A Framework for K–12 Science Educationstatic.nsta.org/files/ss1403_58.pdf · A Framework for K–12 Science Education ... the learning to be taught by K–12 teachers ... describe

A Framework for K–12 Science Education (NRC 2012), which is the foundation for the Next Gen-eration Science Standards, places unprecedented

focus on engineering design as a major component of the learning to be taught by K–12 teachers of science. The overarching goal of the new Framework is that “students should have the opportunity to carry out sci-entific investigations and engineering design projects related to the disciplinary core ideas” (NRC 2012, p. 7). The emphasis on using scientific practices and engi-neering design to learn core science ideas is addressed by dimensions 1 (science and engineering practices) and 3 (disciplinary core ideas) of the Framework.

by Ying-Chih Chen,

Tamara J. Moore,

and Hui-Hui Wang

This has raised critical pedagogical questions re-lated to the integration of engineering design and core science concepts. Why do we need engineering for K–12 science education? What strategies can we as teachers use to build student understanding of core science concepts through engineering design? How can we help students see the relationships between sci-ence and engineering?

In this article, we introduce a model to help teachers integrate core science concepts in engi-neering design projects in a meaningful way. This model can be used at dif ferent grades across dif fer-ent disciplines.

58

The design-based model

Meaningful learning—as opposed to reception, or rote, learning—occurs when new knowledge to acquire is related with prior knowledge within real-world con-texts (Ausubel 1968). Evidence of meaningful learning is when students are able to apply their conceptual un-derstanding to a new situation. If learning, in order to make connections between prior and new knowledge, requires that students apply their new knowledge in the real world, teaching must be oriented to connec-tion and application.

Engineering provides a vehicle to drive students to learn core science ideas in a real-world context through design-based problem-solving practice (Roehrig et al. 2012). Engineering is the integration of different disciplinary core science ideas and crosscut-ting concepts to make decisions about which solution to a problem is the most satisfactory. To illustrate how to incorporate those ideas into science classrooms, we describe a design-based model using an eighth-grade science lesson on wind energy as an example. This design-based model is based on practice #6 of the new Framework: Constructing Explanations and Design-ing Solutions (NRC 2012). Through it, students will “solve design problems by appropriately applying their scientific knowledge” and “evaluate and critique com-peting design solutions based on jointly developed and agreed-on design criteria” (NRC 2012, p. 69). In addi-tion, students will “actively engage in science and en-gineering practices and apply crosscutting concepts to deepen their understanding of each field’s disciplinary

core ideas” (NRC 2012, p. 2). The design-based model has four phases, each of which has a different purpose for engaging students in constructing explanations and designing solutions (Figure 1).

We used the design-based model to create a lesson that helps middle school students develop the ability to do science and engineering and understand the core science ideas of energy transformation and conserva-tion through a design-based project focused on wind turbine blades (Next Generation Science Standards per-

formance expectation MS-PS3-5 of standard MS-PS3: Energy; NGSS Lead States 2013). Figure 2 shows a lesson plan for using the design-based model in a unit on wind energy. This project could be used as an extension of a previous Science Scope activity de-scribed in Pries and Hughes 2011 that focused on energy transformation through a wind turbine ex-periment. Students did not learn science concepts about energy transformation first and then engage in the engineering-design project; they learned the concepts about energy transformation through the project.

Phase 1: Identifying a problem

A classroom concept map is an effective tool for vi-sualizing students’ prior knowledge and identifying what students know and do not know (Chen, Park, and Hand 2013). The teacher can ask students to write down words related to wind energy on sticky notes and discuss through a whole-class negotiation how to link those words. Students use arrows and

Four phases of the design-based modelFIGURE 1

November 2014 59

CONSTRUCT, CRITIQUE, AND CONNECT: ENGINEERING AS A VEHICLE TO LEARN SCIENCE

Core science ideas• Energy transformation: Energy can transfer from one form to another and work can be done by this energy. • Energy conservation: The overall amount of energy remains conserved.

The problem How can we design the best wind turbine blades to produce electricity?

