STEM Learning with Young Children

CHAPTER 7

Assessment

Jill Uhlenberg

This chapter will discuss issues in assessing children’s learning and development in the domains of science, literacy, mathematics, and social development. The chapter begins with descriptions of different forms and purposes of assessment, followed by a brief look at what research tells us about assessment of young children. The third section addresses the Inquiry Teaching Model (ITM) and its relationship to assessment. Finally, this chapter will suggest multiple ways to complete assessments that focus on knowledge, skills, and dispositions, using both teacher-centered and student-centered processes and instruments.

For young children, the act of communicating with the teacher and with classmates will constitute multiple opportunities for assessment. Communication for preschool through 2nd-grade students involves developing language structures and building vocabulary—a major focus of learning in the early classroom, but we suggest that children need something about which to communicate. R&P provides an engaging and challenging activity that can serve as the context and content for gaining the communication skills that are so important to address in preschool and primary grades. The activities described in Chapter 4 are not only means of communicating; they are assessment documents in their own right. We will return to these communication documentation opportunities and discuss their relationship to assessment later in this chapter.

WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?

Assessment is actually a two-step process: documentation and evaluation. First, we need to gather evidence, and then we need to organize and interpret that evidence (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2004).

Teachers use many ways to document what children are learning, how they are progressing in building specific skills, how they are relating to one another, and more. For younger children who do not yet write well, observing and recording those observations are the basic means for teachers to document this growth. Even for primary age children, who are gaining literacy skills and are more able to use both oral and written expressive language (as described in Chapter 4), teacher observation remains an important piece of the assessment process, and the binding factor of all the components in the Inquiry Teaching Model.

During the second step in assessment—evaluation—teachers:

review and reflect on the data,
analyze what the data actually document,
determine if they need additional documentation, and
use the data to come to some conclusions.

Teachers need to use multiple sources of information about each child in this evaluation step (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2004; Puckett & Black, 2000). Some examples include anecdotal records, checklists, examples of student work, and other records of observations.

TYPES AND/OR PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT

Assessments can be formal, using standardized tests or other valid and reliable instruments, or they can be informal and embedded within activities. These informal documents are also called authentic assessments. Each assessment provides a snapshot of a particular moment in a child’s development. Just as we would never use a photograph of a child to try to describe fully what he or she is like, using a single assessment to evaluate a child’s learning or development is inadequate and inappropriate. Fortunately, teachers have many opportunities to gather evidence about their students’ learning throughout each day. The more evidence, the better we understand the child’s current thinking and understanding.

Teachers need evidence for their decisionmaking regarding what to plan and teach, when to teach, and how to teach. Evidence also provides understanding about children’s development over time, and whether they are progressing normally. That evidence is also needed for reporting to parents, colleagues, or administrators. Gathering evidence provides information for three purposes: diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment.

Diagnostic Assessment

The first purpose of assessment is diagnostic; that is, we gather evidence to find out what children already know or can do. This evidence informs our planning and teaching, especially when we differentiate instruction to address children’s individual learning levels. Diagnostic assessment provides teachers with an understanding of the child’s background knowledge so that teachers know where and when to push students to disequilibrium (as described in Chapter 2). For example, a 4-year-old created a very long pathway across a multipurpose room. He placed the first ramp segment against the wall to create an incline, and every segment after that he placed flat on the floor. When the marble slowed down and eventually stopped, he pushed it along the pathway and continued to add more segments. When the teacher asked him how he might be able to get the marble to continue rolling, he ignored her and continued to add ramp segments and push the marble. This told the teacher that he had not yet figured out the relationship between the height of the ramp and the movement of the marble. His actions also told the teacher that centration was still a primary factor in his problem-solving abilities; that is, he was unwilling to believe that his approach was not the correct one (Piaget, 1923/1959).

Formative Assessment

The second purpose of evidence gathering or documentation is for formative assessment, an opportunity for a teacher to gather information or evidence to inform his or her own teaching practice. Teachers gather multiple forms of evidence (which can include observations, questions that probe children’s ideas, and so forth) during the processes of teaching and learning in order to make adjustments to what they have planned, to check for understanding, to document and monitor how children are progressing in their learning, and to provide documentation of this progress for reporting to parents or administrators. Formative assessments can be both formal and informal in nature.

