Available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.

edu/jpeer

Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 4:1 (2014) 1–13

A Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education:

Research and Development
Tamara J. Moore
Purdue University

Aran W. Glancy, Kristina M. Tank, Jennifer A. Kersten, and Karl A. Smith

University of Minnesota–Twin Cities

Micah S. Stohlmann
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Abstract

Recent U.S. national documents have laid the foundation for highlighting the connection between science, technology, engineering and
mathematics at the K-12 level. However, there is not a clear definition or a well-established tradition of what constitutes a quality
engineering education at the K-12 level. The purpose of the current work has been the development of a framework for describing what
constitutes a quality K-12 engineering education. The framework presented in this paper is the result of a research project focused on
understanding and identifying the ways in which teachers and schools implement engineering and engineering design in their classrooms.
The development of the key indicators that are included in the framework were determined based on an extensive review of the literature,
established criteria for undergraduate and professional organizations, document content analysis of state academic content standards in
science, mathematics, and technology, and in consultation with experts in the fields of engineering and engineering education. The
framework is designed to be used as a tool for evaluating the degree to which academic standards, curricula, and teaching practices
address the important components of a quality K-12 engineering education. Additionally, this framework can be used to inform the
development and structure of future K-12 engineering and STEM education standards and initiatives.

Keywords: definition of K-12 engineering, design-based research

Introduction

STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) integration at the K-12 level is gaining national and
international attention. Many U.S. national documents have laid the foundation for highlighting the connections between

The authors would like to thank Professor Ron Ulseth and Dr. Christine Cunningham for their advisory work on this project. This material is based upon
work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1055382 through the Early Faculty Career program from the EEC division. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation. Earlier versions of this work have been published in the American Society for Engineering Education annual conference proceedings (Moore
et al., 2012; Moore, Glancy, et al., 2013; Moore, Tank, et al., 2013).
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Tamara J. Moore at tamara@purdue.edu.

http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
2 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

STEM disciplines (National Research Council [NRC], presentation of the framework itself, the paper provides the
2009; 2010), and engineering has great potential for development of the framework that followed a design-based
facilitating this integration. However, there is not a clear research paradigm along with descriptions of the iterations.
definition or a well-established tradition of what constitutes a The detailed explanation of the process, as well as the
quality engineering education at the K-12 level (Chandler, different versions of the framework, is intended to provide a
Fontenot, & Tate, 2011). ABET (2008), the recognized more complete picture of how the framework was developed,
accreditor for postsecondary programs in applied science, provide evidence that supports each stage of development,
computing, engineering, and engineering technology, has and explain the design decisions made along the way.
guided the development of undergraduate engineering
programs, but there is no similar process at the K-12 level. Why is a Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering
The U.S. national report Engineering in K-12 Education: Education Needed?
Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects
(NRC, 2009) stated, ‘‘The absence of standards or an agreed- STEM and STEM integration have come into sharp focus
upon framework for organizing and sequencing the essential in precollege education. Policy documents, international
knowledge and skills to be developed through engineering student achievement data, and the fast-paced changes in
education at the elementary and secondary school levels today’s technology-based economy have been catalysts for
limits our ability to develop a comprehensive definition of this focus. Many U.S. policy documents have been written
K-12 engineering education’’ (p. 151). As a result, a number and are influencing this focus on STEM education (e.g., NRC,
of questions remain about the best methods by which to 2009; 2010; 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). All of these
effectively teach engineering at the K-12 level and how they documents highlight the importance of improving STEM
play into the integration of other STEM disciplines. education in order to develop future generations of creative
The purpose of this research was to address the need for and competitive STEM professionals. Prepare and Inspire:
a clear definition of engineering at the elementary and K-12 Education in Science Technology, Engineering, and
secondary levels through the development of a framework Mathematics (STEM) for America’s Future (President’s
for describing, creating, and evaluating engineering in K-12 Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2010)
settings. Such a definition could help to guide the indicates the need to produce individuals with strong STEM
development of robust engineering and STEM education backgrounds in order to be competitive internationally. Rising
initiatives and inquiries into their effectiveness. The Above the Gathering Storm (NRC, 2007) notes that economic
framework presented in this paper was developed through growth and national security are related to well-trained people
a design-research paradigm to answer the research in STEM fields.
question: What constitutes a quality and comprehensive STEM integration can provide students with one of the
engineering education at the K-12 level? This framework best opportunities to experience learning in real-world
was developed as part of a larger research project focused situations, rather than learning STEM subjects in silos
on understanding how engineering and engineering design (Tsupros, Kohler, & Hallinen, 2009). However, the most
are implemented in K-12 environments at the classroom, prevalent methods of structuring and implementing STEM
school, district, and state levels. The key indicators of a education do not ‘‘reflect the natural interconnectedness of
quality K-12 engineering education that are included in the the four STEM components in the real world of research
framework were developed to outline the essential elements and technology development’’ (NRC, 2009, p. 150). This
of K-12 engineering education. The indicators were has severe consequences for student interest and perfor-
determined based on an extensive literature review, mance in STEM education and their development of STEM
established criteria for undergraduate engineering programs literacy. Therefore, it is important to consider how the
and professional organizations, document content analysis STEM components are interconnected. Because engineer-
of state academic standards, evaluation of classroom ing requires the application of mathematics and science
practice and curriculum implementation, and in consulta- through the development of technologies, it can provide a
tion with experts in the fields of engineering and way to integrate the STEM disciplines meaningfully.
engineering education. The framework is designed with Engineering is a natural integrator. Many STEM integra-
two purposes in mind. First, it is intended as an evaluation tion efforts revolve around using engineering and engineer-
tool for examining the degree to which academic standards, ing design as the impetus for learning science, mathematics,
curricula, and teaching practices address the important and technology content. The National Research Council’s
components of a quality K-12 engineering education. Framework for K-12 Science Education (2012) articulates
Additionally, this framework can be used to inform the and discusses the role of engineering as a mechanism by
development and structure of future K-12 engineering and which students can learn meaningful scientific concepts.
STEM education standards and initiatives. This document moves the conversation from broad sweeping
This paper presents the current version of the Framework reforms and abstract ideas to the concrete by advocating for
for Quality K-12 Engineering Education. Following the national science standards that include engineering.
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 3