Wind energy is friendly to the surrounding environment, as no fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity from wind energy. Maple Community School District in Minnesota already has a wind turbine, but it cannot supply the electricity for the whole school district. Therefore, members of the community have decided to redesign the wind turbine blades to provide electricity for the entire school district. This project is extraordinary because it will use only one wind turbine to generate energy for the school district with several buildings. However, Maple Community School District has a limited budget, $3,000, for this project. The school district asks engineering companies to submit proposals for remodeling the wind turbine blade by using the smallest budget to produce maximum electricity. You, as an engineer, work with your team members to redesign the wind turbine blades to solve the problem.

CostPaper blade: $150Plastic blade: $200Balsa blade: $250Each test (turning on the fan and using the multimeter): $300(Each blade has a balsa skewer attached by hot glue.)

The goalIn this design activity, your group must generate a solution to solve the problem while explaining what your solution is, why you chose it, and how you designed it by using core science ideas.

MaterialsYou may use the following materials for your design: motor, wires, fan, gears, hub, multimeter, alligator clips, balsa wood, aluminum foil, plastic, construction paper, popsicle sticks.

Getting startedYou and your group will need to determine how to solve this problem on you own. To be successful, you will need to develop an explanation that solves the problem, determine a way to gather the data you need to produce evidence that can be used to justify your explanation, and make your design explicit. You will then coordinate these components into an argument that you can use to convince your customers that your design is valid and acceptable. Finally, you will write down how you designed the wind turbine blades, what you have learned, and what scientific concepts you applied in your design.

Safety issuesBecause blades can fly off of moving model turbines, each student should wear safety goggles to provide appropriate eye protection when building and testing the turbines.

Students may cut blades to different shapes by using scissors under adult supervision, or the teacher can prepare 50 blades for each material (paper, plastic, balsa, and aluminum foil; 7 × 40 cm) ahead of time.

Engineering-design activity for design of wind turbine bladesFIGURE 2

60


linking verbs to connect all the pieces. The arrows usu-ally consist of a verb or preposition, such as is, includes, can be, occurs in, have, like, which has, are, from, pro-duces, causes, for, and so on. Figure 3 features an exam-ple of using a concept map in the unit on wind energy.

After exploring students’ prior knowledge about wind energy, use the concept map to generate a prob-lem for the design activity. Pick any word from the con-cept web and ask students about their ideas in detail. Middle school students usually know wind energy is a source for electrical energy, but they do not know how wind energy transforms to electrical energy. For example, in order to elicit the problem, we asked stu-dents if they had ever seen a machine that can trans-form wind energy to other forms of energy. One stu-dent said he had seen wind turbines in a field; several other students began to discuss what a wind turbine is and its function.

Next the teacher asks challenge questions, such as “How does a wind turbine work?” and “How can we transform wind energy to electrical energy?” When

A concept map used in the wind energy unitFIGURE 3

Step 1: Moving air pushes against the blades of the turbine, which are tilted to the direction of the wind. This makes the blades spin. In the process, some of the kinetic energy of the moving air is transformed into the mechanical energy of the spinning blades. (The wind still has some kinetic energy as it flows away from the turbine.)

Step 2: The shafts and the gears inside the gearbox transfer the mechanical energy of the turbine to the generator.

Step 3: The generator transforms mechanical energy into electrical energy.

Transformation of wind energy (Aste Stelr Project)FIGURE 4

PHOT

OS C

OURT

ESY

OF T

HE A

UTHO

RS

November 2014 61


students are motivated by these questions, the teach-er can show a video related to wind turbines (see Re-sources) and ask students to describe what they think they see happening to transform energy and then com-pare that to the path/steps in Figure 4. The teacher guides students to think about how energy can be transferred or transformed from one form into another and the overall amount of energy remains conserved. Wind turbines can transform mechanical energy into electrical energy (see Figure 4).

After students have a basic understanding of how wind turbines work, ask them what factors affect the amount of electricity that can be generated from a wind turbine. Students should give their reasoning for the answer—what cause-and-effect relationship they see between the factors mentioned and the electricity. In our class, students gave several answers: wind speed, size of turbine, blade design, etc. Once students have brainstormed ideas, narrow down the question to fo-cus on blade design: How can we design the best wind turbine blades to produce maximum electricity?