Summative Assessment

Finally, evidence gathering is needed in the form of summative assessments. Once teachers complete a teaching unit or a project, or reach the end of the school year, they look at the collection of evidence to determine the students’ long-term learning. Summative assessments are often tests or exams, looking at whether children have met a particular standard or benchmark, or attained a level of proficiency. However, summative assessment can also include such documentation as portfolios, end-of-year projects, or comparison with documents from early in the year.

Despite the descriptions of three different purposes or types of assessments, assessments and collected artifacts can be interchangeable between and among the types. How the teacher uses the information gathered will determine which type of assessment the data become.

Diagnostic assessment can be formative when a teacher uses that snapshot to consider what modifications or adaptations a particular child may need, and uses the assessment to guide instruction. The summative data at the end of a teaching unit are still formative assessment in that the teacher uses them to plan future teaching. Summative assessment indicates a final consideration for one teacher, but the information is actually formative for next year’s teacher, or for the teacher in multiage classroom settings where children remain in the same classroom with the same teacher for more than one year.

To sum up this discussion, we could use the following criteria to distinguish the types and uses of assessment: (1) diagnostic—to identify existing ideas, skills, and learning difficulties; (2) formative—to inform instruction and provide feedback to children; and (3) summative—to measure and document student learning and performance. Regardless of the label, the main issue is how we use the evidence we have collected.

RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT

NAEYC’s (2009) position statement Where We Stand on Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation indicates the following criteria for the appropriate assessment of learning: “To best assess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, use assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by professional development, inclusive of families, and connected to specific, beneficial purposes” (p. 1). Although the NGSS do not address assessment directly, these standards advocate for assessment of learning based on performance: “Student performance expectations have to include a student’s ability to apply a practice to content knowledge. Performance expectations thereby focus on understanding and application as opposed to memorization of facts devoid of context” (NRC, 2013). The NGSS also reflect a shift to conceptual understanding that is developed over months and years, rather than days and weeks. This shift is an integral component of the authors’ approach toward STEM learning in the early years.

Jones (2011) charges educators to think about assessment systems as integral to teaching and learning rather than as separate and stand-alone instruments. She believes that assessment is too complex a task to leave to a single instrument because young children demonstrate individual variability of growth and development in the cognitive, physical, and social-emotional domains. In addition, the differences between and among children’s physical, psychological, and cultural status, and their varied approaches to learning, all point to using multiple assessments. Such assessment systems should also be in alignment with appropriate learning standards, so that teachers know what to assess.

Boardman (2007) asserts that current approaches to assessment records and documentation are often a deficit model of assessment; that is, it is assessment about what learners cannot do, rather than what they can do. Instead, Boardman recommends using three lenses in gathering evidence about both what children can and cannot do, and in the teacher’s reflection and evaluation of that evidence:

Intrapersonal lens: looking at the child as an individual
Interpersonal lens: looking at the child within the group
Contextual lens: looking at the child in the classroom environment

Such an approach requires the use of multiple forms of documentation in order to view the child and his or her learning from these three different perspectives. With this systems approach, teachers can build a comprehensive and complex picture of children’s learning and development over time in their classrooms.

Classrooms in formal settings, such as public or private schools, licensed preschools, or Head Start programs, have assessment systems in place that document this variability among young children. Meaningful evaluation of the evidence about children’s learning will be completed using required assessment forms and teachers’ knowledge of the children in their classrooms.

ASSESSMENT AND THE INQUIRY TEACHING MODEL

In earlier chapters, we discussed the teacher’s role in observing children’s behaviors and conversations. In early childhood settings, the teacher’s observation is the primary means of gathering information about children’s learning. If observation is equated with assessment, even loosely, then the ITM is immersed in assessment. At every step in the interactive processes of Engaging Learners, Providing Opportunities, and Making Informed Decisions, assessment plays a key role. The different components and assessment are intertwined so that it is difficult to look at any one segment of the model without considering how it is connected to assessment.

