Anderson, K., & Courter, S. S., & Nathan, M. J., & Prevost, A. C., & Nicometo, C. G., & Nathans-Kelly, T. M., & McGlamery, T. D., & Atwood, A. K. (2011, June), Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC. 10.18260/1-2--18502

\bibitem{asee_peer_18502}
  Anderson, K., \& Courter, S. S., \& Nathan, M. J., \& Prevost, A. C., \& Nicometo, C. G., \& Nathans-Kelly, T. M., \& McGlamery, T. D., \& Atwood, A. K. (2011, June), \emph{Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education}
  Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC.
  10.18260/1-2--18502

Kevin Anderson, Sandra Shaw Courter, Mitchell J. Nathan, Amy C. Prevost, Christine G. Nicometo, Traci M. Nathans-Kelly, Thomas Dean McGlamery, and Amy K. Atwood.  "Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education".  2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2011.  https://peer.asee.org/18502 Internet.  27 Mar, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_18502}
  Kevin Anderson, Sandra Shaw Courter, Mitchell J. Nathan, Amy C. Prevost, Christine G. Nicometo, Traci M. Nathans-Kelly, Thomas Dean McGlamery, and Amy K. Atwood.
  "Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education".
  \emph{2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2011.
  https://peer.asee.org/18502 Internet.  27 Mar, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_18502
author = "Kevin Anderson, Sandra Shaw Courter, Mitchell J. Nathan, Amy C. Prevost, Christine G. Nicometo, Traci M. Nathans-Kelly, Thomas Dean McGlamery, and Amy K. Atwood"
title = "Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education"
booktitle = "2011 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2011"
month = "June"
address = "Vancouver, BC"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/18502}
number = {10.18260/1-2--18502}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -        Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic:         Addressing Critical Misalignments in Engineering Learning within                        Secondary and University EducationOur four-year NSF-funded study has identified two critical misalignments in the education of engineering studentsat the grades 9-16 level—one existing between intended and enacted curricula, the other between professionalpractice and engineering curricula. Our study of grade 9-12 instructors in Project Lead the Way (PLTW) coursesreveals a significant gap between the curricula instructors intend to share and that which they actually enact. Itfurther identifies missed opportunities to explicitly draw connections between basic technical and mathematicalskills and the engineering skill set. Our studies of engineering practice indicate that curricula in high school andcollege give students an incomplete picture of engineering work and often do not develop the full skill set needed tosuccessfully execute increasingly complex, interdisciplinary, and international projects in the engineeringworkplace. Because of these misalignments, potential engineering talent goes undeveloped at important stages ofeducational pathways as students move from high school to college.To better understand engineering practice, our research sought to define the engineering epistemic frame—engineers’ unique ways of thinking, knowing and doing. Research methods in this endeavor included mixedquantitative and qualitative online surveys, 140 interviews with practicing engineers, and case studies of sixengineering firms. Findings confirm that effective engineers value communication, problem-solving, teamwork,ethics, life-long learning, and business skills. They have a strong work ethic and passion for what they do.Our research group also used online surveys to uncover the beliefs of high school teachers and counselors aboutengineering. As part of the study of high school level engineering coursework, we analyzed PLTW curriculum andvideotaped lessons in PLTW courses and traditional math and science courses to look for integration of thesecourses. Findings include disparities among intended, enacted, and assessed curricula and how PLTW experiencesinfluence teacher’s views about preparing students for engineering careers. Implications for practice include theimportance at all levels of assessing student learning to measure enacted curricula and being explicit aboutintegrating attributes of practicing engineers to help students develop an engineering mindset.We believe that incorporating these findings into a special session would be of great value to the ERM communityas well as our partners at the secondary school levels. The session we have designed includes an interactive,engaging set of activities—along with supporting information—that will enable participants to better understand thenature of these misalignments and the challenges facing instructors and curriculum developers. Participants willleave the session with concrete ideas, based on empirical research, for how to better align their instruction withfoundational technical/mathematical skills and engineering practice. We will share: 1) insights into engineeringepistemologies within current social and economic contexts based on ethnographic work within six engineeringfirms; 2) insights into how to improve engineering learning mechanisms based on research into Project Lead theWay curriculum and instruction and on alignment with current engineering practice; and 3) insights into how toimprove engineering assessments through connections to authentic practice and explicitly interdisciplinaryconnections.Appendix A is an outline of the proposed 80-90 minute special session.                                                                             