Another influential national report that supports the standards with its recommendation to include engineering
integration of engineering into STEM disciplines, Engineer- design in future science standards; however, the document
ing in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and only describes the essential ideas of engineering design
Improving the Prospects (NRC, 2009), states that: (NRC, 2012). Despite taking a big step toward widespread
inclusion of engineering at the K-12 level, this document
there is considerable potential value, related to student does not articulate a complete set of core ideas in engineering
motivation and achievement, in increasing the presence appropriate for K-12 students as the 2010 NRC report
of technology and, especially, engineering in STEM recommends. The science framework document provided
education in the United States in ways that address the the foundation for the creation of the Next Generation
current lack of integration in STEM teaching and Science Standards (NGSS), where the limited treatment of
learning. (p. 150) engineering becomes even more clear in the disclaimer in
Appendix I of the standards where the authors state:
In order to prepare students to address the problems of
our increasingly technological society, it is necessary to It is important to point out that the NGSS do not put forward
provide students with opportunities to understand these a full set of standards for engineering education, but rather
problems through rich, engaging, and powerful experiences include only practices and ideas about engineering design
that integrate the disciplines of STEM, particularly using that are considered necessary for literate citizens. The
engineering (Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012). This standards for engineering design reflect the three compo-
will require a rethinking of ways of teaching and learning in nent ideas of the Framework and progress at each grade
STEM learning environments. span. (NGSS Lead States, 2013 Appendix I, p. 3)
If the education community is to take up this challenge of
improving STEM teaching and learning through the addition So while each of the preceding documents describes
of engineering, it must decide what constitutes quality engineering and discusses what is needed for engineering
engineering education at the K-12 level. Engineering in K- education, each also acknowledges that a more thorough
12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the definition of engineering for K-12 audiences is needed.
Prospects (NRC, 2009) began this work when it detailed the Engineering is gaining status among the education
scope of engineering at the K-12 level as of 2009 and made community, and it is increasingly making its way into the
recommendations for moving forward. As part of those K-12 classroom. At the same time the engineering
recommendations, the document provided three principles education community has yet to frame the ‘‘core ideas’’
for the focus of K-12 engineering education: (1) emphasis on called for in the 2009 and 2010 NRC reports. In order to
engineering design; (2) incorporation of important and support the engineering within national science content
developmentally appropriate mathematics, science, and standards such as the NGSS, and to fulfill the goal
technology knowledge and skills; and (3) promotion of expressed in the 2009 and 2010 NRC reports, a clear
engineering habits of mind. These principles outline some articulation of the key components of K-12 engineering
overarching goals of K-12 engineering education, but as the education is still needed. The purpose of this research is to
report points out a ‘‘parsing of engineering content develop a research-based document that meets the need for
appropriate for K-12 would lead to more coherence in a comprehensive set of core ideas of engineering at the K-
teaching and learning’’ (NRC, 2009, p. 156). 12 level. The goal is to produce a ‘‘high-level statement of
In 2010, the NRC’s Committee on Standards for K-12 principles to inform groups interested in K-12 engineering
Engineering took up the task of determining if stand-alone education; general guidance for improving existing curri-
standards were a feasible and appropriate means of establish- culum, teacher professional development, and assessment;
ing the coherent view of engineering education called for in the [and a] basis for research on learning progressions’’ (NRC,
2009 report. Instead of advocating for such standards, the 2010, p. 38). Through the identification of key indicators
committee recommended embedding the necessary and and the clear statement of their definitions, the framework
relevant learning goals in engineering into the standards of presented here was designed to meet this goal. The
other STEM disciplines. Thus drawing attention to the following section will describe the design-based research
connections to engineering that already exists in other that was used to develop the framework.
disciplines by mapping the big ideas from engineering onto
the current standards in these other disciplines (NRC, 2010). Methods
As pointed out in the report, however, the first step in this
process is to ‘‘develop a document describing the core ideas— The Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education
concepts, skills, and dispositions—of engineering that are was developed using a design-based research methodology
appropriate for K-12 students’’ (p. 37). (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003;
The Framework for K-12 Science Education document Edelson, 2002; Kelly, Lesh, & Baek, 2008). Design research
heeded the call to embed engineering into science content is an iterative process in which an educational theory is
4 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

developed by first building on previous research and existing framework. Each of these tests required different research
theories. The theory is then applied in a controlled setting methods, which are explained within the descriptions of the
(typically a learning environment, but in this case, in an iterations. Further testing with the framework has been
educational system) to test conjectures and expose flaws or conducted in classroom and curriculum development
weaknesses, which lead to the next iteration. The theories research, which will be described later. The next section
produced using a design research methodology are often, as presents the current version of the framework followed by a
in this case, domain specific, and as a result the assumptions detailed description of each iteration during development.
that guided the design must be made explicit.
The assumptions that guided this study were based on The Framework for Quality K-12
the design-research model as described by Hjalmarson Engineering Education
and Lesh (2008). This included planning iterative cycles
of revision using the phases of problematic situation, The Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education is
conceptual foundation, product design, and system of use intended for educators, researchers, and policy makers to use
to develop a robust and inclusive framework that as a tool for informing the integration of engineering within
encompasses the core ideas necessary for a quality and their educational systems. It is designed to represent the
comprehensive engineering education at the K-12 level. engineering a student should understand if they have
The problematic situation for this design-research study participated in engineering throughout their K-12 schooling.
has been addressed in the above section ‘‘Why is a This requires the users to translate the ideas contained within
Framework for Quality Engineering Education Needed?’’ the framework to developmentally appropriate levels for the
Primarily, a framework such as this is needed to provide a intended learners and to consider vertical alignment from grade
concise, yet thorough, definition of engineering including band to grade band within the K-12 scope and sequence.
its core ideas, concepts, skills, and dispositions for The framework has 12 key indicators that, when taken
educators, researchers, and policy makers to use as a together, summarize a quality engineering education for
reference tool when trying to make decisions about how to all students throughout their K-12 education. Figure 1
represent engineering to K-12 students. The conceptual provides a concise list of the key indicators of the
foundation for this study is grounded in the defining framework. The order of the key indicators within the
attributes of engineering that are used to ensure under- framework was carefully chosen based on the degree to
graduate engineering students are getting a comprehensive which the indicator is unique or central to engineering as
engineering education and through literature from K-12 compared to other disciplines. Key indicators that appear
education that supports developmentally appropriate ver- near the beginning (e.g., Processes of Design) are thought to
sions of these same attributes. The product design for this be defining characteristics of engineering. Whereas, key
study is a Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering indicators that appear later (e.g., Teamwork), although
Education – whose development is the focus of this paper. essential for engineering, are concepts that are required for
Moreover, the testing of this product is also a test of the success in multiple disciplines. Clear distinctions were made
underlying theories and conceptual foundations that went between the key indicators of the framework for evaluative
into its development. The system of use is the educational and knowledge building purposes, although in reality many
system(s) in which the product will be used. It is expected of the indicators and their uses overlap. The distinctions were
that the users of this will be educators in the broad sense made in an effort to help users understand how engineering
(i.e., teachers, administrators, teacher educators, and those is multifaceted, not to place value or pass judgment on
who make or influence educational policy) and educational different aspects of engineering education. The subsections
researchers. The document will be used as a concise way to below describe each key indicator in detail.
help educators gain a deeper understanding of engineering
and the components that make up engineering. The
document will also be a useful research tool for the
development and evaluation of the inclusion of engineering
in K-12 settings. Therefore, the framework will likely be
used to provide a lens for educators and researchers when
considering academic objectives related to engineering.
Design research requires iterative cycles of revision that
include testing under controlled conditions. The framework
has gone through five cycles of revision. For the purpose
of development, the framework has been tested through
engineering expert review, stakeholder feedback, and
application to state academic standards, the results of
which lead to the modifications and next iteration of the Figure 1. The Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education.
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 5

