw
son
expe
rien
ces
(e.g
.,in
stru
ctio
nal
inte
ract
ions
,pr
ior
lear
ning
),ev
iden
ce(e
.g.,
form
ativ
eas
sess
men
ts),
orar
tifac
ts(e
.g.,
less
onpl
ans,
wor
kshe
ets,
asse
ssm
ents
,st
uden
tw
ork)
colle
cted
inth
eir
clas
sroo
ms.
B4-
1
Par
ticip
ants
form
orjo
ina
lear
ning
com
mun
ity,
orre
crui
ta
men
tor
orco
ach,
toob
tain
feed
back
abou
tth
eir
teac
hing
prac
tice.
Par
ticip
ants
iden
tify
oppo
rtun
ities
tofo
rmor
join
ale
arni
ngco
mm
unity
,or
tore
crui
ta
men
tor
orco
ach,
toob
tain
feed
back
abou
tth
eir
teac
hing
prac
tice.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
ebe
nefi
tsof
form
ing
orjo
inin
ga
lear
ning
com
mun
ity,
orre
crui
ting
am
ento
ror
coac
h,to
obta
infe
edba
ckab
out
thei
rte
achi
ngpr
actic
e.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tre
ceiv
ein
form
atio
nab
out
the
bene
fits
offo
rmin
gor
join
ing
ale
arni
ngco
mm
unity
,or
recr
uitin
ga
men
tor
orco
ach,
toob
tain
feed
back
abou
tth
eir
teac
hing
prac
tice.
B4-
2
Parti
cipa
nts
cons
ider
and
refle
cton
the
elem
ents
ofth
eir
prac
tice
that
are
esse
ntia
lto
effe
ctiv
ete
achi
ngof
engi
neer
ing,
setg
oals
for
impr
ovin
gth
eir
prac
tice,
and
deve
lop
and
impl
emen
tapl
anfo
rac
hiev
ing
thos
ego
als.
Part
icip
ants
cons
ider
and
refl
ect
onth
eel
emen
tsof
thei
rpr
actic
eth
atar
ees
sent
ial
toef
fect
ive
teac
hing
ofen
gine
erin
g,se
tgo
als
for
impr
ovin
gth
eir
prac
tice,
and
deve
lop
apl
anfo
rac
hiev
ing
thos
ego
als.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
the
elem
ents
ofth
eir
prac
tice
that
are
esse
ntia
lto
effe
ctiv
ete
achi
ngof
engi
neer
ing.
Par
ticip
ants
iden
tify
oppo
rtun
ities
for
impr
ovem
ent.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
eel
emen
tsof
thei
rpr
actic
eth
atar
ees
sent
ial
toef
fect
ive
teac
hing
ofen
gine
erin
g.
B4-
3
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
appr
oach
esto
men
tori
ng(e
.g.,
in-s
choo
lm
ento
ring
,in
form
alco
llabo
ratio
ns,
prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
com
mun
ities
,on
line
prog
ram
s,pa
rtne
rshi
psw
ithin
dust
ry,
inte
rnsh
ips,
rese
arch
expe
rien
ces)
.P
artic
ipan
tsan
alyz
eth
ese
appr
oach
esto
iden
tify
whi
chw
ould
beof
grea
test
bene
fit
toth
eir
impl
emen
tatio
nef
fort
san
dw
hy.
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tap
proa
ches
tom
ento
ring
(e.g
.,in
-sc
hool
men
tori
ng,i
nfor
mal
colla
bora
tions
,pro
fess
iona
lle
arni
ngco
mm
uniti
es,o
nlin
epr
ogra
ms,
part
ners
hips
with
indu
stry
,in
tern
ship
s,re
sear
chex
peri
ence
s)an
dho
wth
ese
mig
htsu
ppor
tim
plem
enta
tion.
Part
icip
ants
anal
yze
the
prov
ided
info
rmat
ion
toid
entif
yth
eap
proa
ches
that
wou
ldbe
stsu
ppor
tth
eir
impl
emen
tatio
nef
fort
s.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tap
proa
ches
tom
ento
ring
(e.g
.,in
-sch
oolm
ento
ring
,inf
orm
alco
llabo
ratio
ns,p
rofe
ssio
nal
lear
ning
com
mun
ities
,onl
ine
prog
ram
s,pa
rtne
rshi
psw
ithin
dust
ry,i
nter
nshi
ps,r
esea
rch
expe
rien
ces)
and
how
thes
em
ight
supp
ort
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tre
ceiv
ein
form
atio
nab
out
appr
oach
esto
men
tori
ng(e
.g.,
in-s
choo
lm
ento
ring
,in
form
alco
llabo
ratio
ns,
prof
essi
onal
lear
ning
com
mun
ities
,on
line
prog
ram
s,pa
rtne
rshi
psw
ithin
dust
ry,
inte
rnsh
ips,
rese
arch
expe
rien
ces)
and
how
thes
em
ight
supp
ort
impl
emen
tatio
n.