Engagement

Teachers engage learners by using diagnostic assessment, identifying the interests of a particular child or group of children, what they already know about that topic, the skills they have already developed, and the kinds of experiences they have had. Typically, not all children will be at the same place on the learning continuum, which challenges the teacher in evaluating the evidence and then deciding how to proceed. For example, in a kindergarten classroom, some children will arrive in the fall with no prior out-of-home experiences at all, while others will have had up to 5 years of child care and preschool experiences. The most successful materials for such a wide span of skill and knowledge are open-ended; that is, activities such as R&P allow children to construct both concepts and skills from where they are without having to stop and review. The materials are also engaging and allow for teachers to provoke children’s natural curiosity.

Informed Decisions

Teachers make informed decisions based on the evidence they gather in the diagnostic assessments. Once we understand what children know and can do, we develop ways to promote deeper thinking about R&P and the ways objects work in the physical world. Additionally, R&P provides opportunities to think more deeply in other subject or academic areas, including literacy, mathematics, social studies, and social-emotional development. Such interventions include asking productive questions (see Chapter 2) that stimulate students’ problem-solving skills and communication skills, and that provide the teacher an opportunity to check for students’ understanding. Those interventions will provide additional formative assessment information as teachers ask students to document what they are learning in a variety of ways.

These informed decisions regarding planning cover the spectrum of the curriculum. Mathematical learning, for example, may focus on any of the five areas within the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2010). Figure 7.1 illustrates how the R&P activities in kindergarten address mathematical learning.

Examples of literacy-based authentic assessments are discussed in Chapter 4, “Ramps and Pathways Promote Communication Development.” Teacher-made reporting forms can be designed to include specific literacy goals and objectives. In addition, checklists, anecdotal records, photographs, recorded video segments, and conversations might be valuable resources for assessing literacy development.

Opportunities to Learn

Once teachers decide how to proceed in challenging their students’ thinking about R&P, they will provide additional challenges, designed for the developmental level of the child or group, that will encourage success while triggering further exploration. An example of the model and how assessment works throughout the different components occurred in one combined 1st-/2nd-grade classroom. According to the 1st-/2nd-grade teacher, she observed that the students seemed to be engaging more in other areas of the classroom and less with R&P. When a child did work in the ramps center, he or she often stayed only briefly, constructing structures that were commonly seen in other children’s pathway constructions, and without much complexity or innovation. This assessment led this teacher to consider how she might stimulate new interest while also pushing the students to try new ways of using the R&P materials. She taped off areas on the classroom floor and challenged children at center time to construct a ramp pathway within that space. Because the taped-off areas were only 3–4 feet long and wide, the students were forced to think about how they could build taller ramps rather than the longer versions they had been regularly constructing across the classroom.

Figure 7.1. Kindergarten Mathematics Assessment Possibilities

During this new construction phase, the teacher frequently visited the students as they worked, asking questions to probe their planning and to evoke ways to communicate to other children what they were accomplishing. This step in the teacher’s facilitation of R&P investigations integrated mathematics (spatial relationships), engineering (designing new structures), literacy skills (communicating results or problems), and social development. The challenge reignited the students’ interest in R&P and provided additional assessment data through observations and anecdotal records, as well as through students’ products of documentation.

The Inquiry Teaching Model, with its three interactive components, is clearly also a model for ongoing assessment. Opportunities for evidence collection are inherent in each section, giving the classroom teacher a variety of products and evidence with which to continue planning and evaluating students’ learning.

WHAT TO ASSESS

Teachers must be wary of how many skills, sets of knowledge, or dispositions they will want to assess. First priority should fall to school or program standards and requirements—typically content knowledge. For science areas, scientific and engineering practices such as observing, communicating, and classifying are also vital learning for young children, although teachers often expect that, developmentally, students are typically able to demonstrate a limited number of science processes during the preschool-to-2nd-grade age range.

Science Knowledge and Science Practices

As noted in Chapter 3, younger children are not able to demonstrate the same science practices or levels of understanding as older students. They can, however, learn to clearly demonstrate their understanding. The most appropriate science practices to assess, and ones we have been successful with, depending on preschoolers’, kindergartners’, and primary age children’s experiences, are observing, communicating, measuring, and classifying. With teacher guidance and facilitation of controlling variables, they can begin to investigate their ideas and explorations of how the materials work. Developing these science practices through a practical understanding of the science behind R&P will be a foundation for later learning, and more thorough development of science processes and content.

The Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework (2010) addresses the science knowledge and practices important for children 3 to 5 years old. The focus is on emerging abilities and curiosity, asking questions, and refining understanding through exploration of materials. The framework focuses on two domain elements for preschool-age children: (1) scientific skills and method, and (2) conceptual knowledge of the natural and physical world (see Figure 7.2). Embedded within these two elements are ideas for assessing learning that are appropriate for the age and developmental levels of preschoolers.

Figure 7.2. Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework Elements

Scientific Skills & Method: The skills to observe and collect information and use it to ask questions, predict, explain, and draw conclusions.

Uses senses and tools, including technology, to gather information, investigate materials, and observe processes and relationships.
Observes and discusses common properties, differences, and comparisons among objects.
Participates in simple investigations to form hypotheses, gather observations, draw conclusions, and form generalizations.
Collects, describes, and records information through discussions, drawings, maps, and charts.
Describes and discusses predictions, explanations, and generalizations based on past experience.

Conceptual Knowledge of the Natural & Physical World: The acquisition of concepts and facts related to the natural and physical world and the understanding of naturally occurring relationships.

Observes, describes, and discusses living things and natural processes.
Observes, describes, and discusses properties of materials and transformation of substances.

Source: Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework, 2010.

More challenging to assess, although vitally important among the 21st-century skills (www.skills21.org), are children’s problem-solving abilities. These are abilities that support more flexible responses to change and that stimulate innovation. Even more difficult to assess are children’s dispositions for learning and enjoying science, and the development of executive function, or the ability to control one’s behavior and thinking through a strong working memory, taking others’ perspectives, and attending to an activity or event.

Problem Solving

Several components make up the practice of problem solving, which leads again to the need for systems of assessment, rather than a single tool or instrument. Keen (2010) suggests that problem solving includes perception, cognition, and motor development, but argues that even language and attachment are related. With young children, who may have difficulty explaining why something has happened, we often must rely on observations of children’s behaviors to infer their intent in terms of planning and carrying out intentional actions. It is important for the teacher to ask children what problem they are working on in order to observe the development of an appropriate solution. Again, the use of productive questions supports teachers’ ability to do this (see Chapter 3). If the teacher does not know the child’s agenda, he or she may make incorrect assumptions about how effectively the children did (or did not) solve the problem.

Preschool- and kindergarten-age children often fail to anticipate a problem in R&P until it happens. Or they fail to perceive that a problem even exists in some cases. This means that finding the problem is the first step to problem solving, and teachers play a role in facilitating this step for young children. A child may experience a marble leaving the pathway consistently at the same spot without realizing the regularity. A teacher may be able to focus the child’s attention to that spot through questioning, so that the child can be the problem solver.

Often, children will adjust one connection between ramp pieces without understanding that moving one end may also move the opposite end. This is an indication that the child is focusing only on one aspect of the ramp at a time, and does not view it as a system. Knowing this, the teacher can use questions and comments to draw the child’s attention to both ends of the ramp. Sometimes children notice that a problem exists, but do nothing to change the outcome. Teacher support through comments and questions can provide incentive for the child to make adjustments without becoming frustrated in the process. Eventually, children will learn to systematically try different solutions until they find one that works to solve the problem (Diamond, 2005). These activities are clearly addressed in the NGSS, with connections to engineering in the crosscutting concept of cause and effect (see Figure 7.3). Each NGSS provides a Clarification Statement with examples of how students can understand and apply the science concept in meaningful ways.

Future-oriented thinking, or planning ahead to consider unknowns, is very difficult for young children and takes time to develop. Understanding this series of steps in the development of children’s problem-solving ability will help the teacher make careful observations that will lead to further interactions and manipulating materials in productive ways to accomplish children’s goals in building R&P.

Dispositions

Dispositions to learn are typically defined as persistence, curiosity, willingness to collaborate, and (in classrooms where R&P are involved) a comfort level with science. In addition, three others—inhibitory control, working memory, and attention—are typically described as making up executive function. Executive function (EF) has been found to be extremely important in children’s development. Several recent research reports suggest that preschoolers and kindergartners with stronger EF achieve higher levels of school success generally than children with lower EF (Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009; Lan, Legare, Ponitz, Li, & Morrison, 2011; McClelland, Cameron, Wanless, & Murray, 2007).