Complete Process of Design (POD) these areas. Students should have the opportunity to apply
developmentally appropriate mathematics or science in the
Design processes are at the center of engineering context of solving engineering problems. This could occur
practice. Solving engineering problems is an iterative within a mathematics or science classroom where students
process involving preparing, planning, and evaluating the study mathematics or science concepts through engineering
solution at each stage including the redesign and improve- design problems. Or this could happen within an engineer-
ment of current designs. At the K-12 level, students should ing course where students are asked to apply what they
learn the core elements of engineering design processes and have already learned in mathematics, science, or engineer-
have the opportunity to apply those processes completely in ing courses. Technology was intentionally placed under
realistic situations. Although design processes may be engineering tools, techniques, and processes (ETool)
described in many forms, certain characteristics are below.
fundamental. This indicator represents all of the three
POD sub-indicators (POD-PB, POD-PI, POD-TE) below. Engineering Thinking (EThink)

Problem and background (POD-PB) Engineers must be independent thinkers who are able to
General problem solving skills are prerequisites to solving seek out new knowledge when problems arise. In the K-12
engineering problems. An engineering design process begins setting, engineering can help students learn to use informed
with the formulation or identification of an engineering judgment to make decisions, which can lead to informed
problem. When confronted with open-ended problems, citizenry. Students must be empowered to believe they can
students should be able to formulate a plan of approach seek out and troubleshoot solutions to problems and
and should be able to identify the need for engineering develop new knowledge on their own. Engineering requires
solutions. This stage also includes researching the problem, students to be independent, reflective, and metacognitive
participating in learning activities to gain necessary back- thinkers who understand that prior experience and learning
ground knowledge, and identifying constraints. from failure can ultimately lead to better solutions. Students
must also learn to manage uncertainty, risk, safety factors,
Plan and implement (POD-PI) and product reliability. There are additional ways of
At this stage, students develop a plan for a design thinking that are important to engineers that include
solution. This includes brainstorming, developing multiple systems thinking, creativity, optimism, perseverance, and
solution possibilities, and evaluating the pros and cons of innovation. Collaboration (Team), communication (Comm-
competing solutions. In doing so, they must judge the Engr), and ethics (Ethics) are distinct key indicators so not
relative importance of different constraints and trade-offs. included here.
This stage likely concludes with the creation of a prototype,
model, or other product. Conceptions of Engineers and Engineering (CEE)

Test and evaluate (POD-TE) K-12 students not only need to participate in engineering
Once a prototype or model is created it must be tested. design processes but they should also come to an
This likely involves generating testable hypotheses or understanding of the discipline of engineering and the job
questions and designing experiments to evaluate them. of engineers. This includes some of the big ideas/
Students may conduct experiments and collect data (and/or conceptions of engineering, such as how their work is
be provided with data) to analyze graphically, numerically, driven by the needs of a client, the idea of design under
or tabularly. The data should be used to evaluate the constraints, and that no design is perfect. Students should
prototype or solution, to identify strengths and weakness of learn about engineering as a profession, including an
the solution, and to use this feedback in redesign. Because understanding of various engineering disciplines and the
of the iterative nature of design, students should be pathways to become one of those types of engineers.
encouraged to consider all aspects of a design process Students should also gain knowledge about the engineering
multiple times in order to improve the solution or product profession as a whole, for example: diversity, job
until it meets the design criteria. prospects, and expectations.

Apply Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Engineering Tools, Techniques, and Processes (ETools)
Knowledge (SEM)
Engineers use a variety of techniques, skills, processes,
The practice of engineering requires the application of and tools in their work. Students studying engineering at the
science, mathematics, and engineering knowledge, and K-12 level need to become familiar and proficient with some
engineering education at the K-12 level should emphasize of these techniques, skills, processes, and tools. Techniques
this interdisciplinary nature including the integration of are defined as step-by-step procedures for specific tasks
6 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

(example: DNA isolation). Skills are the ability of a person effective teamwork skills, participating in collaborative
to perform a task (examples: using Excel, creating groups and activities that allow students to assume a variety
flowcharts, drawing schematics). Tools are objects used to of roles as a productive member of a team. This team can
make work easier (examples: hammers, rulers, calipers, include partners or small groups where students are
calculators, CAD software, Excel software). Processes are engaged in working together towards a common goal or
defined as a series of actions or steps taken to achieve a project. This may also include aspects of cooperative
particular end (examples: manufacturing, production, uni- learning that focus on collaborative work as students build
versal systems model and excluding engineering design effective teamwork and interpersonal skills necessary for
process because it is a specific and foundational process teamwork. Some of these skills include, developing good
covered in POD). K-12 students should be learning and listening skills, the ability to accept diverse viewpoints, or
implementing different techniques, skills, processes, and learning to compromise and include all members of the
tools during their engineering education. team in the process.