B4-
4
Prom
ote
and
supp
ort
part
icip
ants
’en
gage
men
twith
engi
neer
ing
men
tors
who
can,
intu
rn,
supp
ortp
artic
ipan
ts’
teac
hing
ofen
gine
erin
gth
roug
ha
varie
tyof
appr
oach
es(e
.g.,
fiel
dex
peri
ence
s,fi
eld
trips
,in
tern
ship
s,co
llabo
ratio
ns,
clas
sroo
mvi
sits
).
Par
ticip
ants
deve
lop
and
impl
emen
ta
plan
toen
gage
men
tors
with
expe
rtis
ein
engi
neer
ing
for
supp
ort
duri
ngcl
assr
oom
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
deve
lop
apl
anto
enga
gem
ento
rsw
ithex
pert
ise
inen
gine
erin
gfo
rsu
ppor
tdu
ring
clas
sroo
mim
plem
enta
tion.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
sour
ces
from
whi
chth
eym
ight
elic
itm
ento
rsw
ithex
pert
ise
inen
gine
erin
gto
supp
ort
them
duri
ngcl
assr
oom
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erso
urce
sfr
omw
hich
they
mig
htel
icit
men
tors
with
expe
rtis
ein
engi
neer
ing
tosu
ppor
tth
emdu
ring
clas
sroo
mim
plem
enta
tion.
B5-
1
Sta
ndar
dB
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 55
16http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Stan
dard
C:
Eng
inee
ring
asa
Con
text
for
Tea
chin
gan
dL
earn
ing:
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tfo
rte
ache
rsof
engi
neer
ing
shou
ldm
ake
clea
rho
wen
gine
erin
gde
sign
and
prob
lem
solv
ing
offe
ra
cont
ext
for
teac
hing
stan
dard
sof
lear
ning
insc
ienc
e,m
athe
mat
ics,
lang
uage
arts
,re
adin
g,an
dot
her
subj
ects
.It
shou
ld:
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MP
HA
SIS
LO
WE
MPH
AS
ISN
OE
MPH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Ena
ble
part
icip
ants
toex
plor
ere
sear
chth
atde
mon
stra
tes
how
usin
gen
gine
erin
gde
sign
and
prob
lem
solv
ing
asa
cont
ext
for
lear
ning
impr
oves
stud
ents
’cr
itica
lth
inki
ngsk
ills
and
acad
emic
achi
evem
ent;
Par
ticip
ants
rese
arch
and
synt
hesi
zem
ultip
lest
udie
slin
king
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnan
dpr
oble
mso
lvin
gw
ithim
prov
edst
uden
tac
adem
icac
hiev
emen
tan
dcr
itica
lth
inki
ngsk
ills.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
linki
ngen
gine
erin
gde
sign
and
prob
lem
solv
ing
with
impr
oved
stud
ent
acad
emic
achi
evem
ent
and
criti
cal
thin
king
skill
s.P
artic
ipan
tsre
flec
ton
this
evid
ence
.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
linki
ngen
gine
erin
gde
sign
and
prob
lem
solv
ing
with
impr
oved
stud
ent
acad
emic
achi
evem
ent
and
criti
cal
thin
king
skill
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tre
ceiv
eev
iden
celin
king
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnan
dpr
oble
mso
lvin
gw
ithim
prov
edst
uden
tac
adem
icac
hiev
emen
tan
dcr
itica
lth
inki
ngsk
ills.
C1-
1
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inen
gine
erin
gde
sign
chal
leng
esth
atre
quir
eho
rizo
ntal
inte
grat
ion
with
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent
(e.g
.,m
athe
mat
ics,
scie
nce,
soci
alst
udie
s,E
nglis
hla
ngua
gear
ts,
the
arts
,te
chno
logy
educ
atio
n);
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsan
alyz
ean
dm
apco
nnec
tions
tono
n-en
gine
erin
gco
nten
tin
volv
edin
the
chal
leng
e.P
artic
ipan
tsid
entif
yw
hich
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent
isre
quir
edfo
rsu
cces
sful
com
plet
ion
ofth
ech
alle
nge,
and
whi
chis
usef
ulas
exte
nsio
nsto
the
chal
leng
e.
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsan
alyz
ean
dm
apco
nnec
tions
tono
n-en
gine
erin
gco
nten
tin
volv
edin
the
chal
leng
e.