Figure 7.3. Example Next Generation Science Standards with Clarification Statements

Motion and Stability: Forces and Interactions

Students who demonstrate understanding can do the following:

K-PS2-1. Plan and conduct an investigation to compare the effects of different strengths or different directions of pushes and pulls on the motion of an object. [Clarification Statement: Examples of pushes or pulls could include a string attached to an object being pulled, a person pushing an object, a person stopping a rolling ball, and two objects colliding and pushing on each other.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to different relative strengths or different directions, but not both at the same time. Assessment does not include non-contact pushes or pulls such as those produced by magnets.]

K-PS2-2. Analyze data to determine if a design solution works as intended to change the speed or direction of an object with a push or a pull. [Clarification Statement: Examples of problems requiring a solution could include having a marble or other object move a certain distance, follow a particular path, and knock down other objects. Examples of solutions could include tools such as a ramp to increase the speed of the object and a structure that would cause an object such as a marble or ball to turn.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include friction as a mechanism for change in speed.]

Again, teacher observation and conversations with students are the most productive ways to assess children’s dispositions. Formal instruments have been developed to assess these dispositions specifically; however, most classroom teachers do not have the skill or time to complete these assessment instruments. A checklist we developed gives teachers an example of how assessing children’s R&P skill and disposition growth might be accomplished (see Appendix 7.1).

One of the main concerns about assessing dispositions, Bone (2001) argues, is that dispositions are very open to interpretation. Bone also cautions that teachers must remain aware that demonstrating dispositions may also be culturally variable; that is, cultures that diminish the individual in favor of the group’s welfare may teach children to refrain from demonstrating socially or emotionally what they are feeling.

Despite these cautions, multiple forces in the field of teacher preparation and STEM education continue to look to dispositions as an important component to develop, both in teachers and in learners (Committee on Highly Successful Schools, 2011; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). And if they are important to develop, then the dispositions are also important to assess.

HOW TO ASSESS

Documenting learning may be done by the teacher or by the learners. Each has specific value and will likely yield different information.

Teacher-Centered Assessments

The teacher uses formal instruments, such as the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS), as well as informal assessments, including anecdotal records and checklists. Deciding which to use will depend on several decision points for the teacher. First, if a specific assessment is required, that is the means teachers will use. However, if there is flexibility in deciding, the teacher will want to ask him-/herself the following questions before making the decision:

What specific action or skill am I assessing?
How specific do I need to be given the time available?
Am I assessing one child or the group?
Am I assessing for current skill or am I assessing for growth in a skill?
Am I experienced enough to complete this data collection? (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2004)

Completing assessments one-on-one with children will yield the most information about individuals. However, other assessments will be more efficient in terms of teachers’ time while still yielding adequate information. In addition, the purpose of the assessment (diagnostic, formative, or summative) will be integral to the decision of which format to use. In all cases, the assessment chosen must be one that allows the teacher to learn whether children are meeting the planned objectives of the activities.

Teacher-made assessments include many ways of documenting learning and gathering evidence, and typically focus on descriptions, counting or tallying, and rating or ranking (McAfee, Leong, & Bodrova, 2004). Narrative records take substantial time to write, but anecdotal records, sketches, diagrams, and minimalistic reminders on sticky notes yield high-quality information if teachers take care to record objectively what they observe. Evaluation of what is observed comes later, after all the evidence is gathered. The use of digital photography and video can greatly enhance and expedite this process. With simple still and video cameras available at reasonable cost, teachers can take photographs and videos of children working. Teachers may add notes or children’s dictations to the printed photo to explain their learning, list standards being met, or document the need for additional practice or materials.

Means of counting or tallying may include teacher checklists, charts, or tables that state whether a child has completed a task or has demonstrated a skill. Rating scales that depict a child’s level of competency (rarely, often, always) as well as checklists can be constructed quickly on computer spreadsheets. In addition, teachers may modify the previous form (see Appendix 7.1) by putting children’s names in the columns across the top of the page and simply coding a not yet (N), sometimes (S), or consistently (C) in the column next to each skill or behavior being assessed. This allows for collecting information on the whole class.