Issues, Solutions, and Impacts (ISI) Communication Related to Engineering (Comm-Engr)

The problems that we face in today’s society are K-12 engineering education should allow students to
increasingly complex and multidisciplinary in nature. In order communicate in manners similar to those of practicing
to solve these problems, students need to be able to understand engineers. Engineers use technical writing to explain the
the impact of their solutions in a global, economic, design and process they have gone through in their work.
environmental, and societal context. Additionally, it is The audience for this technical writing is someone with
important to prepare students to be able to incorporate a background knowledge in the area being addressed. In
knowledge of current events and contemporary issues locally addition, engineers need to be able to communicate their
and globally (such as urban/rural shift, transportation, and technical ideas in common language for those without an
water supply issues), which will help to bring about an engineering background. With these two types of commu-
awareness of realistic problems that exist in today’s ever nication, engineers write client reports, create presentations,
changing global economy. and perform explicit demonstrations. Engineers need to
embody information through multiple representations. In
Ethics addition to verbal communication, communication will take
place by using symbolic representations, pictorial repre-
A well-designed K-12 engineering education should sentations, and manipulatives all within a real-world
expose students to the ethical considerations inherent in the context. For example, reports may not only contain written
practice of engineering. They have the responsibility to use language but also drawings, plans, and schematics.
natural resources and their client’s resources effectively and
efficiently. Engineers must also consider the safety of those Development of the Framework
using or affected by a product, and they should consider the
potential effects of the product on individual and public The Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education
health. Governmental regulations and professional stan- has gone through five iterations in the development
dards are often put into place to address these issues, and process. Each of the five iterations, examples of those
engineers have the responsibility to know and follow these iterations, and the design-based research decisions that led
standards when designing products. Engineers should to each subsequent iteration will be described below.
conduct themselves with integrity when dealing with their
client and as part of the engineering community. The Iteration #1
products and solutions they design should work consis-
tently and as described to the client. In creating these At the commencement of this project, there was no
products, engineers must respect intellectual property established framework for K-12 engineering education, so
rights. Engineering curriculum and activities at the K-12 in order to generate an initial version of the K-12
level should be designed to expose students to these issues, framework, the research team first looked toward estab-
and as a result students should be aware of the importance lished criteria for undergraduate and professional organiza-
of these issues in the field of engineering. tions. While several international criteria for engineering
were considered, each was found to be very similar to the
Teamwork (Team) ABET (2008) Criterion 3: Student Outcomes (a)–(k)
(Figure 2), so the ABET Criterion 3 was chosen as part
An important aspect of K-12 engineering education is of the conceptual foundation for the first iteration of the
developing the ability of students to participate as a framework. The ABET Criteria are used to accredit U.S.
contributing team member. This may include developing and international post-secondary education programs in
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 7

Figure 2. ABET Criterion 3: Student Outcomes (ABET, 2008) [‘‘technology’’ was added to Outcome (a) for iteration #1].

applied sciences, engineering, and technology and describe ‘‘technology’’ to outcome (a) making it consistent with the
the desired characteristics of students who have completed emphasis in the literature on all STEM fields. Thus, with
accredited undergraduate engineering programs. The minimal changes, the ABET student outcomes became the
ABET student outcomes were chosen due to the impor- first iteration of the framework.
tance and wide-spread use of these criteria in providing Following the design-based research paradigm, the next step
structure for quality engineering education at the under- in developing the framework was to apply it in a controlled
graduate level. It was understood that these criteria would setting. As one of the potential uses of this framework would
not necessarily translate directly to the K-12 level, but, in be to inform the development and evaluate the quality of K-12
that they describe the desired characteristics of practicing standards, the research team tested the framework by applying
engineers, these criteria provide a starting point from which it to the evaluation of existing K-12 engineering standards. The
to work backwards toward the key components of K-12 goal of this application was both to ensure that all essential
engineering education. aspects of engineering that appeared in the standards were
When considering the use of ABET as a conceptual reflected in the framework, and when elements of the
foundation for a K-12 framework, the research team framework were not found in the standards, that the researchers
conducted a literature search of each of the ABET student felt that this represented a gap in the standards and not an
outcomes in relation to K-12 engineering education. The irrelevant or inappropriate student outcome in the framework.
literature was examined to determine themes in K-12 The researchers chose Massachusetts Science and Technology/
engineering as well as to establish the presence and/or Engineering Learning Standards (Massachusetts Department
applicability of the ABET student outcomes in K-12 of Education, 2009) for the first test of the framework since
situations. This review (Moore, Stohlmann, Kersten, Tank, Massachusetts was the first state to include engineering in the
& Glancy, 2012) revealed that the characteristics outlined science content standards as a core requirement for all students
in Criterion 3 were at least preliminarily consistent with the and due to the fact that these standards are highly regarded
aspects of K-12 engineering education emphasized in the (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008).
literature including but not limited to the 2009 and 2010 Using the ABET criterion and the working definitions
NRC reports discussed above. from the literature summaries, the research team coded the
To synthesize the relationship between the themes in the Massachusetts science standards. The coding process for this
K-12 literature and the ABET student outcomes, the iteration was a two-step process. First, each standard or
research team organized and summarized the literature benchmark was considered individually, and each researcher
according to the ABET criterion (a)–(k). These summaries coding the standard determined whether it explicitly
helped to clarify how the ABET student outcomes would contained elements of engineering. Second, if it was
manifest themselves at the K-12 level, thus they became determined that a standard did contain engineering, each
working definitions of the outcomes from a K-12 researcher examined the standard for evidence of the (a)–(k)
perspective. The ABET outcomes along with the summa- student outcomes as described in iteration #1 of the
ries of the literature organized by outcome became the first framework. Individual results were recorded in a spreadsheet
iteration of the framework. With the exception of viewing and compared with at least one other researcher after
each outcome through a K-12 lens via the literature completing the coding of the standards document. Through
summaries, the only significant change was the addition of discussion, any disagreements were resolved and final codes
8 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