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsre
ceiv
ein
form
atio
nab
out
the
conn
ectio
nsto
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent
invo
lved
inth
ech
alle
nge.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
texp
erie
nce
expl
icit
oppo
rtun
ities
for
hori
zont
alin
tegr
atio
nof
engi
neer
ing
and
non-
engi
neer
ing
cont
ent.
C2-
1
Dra
wat
tent
ion
toth
ew
ayin
whi
chen
gine
erin
gde
sign
and
prob
lem
solv
ing
rein
forc
esk
ills
(e.g
.,21
stce
ntur
ysk
ills
such
ascr
eativ
ity,
com
mun
icat
ion,
criti
cal
thin
king
,and
colla
bora
tion)
and
prac
tices
(e.g
.,m
odel
ing,
data
anal
ysis
,and
pres
enta
tion)
that
are
rele
vant
tom
any
fiel
ds;
and
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsan
alyz
ean
dm
apco
nnec
tions
tosk
ills
(e.g
.,21
stce
ntur
ysk
ills
such
ascr
eativ
ity,
com
mun
icat
ion,
criti
cal
thin
king
,an
dco
llabo
ratio
n)an
dpr
actic
es(e
.g.,
mod
elin
g,da
taan
alys
is,
and
pres
enta
tion)
that
are
rele
vant
tom
any
fiel
ds.
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsar
epr
esen
ted
with
evid
ence
ofco
nnec
tions
tosk
ills
(e.g
.,21
stce
ntur
ysk
ills
such
ascr
eativ
ity,
com
mun
icat
ion,
criti
cal
thin
king
,an
dco
llabo
ratio
n)an
dpr
actic
es(e
.g.,
mod
elin
g,da
taan
alys
is,
and
pres
enta
tion)
that
are
rele
vant
tom
any
fiel
ds.
Par
ticip
ants
refl
ect
onth
isev
iden
ce.
For
one
orm
ore
engi
neer
ing
desi
gnch
alle
nges
,par
ticip
ants
are
pres
ente
dw
ithev
iden
ceof
conn
ectio
nsto
skill
s(e
.g.,
21st
cent
ury
skill
ssu
chas
crea
tivity
,co
mm
unic
atio
n,cr
itica
lth
inki
ng,
and
colla
bora
tion)
and
prac
tices
(e.g
.,m
odel
ing,
data
anal
ysis
,and
pres
enta
tion)
that
are
rele
vant
tom
any
fiel
ds.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
texp
erie
nce
expl
icit
oppo
rtun
ities
toco
nnec
ten
gine
erin
gde
sign
tosk
ills
(e.g
.,21
stce
ntur
ysk
ills
such
ascr
eativ
ity,
com
mun
icat
ion,
criti
cal
thin
king
,an
dco
llabo
ratio
n)an
dpr
actic
es(e
.g.,
mod
elin
g,da
taan
alys
is,
and
pres
enta
tion)
that
are
rele
vant
tom
any
fiel
ds.
C3-
1
Enc
oura
gepa
rtic
ipan
tsto
inte
grat
een
gine
erin
gin
toth
eex
istin
gcu
rric
ulum
.
Par
ticip
ants
revi
seat
leas
ton
eun
itof
thei
rex
istin
gcu
rric
ulum
toin
clud
een
gine
erin
g.P
artic
ipan
tsth
enre
flec
ton
how
the
curr
icul
umis
enha
nced
thro
ugh
the
addi
tion
ofen
gine
erin
g.
Par
ticip
ants
are
give
nex
ampl
esof
how
othe
rte
ache
rsha
vein
corp
orat
eden
gine
erin
gin
toth
eir
exis
ting
curr
icul
um.
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
thes
eex
ampl
esan
did
entif
ysp
ecif
icop
port
uniti
esin
tegr
ate
engi
neer
ing
into
thei
rcu
rric
ula.
Par
ticip
ants
are
give
nex
ampl
esof
how
othe
rte
ache
rsha
vein
corp
orat
eden
gine
erin
gin
toth
eir
exis
ting
curr
icul
um.P
artic
ipan
tsco
nsid
erho
wth
eym
ight
sim
ilarl
yin
tegr
ate
engi
neer
ing
into
thei
rcu
rric
ula.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tad
dres
sth
ein
corp
orat
ion
ofen
gine
erin
gin
toth
eir
exis
ting
curr
icul
um.
