3 Introduction A central purpose of engineering education is to help students internalize systematic thinking processes such as the scientific method and the engineering design process (ABET, 2008). These processes tend to be more abstract and complex than the thinking patterns to which young engineers, many still in their teens, have previously been exposed (NAE, 2004). The literature of constructivism (Fosnot, 1996; Steffe, 1995) and the associated method of problem-based learning (Boud, 1985; Albanese, 1993) suggest that realistic, design experiences provide an efficient solution. However, introducing open-ended design problems without providing interventions that generate growth in self-concept, thought-structure, and design behavior can lead to dramatic failures in comprehension and performance (Woods, 2000). For this reason, a guided-design approach to problem solution better matches the skill level of undergraduates (Wales, 1987). This work begins by outlining the major features of a developmental model that spans the ages, demographics, and learning domains associated with engineering education. This work then illustrates how the model provides a rational basis for choosing appropriate teaching methods for design experiences associated with an engineering summer camp that occurred between 1998 and 2000. In as much as the teenage participants in the camp are at the beginning of the same developmental transition that undergraduates are completing, the results of this qualitative research can be generalized to the undergraduate experience (Bransford, 2000). Developmental Model The developmental model selected for this work is the Crux Developmental Model (CDM) (Duncan, 2001) which is a synthesis of work by developmental constructivists (Erikson, 1963; Csikszentmihalyi, 1993; Gruber, 1997) and the work of William Perry (1970), Mary Belenky (1986), Robert Kegan (1994), and Paulo Freire (1973). The model is neo-Piagetian, defining levels of developmental that connect adolescence to adulthood. Although the model suggests that the individual moves through a series of cognitive paradigms with a qualitatively distinct construction of both subjective and objective knowledge, the movement between these paradigms is not sudden. The CDM identifies six observable levels of cognitive complexity (L0 to L5) for which there are differences in self-concept, thought- structure, and behaviors. Each level poses, in effect, a “crux” that students must climb past. Deeper, more complex levels incorporate the abilities of simpler, more superficial ones, but they also transcend them. It is significant to note that the individual capable of operating at a deeper level does not consistently operate there. One of the functions of deeper complexity is the ability to discriminate between tasks that require more intricate, systematic and time-consuming thought and those tasks for which more superficial approaches are acceptable. Table 1 describes characteristics of each level in the CDM, supplying additional detail about the middle three levels which are most relevant to teaching young adults in college classrooms. 1 School of Pharmacy, Saint Louis University 2 Educational Consultant 3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Idaho Using a Developmental Model to Facilitate Team-Based Design Experiences in a Pre-College Engineering Science Camp W.C. Duncan-Hewitt 1 , D. Mount 2 , S.W. Beyerlein 3 , D. Cordon 3 , and J. Steciak 3 Abstract Design projects in engineering education should help students both develop and demonstrate integrated performance capabilities. Ideally, design experiences should produce growth in student’s cognitive, social, and affective processes. The central question driving this work is how to purposefully design and facilitate classroom projects in order to generate all three types of growth. To this end, we applied a model of development, synthesized from the educational and developmental literatures, to investigate successful and unsuccessful design activities in the context of an Engineering Science Camp for teenagers. To assess the efficacy of the model of development, we gathered qualitative research data through observation, mentor notes, and interviews with campers. Our study supports the notion that beginning college students occupy a distinctly different cognitive and social level than that expected of graduating seniors. Furthermore, these differences stem more from ‘how’ they think and relate to other’s points of view than from ‘what’ they know. Effective project learning needs to include a strong mentoring element that builds trust by engaging cognitive, affective, and social behaviors at the current developmental level and then promoting new, more complex behaviors through appropriate learning challenges.