Learning records provide teachers a means of recording their observations. In their inquiry-based Young Scientist Series, including Building Structures with Young Children, Chalufour and Worth (2004) offer examples of ways to document children’s science learning. Van Meeteren (2014) has adapted those forms to address assessment within R&P. The assessments include science and engineering processes and engineering habits of mind outcomes that emerge from children’s R&P activities, thus expanding the science assessment to include engineering. The outcome charts (see Appendixes 7.2 and 7.3) support teachers’ understanding of the recording forms and help them anticipate the need for extended learning or development of social skills related to working with others in the classroom.

Brainstorming charts, also called mind maps, developed by the teacher alone or with children, will provide a good foundation for discerning learning goals on which to focus during any particular course of study. K-W-L charts, completed together with students will document what the children already know (K), what they want to know (W), and revisited later, what they have learned (L).

Rubrics are another means of documenting learning. Well-developed rubrics allow teachers to clearly delineate what parameters the children must meet to be considered proficient.

An important strategy for R&P teachers to dig more deeply into children’s learning, and to add to the descriptive data for individual children, is to use productive questions. Descriptions and examples of the different kinds of questions teachers can ask are discussed in Chapter 3. Recording such questions and the children’s responses can provide yet another source of data about children’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

Helpful tools for assessment also include charts of learning outcomes or expectations that are cross-referenced with science or engineering concepts. For the R&P project, we designed an outcomes chart that linked children’s behaviors with science concepts that we observed in the children’s designing and construction of pathways (see Appendix 7.4). Our expectations were for a practical understanding of Newton’s Laws as well as the principles of designing and investigating different constructions, rather than a formal knowledge of science and engineering concepts.

We also designed an outcomes chart that linked children’s behaviors to engineering habits of mind (see Appendix 7.5). Such charts provide valuable resources for teachers’ ability to define and observe for specific behaviors that relate to STEM learning.

Child-Centered Assessments

Studying children’s products provides a separate means of gathering information about what children have learned. In Chapter 4, we offer suggestions on how children can document their work on ramps. These products are clear examples of the embedded evidence of learning that are pieces of the assessment puzzle. Each document can provide assessment data in multiple academic and developmental areas, such as emerging literacy skills, science content, social skills of collaboration or cooperation, mathematical understanding of spatial relationships and measurement, and more. These embedded assessments provide readily accessible information about children’s learning without having to develop a separate assessment tool or instrument.

Drawings are most common for preschoolers and young kindergartners, and are an early form of writing to communicate information. Teachers may add dictation text when the child discusses his or her representation of the ramp. (Read more about children’s communication during R&P in Chapters 4 and 6.)

Even before formal writing abilities emerge, children can draw and write in science journals, and share what they know or want to know about ramps and pathways. In addition, children can use their drawings as demonstration materials in explaining their work to other children, as well as communicating that information verbally.

Other student products include photographs, clay models, or demonstrations, which provide alternate ways for children to communicate what they have learned about R&P. Products in which students have choices about delivery also provide opportunities for students to consider and reflect upon their own work. Teachers often forget about students completing self-assessments, especially young children, or they assume these children are not yet able to complete self-assessments. However, children can develop reflectivity about their work, with support and role models within the classroom, so that they can learn to assess their own progress and set goals for ongoing work with ramps and pathways.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have described only a few of the many opportunities for teachers to gather data about what children can learn using R&P materials in a preschool–2nd-grade classroom setting. We have demonstrated the inseparable relationship between assessment and the ITM, and offered some examples of embedded and authentic assessments of children’s learning that we have used in our work with R&P.

APPENDIX 7.1. RAMPS & PATHWAYS CHECKLIST

APPENDIX 7.2. OBSERVATIONAL RECORD: R&P CONSTRUCTIONS

Adapted from Building Structures with Young Children by Ingrid Chalufour & Karen Worth. Copyright © 2004 by Ingrid Chalufour & Karen Worth. Reprinted with permission of Redleaf Press, St. Paul, MN; www.redleafpress.org.

APPENDIX 7.3. LEARNING RECORD: ENGINEERING BEHAVIORS

APPENDIX 7.4. LEARNING RECORD: SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

APPENDIX 7.5. ENGINEERING HABITS OF MIND OUTCOMES