C4-
1
56 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
17http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Stan
dard
D:
Cu
rric
ulum
and
Ass
essm
ent:
Pro
fess
iona
ldev
elop
men
tfor
teac
hers
ofen
gine
erin
gsh
ould
empo
wer
teac
hers
toid
entif
yap
prop
riat
ecu
rric
ulum
,ins
truc
tiona
lmat
eria
ls,a
ndas
sess
men
tmet
hods
.It
shou
ld:
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MP
HA
SIS
LO
WE
MPH
AS
ISN
OE
MP
HA
SIS
RO
WR
EF
ER
EN
CE
Ena
ble
part
icip
ants
toid
entif
yen
gine
erin
gcu
rric
ulum
that
isde
velo
pmen
tally
,in
stru
ctio
nally
,an
dco
gniti
vely
appr
opri
ate
for
thei
rst
uden
ts;
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
and
prov
ide
evid
ence
ofth
ede
velo
pmen
tal,
inst
ruct
iona
l,an
dco
gniti
veap
prop
riat
enes
sof
acu
rric
ulum
for
apa
rtic
ular
stud
ent
popu
latio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
ofth
ede
velo
pmen
tal,
inst
ruct
iona
l,an
dco
gniti
veap
prop
riat
enes
sof
acu
rric
ulum
for
apa
rtic
ular
stud
ent
popu
latio
n.P
artic
ipan
tsre
flec
ton
the
prov
ided
evid
ence
.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
ofth
ede
velo
pmen
tal,
inst
ruct
iona
lan
dco
gniti
veap
prop
riat
enes
sof
acu
rric
ulum
for
apa
rtic
ular
stud
ent
popu
latio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
ede
velo
pmen
tal,
inst
ruct
iona
lan
dco
gniti
veap
prop
riat
enes
sof
acu
rric
ulum
for
apa
rtic
ular
stud
ent
popu
latio
n.
D1-
1
Parti
cipa
nts
fully
deve
lop
mod
ific
atio
nsto
impr
ove
the
deve
lopm
enta
l,in
stru
ctio
nal,
and
cogn
itive
appr
opria
tene
ssof
curr
icul
arm
ater
ials
.
Par
ticip
ants
iden
tify
mod
ific
atio
nsth
atw
ould
impr
ove
the
deve
lopm
enta
l,in
stru
ctio
nal,
and
cogn
itive
appr
opri
aten
ess
ofcu
rric
ular
mat
eria
ls.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
whe
ther
mod
ific
atio
nsm
ight
impr
ove
the
deve
lopm
enta
l,in
stru
ctio
nal
and
cogn
itive
appr
opri
aten
ess
ofcu
rric
ular
mat
eria
ls.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erw
heth
erm
odif
icat
ions
mig
htim
prov
eth
ede
velo
pmen
tal,
inst
ruct
iona
lan
dco
gniti
veap
prop
riat
enes
sof
curr
icul
arm
ater
ials
.
D1-
2
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inev
alua
ting
the
pote
ntia
lof
engi
neer
ing
curr
icul
umto
addr
ess
one
orm
ore
sets
ofst
uden
tlea
rnin
gst
anda
rds
(e.g
.,IT
EE
Ale
arni
ngst
anda
rds,
Nex
tG
ener
atio
nSc
ienc
eSt
anda
rds,
stat
est
anda
rds)
;
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
and
prov
ide
evid
ence
ofho
wcu
rric
ulum
alig
nsw
ithon
eor
mor
ese
tsof
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
ofho
wa
give
ncu
rric
ulum
alig
nsw
ithon
eor
mor
ese
tsof
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s.P
artic
ipan
tsre
flec
ton
the
prov
ided
evid
ence
.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
ofho
wa
give
ncu
rric
ulum
alig
nsw
ithon
eor
mor
ese
tsof
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
eal
ignm
ent
ofcu
rric
ulum
with
any
part
icul
arse
tof
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s.
D2-
1
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
toin
crea
seal
ignm
ent
with
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s,pa
rtic
ipan
tsde
velo
psu
chex
tens
ions
.
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
toin
crea
seal
ignm
ent
with
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s,pa
rtic
ipan
tsid
entif
yop
port
uniti
esto
deve
lop
such
exte
nsio
ns.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
whe
ther
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
mig
htin
crea
seal
ignm
ent
with
stud
ent
lear
ning
stan
dard
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erw
heth
ercu
rric
ular
exte
nsio
nsm
ight
incr
ease
alig
nmen
tw
ithst
uden
tle
arni
ngst
anda
rds.
D2-
2
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inev
alua
ting
the
pote
ntia
lof
engi
neer
ing
curr
icul
umto
supp
ort
apa
rtic
ular
set
ofen
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
;
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
een
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
for
each
activ
ity.P
artic
ipan
tsan
alyz
eth
ecu
rric
ular
mat
eria
lsto
dete
rmin
eth
eex
tent
tow
hich
thes
em
ater
ials
are
nece
ssar
yan
dsu
ffic
ient
tosu
ppor
tth
est
ated
lear
ning
obje
ctiv
es.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
een
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
for
each
activ
ity,a
sw
ell
asev
iden
ceof
the
exte
ntto
whi
chth
ecu
rric
ular
mat
eria
lsar
ene
cess
ary
and
suff
icie
ntto
supp
ort
thes
eob
ject
ives
.P
artic
ipan
tsre
flec
ton
the
prov
ided
evid
ence
.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
een
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
for
each
activ
ity,
asw
ell
asev
iden
ceof
the
exte
ntto
whi
chth
ecu
rric
ular
mat
eria
lsar
ene
cess
ary
and
suff
icie
ntto
supp
ort
thes
eob
ject
ives
.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
een
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
for
each
activ
ity.