were recorded. Comparisons of the codes, analysis of the ABET student outcomes in the framework represented the
overall results, and discussions about the way engineering goals and intentions of the undergraduate ABET student
was represented within the standards allowed the researchers outcomes. Furthermore, the experts were asked whether
to test the conjectured framework. This revealed areas where combining the framework outcomes as discussed above
the current working definitions of the ABET student preserved the intent of the ABET criterion 3 while
outcomes needed modification to be appropriate for K-12 reframing them for use in K-12 settings. For both
applications. The framework was then adjusted accordingly, questions, the experts responded in the positive.
resulting in the next iteration. The weaknesses revealed in The revised version of the framework with these
the examination of the first iteration will be described in the combined definitions for outcomes (c) and (e) and
next section. outcomes (h) and (j) became iteration #2 of the framework
(Figure 3). Because this iteration marked a somewhat
Iteration #2 significant modification of the ABET Criterion 3: Student
Outcomes (ABET, 2008), the outcomes were each renamed
In the second iteration, the researchers set out to resolve with appropriate descriptors. Furthermore, the researchers
the following issues that arose from testing the first acknowledged that the term ‘‘outcome,’’ although suitable
iteration. First, the distinction between ABET student for describing a student leaving an undergraduate program,
outcome (c), which focuses on engineering design, and does not reflect the developmental nature of students
student outcome (e), which focuses on solving engineering moving through a K-12 education. For this reason, the term
problems, was difficult to resolve when examining the ‘‘indicator’’ was adopted, and from this point forward, the
Massachusetts academic standards because engineering elements of the framework will be referred to as
design is a specific approach to solving problems in ‘‘indicators.’’ Furthermore, those indicators that appear in
engineering. As a result, the researchers found no examples the final framework are referred to as ‘‘key indicators.’’
that were coded as engineering design exclusively without Figure 3 lists the indicators for iteration #2 and the ABET
also being coded as solving engineering problems and vice student outcomes from which they evolved.
versa. Additionally, although the literature supports an To continue with the design research paradigm, it was
emphasis on engineering design, it does not support a clear necessary to test the second iteration of the framework
distinction between engineering design and solving engi- in a controlled setting. The researchers again applied the
neering problems for K-12 students, thus the distinction framework by using it to evaluate existing state standards
between outcome (c) and outcome (e) was deemed documents. Carr, Bennett, and Strobel (2012) had been
unnecessary within the framework. For these reasons, working on identifying states with engineering standards.
outcomes (c) and (e) were combined. Through collaborations with them, 15 states were identified
The second difficulty that needed to be resolved was the to code, 11 of which had created their own engineering
overlap between outcome (h), which centers on the impact standards and 4 had adopted standards that were highly
of engineering solutions on important issues, and outcome similar to the Standards for Technological Literacy from
(j), which focuses on a general knowledge of contemporary the International Technology and Engineering Educators
issues involving engineering as they appeared in the K-12 Association (ITEEA). The explicit engineering standards
setting. Contemporary issues involving engineering and the appeared in mathematics, science, or career and technical
impact of engineering solutions were always presented
together in the literature and in the Massachusetts
standards. For practicing engineers, these two outcomes
form distinct and important aspects of their profession.
However for K-12 students learning about engineering
these two outcomes go hand-in-hand; it is not necessary to
artificially separate them. For this reason, outcomes (h) and
(j) were also combined.
As an additional test on the iteration #2 framework, the
research team consulted with two experts in the field of
engineering education who have extensive experience with
the ABET student outcomes. One of the experts is the
director of and faculty in an ABET-accredited, completely
problem-based undergraduate engineering program, and the
other expert is a full professor at a research-extensive
university immersed in the engineering education research Figure 3. Iteration #2. ABET Criterion 3: Student Outcomes (ABET,
community. Specifically, the research team asked the 2008) and the new corresponding indicators for the second iteration of
experts if the initial literature-based descriptions of the the framework.
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 9

education content areas; therefore, those were the content in a design cycle and therefore the indicator needed further
standards examined by the researchers. Standards docu- description. Furthermore, it was determined that the simple
ments for each of these states were retrieved from the combination of problem solving with engineering design
respective state department of education websites in the failed to clearly convey the subtle yet important distinctions
summer of 2011 and were current as of that point. between problem solving in engineering and problem
The science and technology standards from Massachusetts solving in other domains. This was seen as particularly
were the only standards to be coded by all graduate problematic in situations where engineering is integrated
researchers; the other standards were coded in pairs by one into mathematics or science classrooms. In these cases,
science education graduate researcher and one mathematics without clear distinctions, the practices of the primary
education graduate researcher. Prior to coding, the research- discipline could easily overshadow the desired engineering
ers tasked with coding the standards for each state determined practices.
the unit of coding based on the structure of the standards Additionally, the research team acknowledged that the
document itself. In some cases the unit of coding was the intent of the Inquiry & Data indicator was that the skills
‘‘standard’’ while in others it was the ‘‘benchmark,’’ represented by this indicator would be used while testing
depending on how each state interpreted those two concepts. and evaluating a design solution not just in a purely
Through the discussions to reach final agreement for the scientific context. The indicator definition for Inquiry &
coding of these states’ standards documents, further refine- Data, however, did not reflect that intention so it was
ments and additions were made to the definitions of each decided that it would be highlighted as part of the testing
indicator for this iteration. See Moore et al. (2012) for a and evaluating steps of engineering design. Furthermore,
complete description of the framework at this stage. the indicators as they appeared in iteration #2 of the
framework did not allow for the distinction of the use of
Iteration #3 the entire design process from the use of only a portion of
the process. The ABET student outcomes indicate that
The results from iteration #2 indicated the need to make engineering program graduates should be able to apply
major adjustments to the ABET-based framework in order design processes, however, this ultimate goal does not
to appropriately reflect and describe the K-12 setting. The reflect the stages of development or scaffolding necessary
changes represented in this iteration will be described in to acquire that ability for K-12 students. Although it is
detail in this section. Figure 4 provides a list of the new important for K-12 students to engage in complete
indicators that resulted in this iteration. processes of design during the course of their engineering
Analysis of the standards from the fifteen states education, focusing on portions of the design cycle can be
identified above, made it clear that combining indicators helpful in building students’ understanding.
(c) and (e) into Design Cycle/Problem Solving (from the To address the issues described above, both the Design
last iteration) did not completely capture the characteristics Cycle/Problem Solving and Inquiry & Data indicators were
of engineering design that are central to solving engineer- eliminated and replaced with one new key indicator and
ing problems. Although combining indicators (c) and (e) three sub-indicators. It was determined that the previous
made the coding of certain standards more clear, it also indicators all represented different aspects of a design
allowed some academic standards to meet that indicator process and therefore, they were grouped under the new
frequently by focusing on aspects of design, like proposing key indicator Processes of Design (POD). In recognizing
design solutions, without truly requiring students to engage that there are multiple phases included in an engineering
design process and to accommodate education environ-
ments in which portions of engineering design are high-
lighted, three sub-indicators were created. These sub-
indicators represent different phases of engineering design:
Problem and Background (POD-PB), Plan and Implement
(POD-PI), and Test and Evaluate (POD-TE). Although it is
acknowledged that there is variation in specific processes
of design, the researchers found that models of design
processes iterate on these three, broad phases in some form
or another.
Analysis of the first fifteen states with iteration #2 of the
framework also revealed that the Life-Long Learner
indicator, as stated, was not developmentally appropriate
for the K-12 setting. ABET outcome (i), Life-Long
Learning, describes the characteristics exhibited by grad-
Figure 4. Preliminary K-12 Framework (Iteration #3). uates of a degree-awarding program, and the merit of the
10 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