As the problem is generated through teacher- guided discussion, we recommend that the teacher connect the problem to the real world; Figure 2 in-

cludes an example that relates the problem to the real world and the constraints we gave students. The teach-er can also directly assign students a problem, but by engaging in the process, students are in charge of their learning and develop meaningful understanding of the problem. This initial phase should take approximately one 50-minute class period to complete.

Phase 2: Engaging in a cooperative, design-based activity

Cooperative work is part of the essential nature of engi-neering (Smith et al. 2005). In this phase, students are divided into teams of three or four. Each team is asked to discuss as a group an initial plan for designing wind turbine blades before running a test. Students are told what materials they will have to use for the design of wind turbine blades (see Figures 2 and 5). The teacher should help students think about what variables they can use for the first round of design (e.g., the number of blades, the angle of the blades, materials, the size of the blades). For example, ask students, “What things affect the amount of electricity produced from wind turbines?” Each team should choose one independent variable to consider as the most important variable for the design. After each team decides on the variable to test, teams bring their design plan to the station to “purchase” materials for testing.

The station consists of all materials (Figure 5) and assembly instructions (Figure 6) for building the wind

Per group of three or four students

• 1 wind turbine hub ($10)

• 1 gear set for spool ($15)

• 1 wind turbine generator (motor and wires) ($20)

• 1 tower and base set ($5)

• 6 balsa wood blades (7 cm [width] × 40 cm [length]) ($3)

• 6 aluminum foil blades (7 cm [width] × 40 cm [length]) ($1)

• 6 plastic blades (7 cm [width] × 40 cm [length]) ($3)

• 6 construction paper blades (7 cm [width] × 40 cm [length]) ($3)

• Multimeter ($15)

• Alligator clips ($3)

• Fan ($5)

Materials FIGURE 5

62


Step Procedure Example

Wind turbine tower assembly

1. Lock the two bases together.2. Insert the tower into the center hub.3. Insert the wind turbine hub into the central sticker.

Nacelle assembly

1. Secure all the nuts, bolts, and screws.

2. Put the motor into the motor mounts.

3. Attach the smallest gear to the motor.

4. Slide the long shaft into the wind turbine hub and attach the bigger gear to the long shaft.

Wind turbine blade assembly

1. Attach the wind turbine blade connector to the long shaft.

2. Lock the wind turbine blades to the wind turbine blade connector.

Assembly instruction FIGURE 6

IMAGES ADAPTED FROM VERNIER ADVANCED WIND EXPERIMENT KIT AND WWW.KIDWIND.ORG

November 2014 63


turbine and is monitored by a teacher or an adult volun-teer. Go over safety guidelines with the class if students are allowed to use a box cutter and hot glue gun to cut and glue blades and skewers. In our class, the teacher cut each blade to 7 × 40 cm and attached it to balsa skewers ahead of time. Students are required to wear safety goggles when building and testing the turbines.

The teacher demonstrates for students how to test the wind turbines and read the multimeter. The teacher should tell students what they measure is voltage, and that the higher the number displayed on the multime-ter screen, the higher the amount of electricity gener-ated by the wind turbine. Remind students they have a limited budget to remodel the wind turbine blades and run tests. Figure 7 shows an assembled wind turbine.

To help students focus on using evidence to support their design and explain their design by using science concepts, move from group to group asking questions such as the following: “Can you explain why you chose this design?”; “Do you have evidence to support your design?”; “Why did you decide to collect that informa-

tion as part of your evidence?” An important concept when making turbine blades is

that the lift force causes rotation around the hub (per-formance expectation MS-PS3-5; NGSS Lead States 2013). To guide students to think about the concepts, the teacher can ask questions such as “How does a wind turbine transform wind energy to electrical energy” and “How does wind make a wind turbine rotate?” In addi-tion to lift force, a “drag” force perpendicular to the lift force impedes rotor rotation. The prime objective in the design of wind turbine blades is to have a relatively high lift-to-drag ratio, and this ratio can be varied to maximize the turbine’s energy output at various wind speeds de-pending on the number of blades, the blades’ materials (mass), and the length of the blade.