D3-
1
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
tobe
tter
supp
ort
the
stat
eden
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsde
velo
psu
chex
tens
ions
.
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
tobe
tter
supp
ort
the
stat
eden
gine
erin
gle
arni
ngob
ject
ives
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsid
entif
yop
port
uniti
esto
deve
lop
such
exte
nsio
ns.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
whe
ther
curr
icul
arex
tens
ions
mig
htbe
deve
lope
dto
bette
rsu
ppor
tth
est
ated
engi
neer
ing
lear
ning
obje
ctiv
e.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erw
heth
ercu
rric
ular
exte
nsio
nsm
ight
bette
rsu
ppor
tth
est
ated
engi
neer
ing
lear
ning
obje
ctiv
es.
D3-
2
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inev
alua
ting
the
adap
tabi
lity
ofen
gine
erin
gcu
rric
ulum
tolo
cal
cond
ition
s(e
.g.,
sche
dulin
g/tim
ing,
emph
asis
onco
nten
t/met
hods
,cu
ltura
lco
ntex
t,si
mila
rity
toot
her
activ
ities
inan
exis
ting
curr
icul
um);
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
apa
rtic
ular
curr
icul
umto
iden
tify
oppo
rtun
ities
for
adap
tatio
nto
addr
ess
loca
lco
nditi
ons.
Par
ticip
ants
adap
ton
eor
mor
eco
mpo
nent
sof
the
curr
icul
umto
addr
ess
thes
eco
nditi
ons.
Part
icip
ants
are
give
nex
ampl
esof
how
othe
rte
ache
rsha
vead
apte
da
part
icul
arcu
rric
ulum
toad
dres
slo
cal
cond
ition
s.Pa
rtic
ipan
tsan
alyz
eth
ese
exam
ples
and
iden
tify
way
sin
whi
chth
eym
ight
sim
ilarl
yad
apt
apa
rtic
ular
curr
icul
umto
addr
ess
loca
lco
nditi
ons.
Part
icip
ants
cons
ider
the
impo
rtan
ceof
adap
ting
mat
eria
lsto
addr
ess
loca
lco
nditi
ons
and
are
give
nex
ampl
esof
how
othe
rte
ache
rsha
vead
apte
da
part
icul
arcu
rric
ulum
toad
dres
slo
cal
cond
ition
s.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
eim
port
ance
ofad
aptin
gm
ater
ials
toad
dres
slo
cal
cond
ition
s.
D4-
1
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 57
18http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MP
HA
SIS
MO
DE
RA
TE
EM
PHA
SIS
LO
WE
MPH
AS
ISN
OE
MPH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inev
alua
ting
the
avai
labl
ete
ache
rsu
ppor
tfo
ra
part
icul
aren
gine
erin
gcu
rric
ulum
;
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
rese
arch
-bas
edin
form
atio
nab
out
wha
tco
nstit
utes
good
teac
her
supp
ort.
Par
ticip
ants
anal
yze
the
teac
her
supp
ort
prov
ided
with
acu
rric
ulum
tode
term
ine
the
exte
ntto
whi
chit
isne
cess
ary
and
suff
icie
ntfo
rits
succ
essf
ulim
plem
enta
tion.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
rese
arch
-bas
edin
form
atio
nab
out
wha
tco
nstit
utes
good
teac
her
supp
ort,
asw
ell
asev
iden
ceof
the
exte
ntto
whi
chth
ete
ache
rsu
ppor
tpr
ovid
edw
itha
curr
icul
umis
nece
ssar
yan
dsu
ffic
ient
for
itssu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
n.P
artic
ipan
tsre
flec
ton
the
prov
ided
evid
ence
.
Part
icip
ants
rece
ive
rese
arch
-bas
edin
form
atio
nab
out
wha
tco
nstit
utes
good
teac
her
supp
ort,
asw
ell
asev
iden
ceof
the
exte
ntto
whi
chth
ete
ache
rsu
ppor
tpr
ovid
edw
itha
curr
icul
umis
nece
ssar
yan
dsu
ffic
ient
for
itssu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erre
sear
ch-
base
din
form
atio
nab
out
wha
tco
nstit
utes
good
teac
her
supp
ort.