program can be judged (in part) by the extent to which indicator (Comm) with two sub-indicators: Engineering
graduates exhibit these characteristics (ABET, 2008). Thus Communication (Comm-Engr) and General Education
producing ‘‘life-long learners’’ is an appropriate goal for an Communication Skills (Comm-Edu).
undergraduate program. However, the Framework for The next iteration also included several other minor
Quality K-12 Engineering Education is meant to guide and changes to the framework. Most significantly, the decision
evaluate the learning activities and opportunities afforded to to include technology in the STEM indicator was reversed.
the students during their K-12 education and classroom Although application of one’s technological knowledge is
experiences. Although many activities in primary and an important aspect of engineering, at the K-12 level
secondary classrooms do in fact encourage students to be students typically focus more on learning about and how to
life-long learners, rarely is that the stated goal of the activity use the technologies than on applying them. This approach
or represented in academic standards. For this reason, Life- to technology education is more appropriately addressed in
Long Learner was eliminated as a separate indicator, and the the Technology & Engineering Tools indicator. This shift
thrust of the indicator remains as a part of two new indicators resulted in renaming the Science, Technology, Engineering,
discussed below. and Mathematics (STEM) indicator to Apply Science,
Results from iteration #2 also revealed that some Engineering, and Mathematics Knowledge (SEM). Also,
important aspects of a K-12 engineering education were the Technology & Engineering Tools indicator was
reflected in practice but were not, as of yet, addressed in the simplified to Engineering Tools (ETool). The final change
framework. For this reason, two new key indicators were in this iteration was to rename the Global, Economic,
created. The first was Conceptions of Engineers and Environmental, Societal and/or Contemporary Issues
Engineering (CEE). K-12 students often do not have well indicator with the new name Issues, Solutions, and
developed conceptions of engineering or what engineers Impacts (ISI).
do, and what is more problematic, they often have The significant changes to the framework within this
misconceptions (Knight & Cunningham, 2004). For this iteration warranted further evaluation beyond the research
reason, it is important that K-12 students are given team’s expertise. Experts in the field of engineering
opportunities to learn about engineering as a profession education were consulted to complete a review of this
and what it takes to be an engineer (Brophy et al., 2008; iteration. One of the experts has extensive research
Cunningham, Lachapelle, & Lindgren-Streicher, 2005). experience writing and implementing engineering curricula
These findings are the basis for this new indicator. at the K-12 level through work at an informal learning
Additionally, one of the three recommendations from the institution. The second expert is a full professor at a
2009 National Research Council report calls for the research-extensive university immersed in the engineering
promotion of engineering habits of mind. While collabora- education research community. Specifically, the research
tion, communication, and attention to ethical considerations team asked the experts if the third iteration of the
were already present in the framework, systems thinking, framework was representative of the research literature
creativity, and optimism were still missing. Furthermore, around K-12 engineering education, and if the modifica-
while the Processes of Design indicator encompasses a tions to the ABET student outcomes seemed appropriate for
large part of how engineers approach problems, the types of K-12 while still maintaining the spirit of the original
thinking involved in solving engineering problems are not criterion. With this updated version of the framework, the
limited to design processes. Therefore, the Engineering researchers again coded (as described in previous itera-
Thinking (EThink) key indicator was added to include the tions) the same fifteen states as had been done previously to
remaining habits of mind from the NRC (2009) report as ensure that the modifications were more completely
well as other valued engineering thinking skills such as representative of a quality K-12 engineering education.
learning from failure and reflective thinking. Finally, this iteration was presented at the American
Testing of the framework from iteration #2 also Society for Engineering Education conference within
revealed that a distinction was necessary between general the K-12 and Precollege Engineering Division where the
communication skills (such as the ability to explain one’s research team solicited feedback from the audience on the
ideas, or present background information) and engineering- framework. Feedback was provided by five participants,
specific communication skills (such as the ability to one of which was fairly extensive.
communicate technical information both to other engineers
and to the client). An important outcome in many Iteration #4
disciplines of K-12 education is to develop students who
are able to communicate using a variety of forms. However, Iteration #4 resulted in changes from iteration #3 based
these general communication skills do not capture the on the second analysis of the standards from those 15 states
specialized types of communication skills that are com- and the feedback from the expert reviewers and stake-
monly used in engineering professions. This inspired the holders present during the conference presentation men-
modification of the Communication indicator into one tioned above. The most significant change was to reorder
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 11