Guide students to realize and explain that wind turbines also create drag, or resistance, which slows wind. For example, as the number of wind turbines increases, more electricity is generated. But eventu-ally the winds would slow so much that adding more turbines would not generate more electricity. Students

An example of an assembled wind turbineFIGURE 7

PHOT

OS C

OURT

ESY

OF T

HE A

UTHO

RS

64


should focus on finding the point at which energy gen-eration is highest. The same concept can apply to the size, angle, and weight of blades. In order to help them systematically gather and represent data, the teacher can ask students to use diagrams or tables to represent and explain the data they gather. Through multiple modes of representation, the patterns of data and the relationships between different variables become easy to understand, and students are able to explain their design evidentially.

To test their wind turbine, students must learn un-der teacher supervision how to use a multimeter to re-cord the voltage. Figure 8 shows examples of student

tests of their first design by changing the numbers of plastic blades, the angles of plastic blades, and the length of blades. Figure 9 shows an example of what wind turbine testing looked like in our class. We sug-gest teachers give students two 50-minute class peri-ods to complete this phase.

Phase 3: Evaluating the solution to the problem through public negotiation

In this phase, students publicly share their first de-sign and test results, gain feedback from other stu-dents and the teacher, respond to questions, and de-

Independent variable: number of plastic bladesControlled variables (constraints): angle of blades (45°), material of blades (plastic), length of blades (40 cm)Cost: (5 [plastic blades] × 200) + (1 × 300 [test]) = 1,300

Number of plastic blades

Voltage generated by the turbine (volts)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Average

3 1.15 1.01 1.1 1.09

4 1.09 1.2 1.15 1.15

5 0.81 0.89 1 0.9

Independent variable: angle of plastic bladesControlled variables (constraints): number of blades (3), material of blades (plastic), length of blades (40 cm)Cost: (3 [plastic blades] × 200) + (1 × 300 [test]) = 900

Angle of plastic blades (°)



15 0.95 1.04 0.95 0.98

30 2.3 1.98 2.02 2.1

45 1.15 1.05 1.2 1.13

60 1.05 1.06 0.92 1.01

Independent variable: length of plastic bladesControlled variables (constraints): number of blades (3), angle of blades (45°), material of blades (plastic)Cost: (3 [plastic blades] × 200) + (1 × 300 [test]) = 900

Length of plastic blades (cm)



20 1.59 1.67 1.69 1.65

30 1.41 1.75 1.78 1.65

40 1.2 1.26 1.3 1.25

First-round tests of different independent variables FIGURE 8

November 2014 65


fend their ideas based on the core science ideas they apply to the design.

As scientists and engineers carry out their research, they “talk frequently with their colleagues, both for-mally and informally” and “engage in discussions at conferences, share research techniques and analytical procedures, and present and respond to ideas via publi-cation in journals and books” (NRC 2012, p. 27). Guide-lines to the three parts of public negotiation should be introduced to students in this phase (see Figure 10).

In the first part of the negotiation, students discover what variables other teams have tested. The second and third parts emphasize core science ideas students can use to interpret their results and if the data support their interpretation. For example, students observed that wind turbines with light blades (plastic) produced more electricity than heavier blades (balsa); teachers should ask students to explain their results by thinking about Newton’s second law (force = mass × acceleration). The same force (produced by a fan) applied to a smaller mass (plastic blades) resulted in a faster acceleration of blades than blades of a heavier mass (balsa blades). Because each team has a different design in terms of the independent variables, teachers should guide stu-dents to connect their design and test results to phys-ics concepts such as centripetal force, motion, Newton’s laws, and lift and drag force (Pries and Hughes 2011; Schaefers 2007). The teacher can guide students to interpret their data to understand what kind of design caused the maximum electricity and why.

After each group presents its results, is critiqued by peers, and learns other groups’ results based on dif-ferent independent variables, provide students with the opportunity to redesign their wind blades. Through

this process, students evaluate strengths and weak-nesses of their first design and redesign based on the feedback from peers. For example, if a group used the angle of blades as an independent variable and identi-fied 45° as the best solution, the group might test the number of blades as the independent variable in the second-round design. Different combinations may have different results.