D5-
1
Ifsu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
nre
quir
esad
ditio
nal
teac
her
supp
orts
,bey
ond
thos
epr
ovid
edw
ithth
ecu
rric
ulum
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsde
velo
pan
dim
plem
ent
apl
anfo
ren
gagi
ngsu
chsu
ppor
tsbe
fore
and
duri
ngim
plem
enta
tion.
Ifsu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
nre
quir
esad
ditio
nal
teac
her
supp
orts
,be
yond
thos
epr
ovid
edw
ithth
ecu
rric
ulum
,pa
rtic
ipan
tsde
velo
pa
plan
for
enga
ging
such
supp
orts
.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
whe
ther
addi
tiona
lte
ache
rsu
ppor
ts,
beyo
ndth
ose
prov
ided
with
the
curr
icul
um,
mig
htbe
nece
ssar
yfo
rsu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
n.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erw
heth
erad
ditio
nal
teac
her
supp
orts
,be
yond
thos
epr
ovid
edw
ithth
ecu
rric
ulum
,mig
htbe
nece
ssar
yfo
rsu
cces
sful
impl
emen
tatio
n.
D5-
2
Eng
age
part
icip
ants
inex
amin
ing
the
auth
entic
ityan
dap
prop
riat
enes
sof
form
ativ
ean
dsu
mm
ativ
eas
sess
men
tsem
bedd
edin
acu
rric
ulum
;an
d
Part
icip
ants
are
prov
ided
with
acu
rric
ulum
’sem
bedd
edas
sess
men
tsan
dth
ele
arni
ngob
ject
ives
tow
hich
they
are
tied.
Part
icip
ants
anal
yze
and
prov
ide
evid
ence
ofth
eau
then
ticity
and
appr
opri
aten
ess
ofth
eem
bedd
edas
sess
men
ts.
Par
ticip
ants
are
prov
ided
with
acu
rric
ulum
’sem
bedd
edas
sess
men
tsan
dev
iden
ceof
thei
rau
then
ticity
and
appr
opri
aten
ess
for
eval
uatin
gas
soci
ated
lear
ning
obje
ctiv
es.
Par
ticip
ants
refl
ect
onth
epr
ovid
edev
iden
ce.
Par
ticip
ants
are
prov
ided
with
acu
rric
ulum
’sem
bedd
edas
sess
men
tsan
dev
iden
ceof
thei
rau
then
ticity
and
appr
opri
aten
ess
for
eval
uatin
gas
soci
ated
lear
ning
obje
ctiv
es.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
eau
then
ticity
orap
prop
riat
enes
sof
embe
dded
asse
ssm
ents
.
D6-
1
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
addi
tiona
lan
d/or
mod
ifie
das
sess
men
ts,
part
icip
ants
deve
lop
such
asse
ssm
ents
.
Ifth
ecu
rric
ulum
requ
ires
addi
tiona
lan
d/or
mod
ifie
das
sess
men
ts,
part
icip
ants
cons
ider
how
they
wou
ldde
velo
psu
chas
sess
men
ts.
Par
ticip
ants
cons
ider
whe
ther
addi
tiona
lan
d/or
mod
ifie
das
sess
men
tsar
ere
quir
ed.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erw
heth
erad
ditio
nal
and/
orm
odif
ied
asse
ssm
ents
are
requ
ired
.
D6-
2
Dem
onst
rate
conn
ectio
nsan
dal
ignm
ent
betw
een
engi
neer
ing
curr
icul
um,
inst
ruct
ion,
lear
ning
,an
das
sess
men
t.
For
agi
ven
curr
icul
um,
part
icip
ants
anal
yze
and
prov
ide
evid
ence
ofth
eco
nnec
tions
amon
gal
lof
the
elem
ents
:cu
rric
ulum
,pe
dago
gy/
inst
ruct
ion,
stud
ent
and
teac
her
lear
ning
,an
das
sess
men
t.
For
agi
ven
curr
icul
um,
part
icip
ants
rece
ive
evid
ence
ofco
nnec
tions
amon
gal
lof
the
elem
ents
:cu
rric
ulum
,pe
dago
gy/in
stru
ctio
n,st
uden
tan
dte
ache
rle
arni
ng,
and
asse
ssm
ent.
Par
ticip
ants
refl
ect
onth
epr
ovid
edev
iden
ce.
For
agi
ven
curr
icul
um,p
artic
ipan
tsre
ceiv
eev
iden
ceof
conn
ectio
nsam
ong
all
ofth
eel
emen
ts:
curr
icul
um,p
edag
ogy/
inst
ruct
ion,
stud
ent
and
teac
her
lear
ning
,and
asse
ssm
ent.