the indicators. The previous order of the indicators simply to define engineering for K-12 learners. For this reason
reflected the evolution of the framework from the original Comm-Edu was removed. Without that indicator, there was
ABET student outcomes and not any valuation of the no longer a need for the overall Comm indicator so that was
relative importance of the indicators. Reviewers commen- also removed. The second change was related to the
ted, however, that despite the lack of intent to rank the Processes of Design indicator, which was renamed to
indicators, the fact that they appear in some order implied a Complete Processes of Design (POD) to distinguish it more
ranking. For that reason, the order of the indicators within clearly from the sub-indicators beneath it. Finally, the
the framework was carefully rearranged based on the detailed definitions, examples, and clarifying statements
degree to which the indicator is a unique or central aspect that the research team had been using for coding were
of engineering compared to skills, processes, and ways of incorporated directly into the indicator definitions them-
thinking used across several disciplines. The rearrangement selves. The final key indicators as well as their definitions
of the framework occurred in close consultation with the are reflected in the Framework for Quality K-12
expert reviewers from previous iterations. Indicators that Engineering Education section above.
appear near the beginning (e.g., POD) are thought to be As these modifications did not alter the content of the
defining characteristics of engineering. Whereas, those definitions, only their presentation, the testing of the fifth
indicators that appear later (e.g., Teamwork), although iteration of the framework did not include another round of
essential for engineering education, are concepts that are coding of state standards documents and instead the testing
required for success in multiple disciplines. The final of the current iteration was extended to include additional
framework presented above (Figure 1) reflects the ordering aspects of the educational system. This application helps to
at this stage. ensure that educators, researchers, and policy makers can
Additional reviewer comments and the analysis of our use the framework more broadly for the inclusion of
second coding prompted several additions to the defini- engineering in various K-12 settings. The additional
tions. These additions were intended to provide more aspects that were included for this round of testing included
detailed descriptions of the indicators. The most significant the application of the framework to evaluate classroom
of these was the addition of engineering processes to the practice and for use in the development and evaluation of a
ETool indicator. These processes include things like research-based curriculum.
manufacturing processes as well as concepts like the The fifth iteration of the framework was applied in
‘‘universal systems model’’ that are important components classroom settings by using it as an evaluation tool for
of engineering. This key indicator was renamed again to describing how and to what extent high school science
Engineering Tools & Processes (ETool). Along with that, teachers implementing an integrated STEM module
minor modifications to several of the indicators were made. represented engineering in their classroom. Kersten
For example, additional aspects of engineering thinking (2013) used the framework as a means to describe the
like considering product reliability and managing uncer- comprehensiveness and quality of modules, which resulted
tainty and risk were added to the EThink indicator. in a demonstration of varying levels of quality among
The changes described above marked the penultimate modules and their implementation. The classrooms in
version of the framework. With this iteration (iteration #4), which the research took place included required and not
the testing of the framework was expanded to include the required science courses, differing levels of students of color
evaluation of the science standards documents for all 50 (as high as 75%, as low as 10%), and varying percentages of
states. The science standards for each of the original 15 students receiving free and reduced lunch (as high as 62%
were re-coded along with the science standards for the and as low as 29%). Her work included parsing out key
remaining 35 states. For the results of the analysis of indicators of the framework into three groups: (1) indicators
science standards from all 50 states see (Moore, Tank, central to engineering and engineering education (POD
Glancy, Kersten, & Ntow, 2013). [POD-PB, POD-PI, POD-TE], SEM, and EThink), (2)
indicators important to the development of students’ under-
Iteration #5 standing of engineering (CEE and ETools), and (3) indicators
that promote important professional skills used by engineers
Application of iteration #4 of the framework to all 50 (ISI, Ethics, Team, and Comm-Engr). Her results indicated
states’ science standards documents identified a few final that in order for a module to be of adequate quality, it needed
changes that will be described below and resulted in the to include all of three of the indicators central to engineering
current version of the Framework for Quality K-12 (POD, SEM, and EThink). She found that when these were
Engineering Education presented above (Figure 1). The not present, ‘‘a project can merely become a craft or tinkering
first change was related to the communication indicators, project, rather than an engineering design project’’ (p. 243).
and it was determined that general communication skills, Her results also indicated that the Team and Comm-Engr
while important, were not unique to engineering so indicators are required for the module to be considered
therefore did not belong in a framework that was meant adequate quality. Her findings suggested that the indicators
12 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

important to the development of students’ understanding Conclusion

of engineering (CEE and ETools), and the ISI and Ethics
indicators are not required for a quality engineering unit, This paper describes the Framework for Quality K-12
but that when they are added, the projects are more Engineering Education and its development in order to
authentic. Kersten’s work increased the understanding of provide a research-based justification for its structure and
how the framework could be useful in the classroom content. The framework was created in order to meet the
setting. growing need for a clear and concise definition of quality
Additionally, the fifth iteration of the framework was K-12 engineering education to be used in guiding
applied to the development and subsequent evaluation of an development of curricula, classroom implementation,
integrated STEM curricular unit. In this case, the frame- standards, and policy around engineering in integrated K-
work provided a lens for researchers when considering the 12 STEM education settings. As we look towards the future
inclusion of the necessary engineering learning objectives of STEM education, there is a need for continued research
at the elementary level. The PictureSTEM Project (Moore, about how engineering is and should be implemented at the
2010–2015) is a design-based K-5 curriculum development K-12 level.
project that explores the use of engineering and literature to The framework has uses as an evaluation and develop-
facilitate the meaningful learning of STEM content through ment tool for policy and research regarding K-12
the integration of these disciplines. The application of the engineering and STEM education. The framework has
framework to one of the K-2 grade band units, Designing been used to assess the current status of engineering in all
Hamster Habitats (Tank, Pettis, Moore, & Fehr, 2013), 50 U.S. state’s academic science standards (Moore, Tank,
ensured that this STEM integration curricular unit was et al., 2013) and is also being applied to the national career
accurately representing core ideas, skills, and dispositions and technical education standards to gain a picture of how
of engineering throughout the unit. This unit has been engineering is currently represented in our K-12 educa-
adopted by a highly diverse, urban school district for use tional system. It has also been used to assess the public
with all kindergarten students. This district is an inner-ring drafts of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS
metropolitan district with 11,000 students in grades K-12, Lead States, 2013) as a feedback mechanism for writers
41% of students of color, 42% of students receive free or of the standards. The framework has been presented
reduced-price lunch, and 35 different languages are spoken to the National Academy of Engineering’s Committee on
by the students and their families. Integrated STEM Education (Moore, 2012) for their work
The application of the framework to this early elemen- on developing a national strategic research agenda for
tary unit also helped the researchers assess the use of determining the approaches and conditions most likely to
the framework for application with younger students in lead to positive outcomes of an integrated STEM educa-
elementary settings. Upon evaluation of the K-2 grade tion. Lastly, the framework has been applied to student-
band unit with the framework, it was found that the level engineering content assessments to be used in
curricular unit addressed 10 of the 12 key indicators research to assure a comprehensive view of engineering
identified in the framework. When implemented in was present (Moore, Imbertson, Guzey, Roehrig, & Davis,
classrooms, the curricular module also met the same 2013–2018). These uses provide an overview to the
indicators. Therefore, with the successful application of possibilities of how the framework might be used to
the framework to elementary academic state standards and evaluate existing engineering education initiatives.
the development of an elementary curricular unit and its Furthermore, the framework can be useful for curriculum
implementation, it was determined that at the current time development both for the development of units of
the framework did not need to be further modified for use instruction and for the development of scope and sequen-
in elementary settings. cing throughout K-12 curricula. Teachers who have been
The ultimate goal of the project was to create a document introduced to the framework through professional devel-
that could be used to help educators gain a deeper opment opportunities have used this framework as a guide
understanding of engineering and the components that to ensure their curricular units faithfully represent the
make up engineering, and as a research tool for evaluating complexities of engineering (Brown, Roehrig, & Moore, in
the inclusion of engineering in K-12 settings. Therefore, the press). One school district has used the framework to guide
extended application of the current framework for evaluat- the development of programs of instruction around STEM
ing classroom teaching practices and curriculum helped integration (Burrell, Moore, & Roehrig, 2008–2014).
to expand the system of use for this framework into However, the authors want to caution the readers here.
educational settings beyond academic state standards This framework was intended to ensure a quality
documents. Additionally, the classroom implementations engineering education over the course of a student’s K-12
of the framework described above helped to demonstrate education. Not every lesson or unit that a student
that the framework is applicable across K-12 grade levels encounters in engineering education needs to address every
and for a diverse set of students. key indicator of the framework. These uses show the
 T. J. Moore et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 13

