0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

K12 Teacher Credentialing Containing Engineering Content in the USA

Burhan Ozfidan 1  ,  
 
1
Texas A&M University, U.S.A.
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):3–13
Online publish date: 2017-09-12
Publish date: 2017-09-12
Supplementary files
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
To gain a better understanding of the landscape of State credentialing options related to the teaching of engineering at the K12 level, NAE/BOSE commissioned this paper and study that describes this landscape and provide relevant details for as many States as it is possible to do so. This project includes the taxonomy of the various types of credentialing offered by each State, and it defines these different types of credentials. A two-phase research method was used in order to investigate each State credentialing/certification program. The first phase of the method examined each State credentialing/certification program through the individual State Department of Education. The second phase focused on Career and Technical Education (CTE) credentialing/certification programs that contain engineering and/or engineering design content. A member check technique was used to help improve the accuracy, credibility, validity, and transferability of the study. Each State credentialing/certification program was thoroughly examined through State Department of Education and CTE teacher credentialing pathways. The results indicate that 94.2% of State teacher credentialing/certification programs contain engineering or engineering design content; however, 5.8% of State teacher credentialing programs do not include any engineering content. Each of these credentialing/certification areas also requires a test that contains engineering content.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Burhan Ozfidan   
Texas A&M University, 1301 harvey rd. apt. 200, College Station, 77840 College Station, United States
 
REFERENCES (20):
1. Adelman, C. (1998). Women and men of the engineering path: A model for analyses of undergraduate career. National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning (ED/OERI): Washington, DC. ISBN:0-16-049551-2.
2. Atman, C. J., Sheppard, S, Fleming, L., Miller, R., Smith, K., Stevens, R., Streveler, R., Loucks-Jaret, C., and Lund, D. (2008). Moving from pipeline thinking to understanding pathways: Findings from the academic pathways study of engineering undergraduates. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
3. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The journal of the learning sciences, 2(2), 141-178. doi: 10.1177/0743558408314376.
4. Bruer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought: A science of learning in the classroom. MIT press.
5. Demetry, C., & Vaz, R. F. (2017). Influence of an Education Abroad Program on the Intercultural Sensitivity of STEM Undergraduates: A Mixed Methods Study. Advances In Engineering Education, 6(1), 135-151.
6. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Giardina, M. D. (2006). Disciplining Qualitative Research. International Journal Of Qualitative Studies In Education (QSE), 19(6-), 769-782. doi:10.1080/09518390600975990.
7. Dugger Jr, W. E. (2001). Standards for technological literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 513-517. doi:10.1177/003172170108200707.
8. Ellis, C., Bochner, A., Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., Morse, J., Pelias, R., & Richardson, L. (2008). Talking and Thinking about Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(2), 254-284.
9. Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2005). Understanding student differences. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 57-72. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00829.x.
10. Galama, T., Hosek, J., & RAND National Defense Research, I. (2008). U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology.
11. Hoeg, D. G., & Bencze, J. L. (2017). Values Underpinning STEM Education in the USA: An Analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 101(2), 278-301. doi:10.1002/sce.21260.
12. Moye, J. J. (2009). Technology education teacher supply and demand – A critical situation. The Technology Teacher, 69(2), 30-36.
13. Moye, J. J. (2017). The Suppy and demand of technology education and engineering teachers in the United States: Who knows? The Technology Teacher, 76(4), 32-37. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.160184.
14. National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press.
15. NGSS Lead States, (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
16. O’Riley, S. (2013). Emerging Adulthood and Gender Differences in Adult Bachelor Degree Completion: A Multi-Case Study. ProQuest LLC.
17. Ozfidan, B., Cavlazoglu, B., Burlbaw, L., & Aydin, H. (2017). Reformed Teaching and Learning in Science Education: A Comparative Study of Turkish and US Teachers. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 23. doi:10.5539/jel.v6n3p23.
18. Russell, J. F. (2005). Evidence Related to Awareness, Adoption, and Implementation of the Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. Journal of Technology Studies, 31(1), 30-38.
19. Volk, K. S. (1997). Going, going, gone? Recent trends in technology teacher education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 8(2), 66-70.
20. Young, J., Ortiz, N., & Young, J. (2017). STEMulating Interest: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Out-of-School Time on Student STEM Interest. International Journal of Education In Mathematics, Science And Technology, 5(1), 62-74. doi:10.18404/ijemst.61149.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215