Par
ticip
ants
dono
tco
nsid
erth
eco
nnec
tions
betw
een
curr
icul
um,
peda
gogy
/inst
ruct
ion,
stud
ent
and
teac
her
lear
ning
,an
das
sess
men
t.
D7-
1
Sta
ndar
dD
58 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
19http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
Stan
dard
E:
Alig
nmen
tto
Res
earc
h,St
anda
rds,
and
Edu
cati
onal
Pra
ctic
es:
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tfo
rte
ache
rsof
engi
neer
ing
shou
ldbe
alig
ned
tocu
rren
ted
ucat
iona
lre
sear
chan
dst
uden
tle
arni
ngst
anda
rds.
Itsh
ould
:
HIG
HE
MPH
AS
ISM
OD
ER
AT
EE
MPH
AS
ISL
OW
EM
PH
AS
ISN
OE
MPH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FER
EN
CE
Be
deve
lope
dan
dre
fine
din
colla
bora
tion
with
expe
rts
inth
efi
elds
ofen
gine
erin
g,en
gine
erin
gpe
dago
gy,
and
teac
her
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent;
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
rele
vant
expe
rts
inal
lth
ree
ofth
ese
fiel
ds:
engi
neer
ing,
engi
neer
ing
peda
gogy
,an
dte
ache
rpr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
rele
vant
expe
rts
intw
oof
thes
efi
elds
:en
gine
erin
g,en
gine
erin
gpe
dago
gy,
and
teac
her
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
rele
vant
expe
rts
inon
eof
thes
efi
elds
:en
gine
erin
g,en
gine
erin
gpe
dago
gy,a
ndte
ache
rpr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithou
tinp
utfr
omre
leva
ntex
pert
sin
any
ofth
ese
fiel
ds:
engi
neer
ing,
engi
neer
ing
peda
gogy
,and
teac
her
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent.
E1-
1
Be
deve
lope
dan
dre
fine
din
colla
bora
tion
with
stak
ehol
ders
(e.g
.,st
ate
educ
atio
nag
ency
pers
onne
l,sc
hool
adm
inis
trat
ors,
teac
hers
);
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
all
stak
ehol
der
grou
ps.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
mul
tiple
stak
ehol
der
grou
ps.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithin
put
from
one
stak
ehol
der
grou
p.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
isde
sign
edan
dre
fine
dw
ithou
tinp
utfr
omst
akeh
olde
rgr
oups
.
E2-
1
Ena
ble
part
icip
ants
toex
peri
ence
the
curr
icul
umth
atth
eyw
illte
ach;
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
enga
ges
part
icip
ants
activ
ely
inal
lst
eps
ofal
lle
arni
ngm
odul
esof
the
curr
icul
umth
atth
eyw
illte
ach.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
enga
ges
part
icip
ants
activ
ely
inal
lst
eps
ofso
me
ofth
ele
arni
ngm
odul
esof
the
curr
icul
umth
atth
eyw
illte
ach.
Par
ticip
ants
enga
gein
the
key
com
pone
nts
ofth
ere
mai
ning
mod
ules
.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
enga
ges
part
icip
ants
activ
ely
inso
me
ofth
ele
arni
ngm
odul
esof
the
curr
icul
umth
atth
eyw
illte
ach.
Par
ticip
ants
rece
ive
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
ere
mai
ning
mod
ules
.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
does
not
enga
gepa
rtic
ipan
tsac
tivel
yin
the
lear
ning
mod
ules
ofth
ecu
rric
ulum
that
they
will
teac
h.
E3-
1
Mod
elef
fect
ive
engi
neer
ing
teac
hing
prac
tices
;Pr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
ers
alw
ays
empl
oyef
fect
ive
engi
neer
ing
teac
hing
prac
tices
whi
lefa
cilit
atin
gen
gine
erin
gac
tiviti
es.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
ers
regu
larl
yem
ploy
effe
ctiv
een
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
esw
hile
faci
litat
ing
engi
neer
ing
activ
ities
,bu
tso
met
imes
expl
icitl
yst
epou
tsid
eof
such
prac
tices
.
Prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
prov
ider
soc
casi
onal
lyem
ploy
effe
ctiv
een
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
esw
hile
faci
litat
ing
engi
neer
ing
activ
ities
.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
ers
dono
tem
ploy
effe
ctiv
een
gine
erin
gte
achi
ngpr
actic
esw
hile
faci
litat
ing
engi
neer
ing
activ
ities
.