potential for applying this framework as a guide for school- Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. M. (2004). Draw an Engineer Test
(DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about
level engineering education reform.
engineers and engineering. Paper presented at the 2004 ASEE
Many questions have yet to be answered about (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference,
engineering in K-12 and its role in integrated STEM Salt Lake City, UT.
education. Most of these require a definition and means of Massachusetts Department of Education. (2009). Current curriculum
operationalizing the conceptions of engineering at the K-12 frameworks: Science and technology/engineering. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/current.html
level (NRC, 2010). The Framework for Quality K-12
Moore, T. J. (2010–2015). CAREER: Implementing K-12 engineering
Engineering Education offers a collection of key indicators standards through STEM integration (EEC 1055382). [Funded grant]
for a comprehensive K-12 engineering education and a Purdue University: National Science Foundation.
means to develop those key indicators through systematic Moore, T. J. (2012). STEM integration: Teacher and teaching issues.
definitions of each indicator. Furthermore, the framework Committee on Integrated STEM Education on Building Educator
Expertise in iSTEM. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.
has potential as a research instrument that can lead to
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Stohlmann,
deeper understandings of learning and instruction in K-12 M. S., Ntow, F. D., & Smith, K. A. (2013). A framework for
engineering education. implementing quality K-12 engineering education. Paper presented at
the 2013 ASEE (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual
References Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Moore, T. J., Imbertson, P., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., & Davis, M.
(2013–2018). EngrTEAMS: Engineering to Transform the Education
ABET. (2008). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved
of Analysis, Measurement, and Science in a targeted mathematics-
from http://www.mcrit.com/enginycat/XF/RTK/ABET.pdf
science partnership (DRL 1238140). [Funded grant] University of
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing
Minnesota: National Science Foundation.
engineering education in P-12 classroom. Journal of Engineering
Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Kersten, J. A., Tank, K. M., & Glancy,
Education, 97(3), 369–387.
A. W. (2012). Building a framework to evaluate the inclusion of
Brown, A., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. J. (in press). Middle school
engineering in state K-12 STEM education academic standards. Paper
engineering education. STEM Exemplary Science Program (ESP)
presented at the 2012 ASEE (American Society for Engineering
Monograph.
Education) Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Burrell, S., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2008–2014). 3M STEM Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., Kersten, J. A., & Ntow, F. D.
Education Fellows: North Saint Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale School (2013). The status of engineering in the current K-12 state science
District. [Funded grant] University of Minnesota: 3M Community standards (research-to-practice). Paper presented at the 2013 ASEE
Affairs. (American Society for Engineering Education) Annual Conference,
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., IV, & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K- Atlanta, GA.
12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm:
extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564. Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.
Chandler, J., Fontenot, A. D., & Tate, D. (2011). Problems associated with Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
a lack of cohesive policy in K-12 pre-college engineering. Journal of National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education:
Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(1), 40–48. Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington,
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). DC: The National Academies.
Design experiments in education research. Educational Researcher, National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering
32(1), 9–13. education? Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005). National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science
Assessing elementary school strudents’ conceptions of engineering and education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
technology. Paper presented at the 2005 ASEE (American Society for Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Engineering Education) Annual Conference, Portland, OR. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2010). Prepare
Hjalmarson, M., & Lesh, R. (2008). Engineering and design research: and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math
Intersections for education research and design. In, A. E. Kelly, R. A. (STEM) education for America’s future. Retrieved from http://www.
Lesh & J. Y. Baek (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports
education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H.-H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is
mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 96–110). London: Routledge. adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering
Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science
design research methods in education: Innovations in science, and Mathematics, 112(1), 31–44.
technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. Tank, K. M., Pettis, C., Moore, T. J., & Fehr, A. (2013). Designing animal
London: Routledge. habitats with kindergartners: Hamsters, picture books, and engineering
Kersten, J. A. (2013). Integration of engineering education by high school design. Science and Children, 50(9), 59–63.
teachers to meet standards in the physics classroom. (Doctoral Tsupros, N., Kohler, R., & Hallinen, J. (2009). STEM education: A project
dissertation). Available through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses to identify the missing components. Intermediate Unit 1 and Carnegie
database. (AAT 3599043) Mellon, Pennsylvania.
Copyright of Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education is the property of Purdue
University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.