ERM Special Session Request Form v1.1Appendix APhase 1: Welcome and Introductions (10 minutes)                                SPECIAL SESSION OUTLINE        1. Welcome participants to the session, share the desired learning outcomes for the session, and explain           the nature of our research group (College of Engineering and School of Education collaboration)        2. Provide a quick overview of the group’s basic research methods and main findings about the epistemic           frame of engineers as well as the challenges and successes in Project Lead the Way programs.Phase 2: Finding the Threads (30 minutes total)        1. Show classroom video clip (3 minutes) of a “missed opportunity” to explicitly connect mathematics            skills to a secondary level engineering task        2. Open up guided discussion to participants in small groups. (7 minutes)                 a. What did the high school students think they were doing here?                 b. What opportunities for naming their actions were missed here?                 c. How could this opportunity have been captured instead of missed?        3. As a whole group, review key components in how people learn: application, reflection, authentic            context, being explicit, making work count. Discuss the idea of threading understanding through            multiple modalities (e.g., from mathematical equations, through design sketch, to physical fabrication,            assembly and testing). Discuss the differences between the intended (or “idealized”) curriculum and            the enacted (or actual) curriculum experiences of the students and instructor. (5 minutes)        4. Show classroom video clip #2 (3 minutes) of a “missed opportunity” to explicitly connect project work            to authentic problem solving process of engineers        5. Open up guided discussion to participants in small groups. (7 minutes)                 a. What did the high school students think they were doing here?                 b. What opportunities for naming their actions were missed here?                 c. How could this opportunity have been captured instead of missed?        6. Whole group share-out: Where does this happen in your own teaching or curricula? (7 minutes) How            can you take opportunities to thread key conceptual understanding (such as mathematics) through all            modalities of learning?Phase 3: Drawing the Connections (30 minutes total)        1. Review best practices in education: Learning in context, Group-based learning, Increased time on task,           Increased frequency of feedback, Positive classroom climate (Cabrero & LaNasa, 2002). (5 min)        2. Hand out an example assignment that demonstrates how an engineering assignment might look which           incorporates these best practices in pedagogy, as well as practice-based engineering skills and           connections with authentic problems (also explaining what curriculum and pedagogy looked like           previous to this assignment). Discuss how the assessment portion of the assignment integrates these           practice-based skills and provides exemplary feedback (7 min)        3. Have participants, in their small groups, discuss how the provided assignment could be altered,           applied, and assessed as per their needs on-site. Have group members discuss how they could           incorporate their understanding of the epistemic frame of engineers in their assignments. Notes will be           taken on 3-M poster size paper. Session leaders will work with groups as facilitators, working with the           application/assignment example provided as a base for the discussion. (15 min)        4. Whole group share-out: Have a couple groups share specific ideas for connecting the epistemic frame           of engineers with one of their assignments in a way that incorporates best practices in education.           Notes taken by each group will be made available on project website.Phase 4: Summary, Invitation to Share, Evaluation (10-15 minutes)          1. Summarize the key take-home ideas of the session, referring back to the stated learning outcomes.          2. Invite participants to share important applications of the learning they can see making within their             own courses and work.          3. Show project website with published papers and presentations, share contact information, and point             out handouts available including other engineering assignments that connect with our group’s             findings. http://www.engr.wisc.edu/services/elc/hplengr.htm          4. Complete an evaluation of the session for ERM/ASEE and for our group.                                                                           ERM Special Session Request Form v1.1
AU  - Kevin Anderson
AU  - Sandra Shaw Courter
AU  - Mitchell J. Nathan
AU  - Amy C. Prevost
AU  - Christine G. Nicometo
AU  - Traci M. Nathans-Kelly
AU  - Thomas Dean McGlamery
AU  - Amy K. Atwood
CY  - Vancouver, BC
DA  - 2011/06/26
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Special Session: Moving towards the Intended, Explicit, and Authentic: Addressing Misalignments in Engineering Learning within Secondary and University Education
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/18502
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--18502
ER  -