We encourage teachers to provide students with multiple rounds of public negotiation and redesign, through which they develop a sense of ownership of their design and take responsibility for their learning (Chen and Steenhoek 2014). They also have to control their budgets in order to design a best final product, just like engineers do.

Each round of public negotiation and redesign re-quires two 50-minute class periods to complete (one period for negotiation and one for redesign). In our class, students did two more rounds of redesign and public negotiation, which took four 50-minute classes. Each group developed a different final design based on different combinations of variables.

The testing setupFIGURE 9

1. What is the focus of the public negotiation?

Make other group designs better.

• Does the solution solve the problem?

• Which measurements did the group take?

• Which variables did the group manipulate?

2. Focus on what core science ideas the group applies.

• Are the scientific concepts correct?

• Are the concepts appropriate to support the design?

• Are the concepts sufficient to support the design?

3. Challenge other group’s design based on the evidence it provides.

• Did the group gather data from the investigation to support its explanation of the design?

• Did the group interpret the data in an appropriate way to support its explanation?

Guidelines for public negotiationFIGURE 10

PHOT

OS C

OURT

ESY

OF T

HE A

UTHO

RS

66


Phase 4: Writing to learn

In the last phase of this model, students reflect on what they have learned after participating in a series of group and whole-class negotiations. Students are required to individually make sense of their experi-ence within a design-based project by producing a final written argument. The writing-to-learn pedagogies em-bedded in this phase correspond to the Common Core State Standards language-arts standards (NGAC and CCSSO 2010).

This step is included in the design-based model be-cause writing is an important learning tool of science and engineering. Writing can help students clarify their conceptual understanding and encourage them to ar-ticulate their thinking in an explicit manner (Chen, Hand, and McDowell 2013; Hand, Hohenshell, and Prain 2004). This writing activity can be a summative assessment through which teachers provide students with feedback.

Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013)StandardMS-PS3: Energy

Performance expectationMS-PS3-5. Construct, use, and present arguments to support the claim that when the kinetic energy of an object changes, energy is transferred to or from the object.

Dimension Name and NGSS code/citation Student task or question

Disciplinary core idea

Energy and matter

• Energy may take different forms (e.g., energy in fields, thermal energy, energy of motion).

Students engage in activities to understand different forms of energy from the design of a wind turbine (electricity, wind, motion, etc.).

Science and engineering practices

Engaging in argument from evidence

Connection to the nature of scienceScientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence.

• Science knowledge is based upon logical and conceptual connections between evidence and explanations.

Students generate problems, design solutions, collect and interpret data as evidence to revise their design, and publicly debate their design.

Crosscutting concept

PS3.B: Conservation of energy and energy transfer

• When the motion energy of an object changes, there is inevitably some other change in energy at the same time.

Students engage in the activities to understand the concept of the transformation from wind energy to electricity.

To help students learn how to write a persuasive sci-entific argument after engaging in engineering design, we recommend using the rubric provided in Figure 11. This rubric is designed to encourage students to think about what they learned from the design-based activity, how they know it, and why they used those scientific concepts in their design. Teachers can use the rubric to determine whether students have appropriately and sufficiently applied scientific concepts to their design and which concepts students need to explore further. Teachers can tailor the rubric for a specific lesson based on the purpose of the learning tasks. This final phase of the lesson requires one 50-minute class pe-riod to complete.

Conclusion

While this example of the design-based model uses wind turbine blades, if these materials are not avail-

November 2014 67


Exceptional(3 points)

Acceptable(2 points)

Marginal(1 point)

Performance of design

Suggests an excellent design solution of the problem based on design goal and constraints: Suggests a solution by comparing different designs and considering constraints (e.g., number, angle, and length of blades; budget). Addresses the reasons of the final design.

Has an overall sound understanding of the problem and constraints: Addresses the test results by comparing different designs and considering constraints (e.g., number, angle, and shape of blades; cost), but the reason for the final solution of design is vague.

Has little or no grasp of problem.Is incapable of producing a successful solution: Only addresses the test results, without detailed reasons and comparisons of different designs.

Clarity of scientific concept

Uses scientifically correct concepts in the design: Explicitly explains the process and the reason how and why a wind turbine works based on aerodynamic concepts, energy transformation, and energy conservation.