E4-
1
Em
ploy
diff
eren
tiate
din
stru
ctio
nte
chni
ques
;T
hepr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
erga
ther
sin
form
atio
nab
out
the
part
icip
ants
’ba
ckgr
ound
orex
peri
ence
inco
nten
tan
dpe
dago
gica
lco
nten
tkn
owle
dge.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
impl
emen
tsfu
llydi
ffer
entia
ted
inst
ruct
ion
tom
eet
each
part
icip
ant’
sin
divi
dual
need
s.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
prov
ider
gath
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
epa
rtici
pant
s’ba
ckgr
ound
orex
peri
ence
inco
nten
tand
peda
gogi
cal
cont
ent
know
ledg
e.T
hepr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tta
rget
sth
eav
erag
epa
rtic
ipan
tan
dpr
ovid
esge
nera
lsu
gges
tions
for
othe
rs.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
prov
ider
gath
ers
info
rmat
ion
abou
tth
epa
rtic
ipan
ts’
back
grou
ndor
expe
rien
cein
cont
ent
and
peda
gogi
cal
cont
ent
know
ledg
e.T
hepr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tta
rget
sth
eav
erag
epa
rtic
ipan
t.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
prov
ider
mak
esno
atte
mpt
toas
sess
orac
coun
tfo
rth
epa
rtic
ipan
ts’
back
grou
ndor
expe
rien
cein
cont
ent
and
peda
gogi
cal
cont
ent
know
ledg
e.
E5-
1
Be
guid
edby
form
ativ
eas
sess
men
t;T
hepr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tin
clud
esfo
rmat
ive
asse
ssm
ent
orch
ecks
for
part
icip
ants
’un
ders
tand
ing,
and
the
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
ism
odif
ied
for
each
part
icip
ant
base
don
thes
ein
divi
dual
resu
lts.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
incl
udes
form
ativ
eas
sess
men
tor
chec
ksfo
rpa
rtic
ipan
ts’
unde
rsta
ndin
g,an
dth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tis
mod
ifie
dba
sed
onth
ese
aggr
egat
edre
sults
.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
incl
udes
form
ativ
eas
sess
men
tor
chec
ksfo
rpa
rtic
ipan
ts’
unde
rsta
ndin
g,bu
tth
ere
sults
dono
tsh
ape
orm
odif
yth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
does
not
incl
ude
form
ativ
eas
sess
men
tsor
chec
ksfo
rpa
rtic
ipan
ts’
unde
rsta
ndin
g.
E6-
1
J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 59
20http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
(Con
tinue
d)
HIG
HE
MP
HA
SIS
MO
DE
RA
TE
EM
PH
AS
ISL
OW
EM
PHA
SIS
NO
EM
PH
AS
ISR
OW
RE
FE
RE
NC
E
Enc
oura
geri
sk-t
akin
gby
part
icip
ants
;T
hepr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
esa
safe
plac
eth
aten
cour
ages
ongo
ing
inte
llect
ual
risk
taki
ngby
the
part
icip
ants
.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
prov
ides
asa
fepl
ace
that
enco
urag
esoc
casi
onal
inte
llect
ual
risk
taki
ngby
the
part
icip
ants
.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
does
not
over
tlyen
cour
age
inte
llect
ual
risk
taki
ng.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
disc
oura
ges
inte
llect
ual
risk
taki
ng.
E7-
1
Be
long
itudi
nal;
and
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
requ
ires
cont
inue
den
gage
men
tw
ithpa
rtic
ipan
tsov
ertim
e.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
offe
rsm
ultip
leop
port
uniti
esfo
rco
ntin
ued
enga
gem
ent.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
offe
rslim
ited
oppo
rtun
ities
for
cont
inue
den
gage
men
t.
The
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent
does
not
offe
rop
port
uniti
esfo
rco
ntin
ued
enga
gem
ent.
E8-
1
Evo
lve
thro
ugh
apr
oces
sof
cont
inuo
usim
prov
emen
tth
atem
ploy
son
goin
gev
alua
tion,
asse
ssm
ent,
and
revi
sion
.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
erco
llect
ssu
ffic
ient
and
rele
vant
data
befo
re,
duri
ng,
and
afte
rth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t;an
alyz
esth
ese
data
;an
dem
ploy
sth
ere
sults
ofth
isan
alys
isto
info
rmim
prov
emen
ts.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
erco
llect
ssu
ffic
ient
and
rele
vant
data
befo
re,
duri
ng,
and
afte
rth
epr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
erco
llect
sda
tabe
fore
,du
ring
and/
oraf
ter
the
prof
essi
onal
deve
lopm
ent,
but
itis
insu
ffic
ient
toin
form
impr
ovem
ents
.
Pro
fess
iona
lde
velo
pmen
tpr
ovid
erdo
esno
tco
llect
data
toin
form
impr
ovem
ents
.
E9-
1
Sta
ndar
dE
60 J. E. Reimers et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research
21http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107