Uses some scientifically correct claims and partially catches the essence of the design: Partially explains the process and how and why a wind turbine works.

Uses scientifically incorrect concepts in the design: Does not state or states incorrect concepts of why and how a wind turbine works.

Evidence in support of the engineering design

Makes an appropriate and adequate explanation completely based on interpretation of test data: Interprets data from tests to address the scientific concepts (aerodynamic concepts, energy transformation, and energy conservation) as evidence to support the design.

Makes an appropriate and adequate design decision partially based on interpretation of investigation data: Includes data from tests but the interpretation of data is not explicitly to address science concepts.

Makes an inappropriate and inadequate design decision, or just reports data as evidence: Does not include data from tests to address scientific concepts.

Total score

A sample writing rubricFIGURE 11

68


able or within a teacher’s budget, an alternative is to use very simple materials (paper, pencils, paper clips, a fan) to design windmills (Moyer and Everett 2011). This engages students in engineering design, but they measure weight rather than electrical energy.

The Next Generation Science Standards emphasize the need for students to “actively engage in scientific and engineering practices and apply crosscutting con-cepts to deepen their understanding of the core ideas in these fields” (NGSS Lead States 2013, p. 7–8). This design-based model helps students learn core science ideas progressively in each phase and apply them through engineering design, and also aligns with rec-ommendation 4 of the Framework: “Standards should emphasize all three dimensions articulated in the framework—not only crosscutting concepts and disci-plinary core ideas but also scientific and engineering practices” (NRC 2012, p. 300).

Ausubel (1968) reminds us that meaningful learn-ing occurs when students can connect prior knowl-edge with new knowledge and apply the new knowl-edge within real-world contexts. This design-based model can serve the function of meaningful learn-ing and fit any science classroom to help students learn core science ideas through engineering design aligned with the goals of the Next Generation Science Standards. ■

ReferencesAste Stelr Project. Background information: Wind energy.

http://stelr.org.au/wind-energy. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

Ausubel, D.P. 1968. Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Chen, Y.-C., B. Hand, and L. McDowell. 2013. The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: Learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education 97 (5): 745–71

Chen, Y.-C., S. Park, and B. Hand. 2013. Constructing and critiquing arguments: Four communication strategies help students discuss, defend, and debunk ideas. Science and Children 50 (5): 40–45.

Chen, Y.-C., and J. Steenhoek. 2014. Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices. American Biology Teacher 76 (4): 231–37.

Hand, B., L. Hohenshell, and V. Prain. 2004. Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (2): 186–210.

Moyer, R.H., and S.A. Everett. 2011. Everyday

Engineering: Windmills are going around again. Science Scope 34 (7): 8–15.

National Research Council (NRC). 2012. A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (NGAC and CCSSO). 2010. Common core state standards. Washington, DC: NGAC and CCSSO.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.

Pries, C.H., and J. Hughes. 2011. Powering the future: A wind turbine design challenge. Science Scope 35 (4): 24–30.

Roehrig, G.H., T.J. Moore, H.-H. Wang, and M.S. Park. 2012. Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K–12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics 112 (1): 31–44.

Schaefers, J. 2007. A first energy grant: Pinwheel electrical generation. Science Scope 31 (3): 74–76.

Smith, K.A., S.D. Sheppard, D.W. Johnson, and R.T. Johnson. 2005. Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1): 87–101.

ResourcesKidWind Project (online source of materials)—www.kidwind.

orgWynford High School wind turbines—www.youtube.com/

watch?v=Vziq4VVCWRw

Ying-Chih Chen ([email protected]) is an assistant professor in the Division of Teacher Preparation at Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. Tamara J. Moore ([email protected]) is an associate professor of engineering education at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Hui-Hui Wang ([email protected]) is an exten-sion assistant professor at University of Minne-sota’s Center for Youth Development and STEM Education Center in St. Paul, Minnesota.

November 2014 69

Documents

A Framework for K–12 Science Educationstatic.nsta.org/files/ss1403_58.pdf · A Framework for K–12 Science Education ... the learning to be taught by K–12 teachers ... describe