Session T1A
Work in Progress - Aligning Educational Experiences
with Ways of Knowing Engineering: Understanding
the Engineering Profession
Kevin J.B. Anderson1, Sandra Shaw Courter2
University of Wisconsin-Madison, kanderso@cae.wisc.edu, courter@engr.wisc.edu
Abstract - Engineering practice in the United States is
changing and education needs to match those changes.
One strategy for improving engineering education is to
utilize a better understanding of the engineering
profession. By the completion of this three year NSF
project in 2010, a more refined and updated picture of
engineering practice will emerge.
To investigate
engineering practice, we will triangulate data from
surveys, interviews and ethnographic observations. To
date, pilot data has been collected from thirteen surveys
and three interviews. By October 2008, it is expected that
five hundred surveys, forty interviews, and studies of two
engineering firms will be complete. Data collected so far
indicates that engineers have a strong, core identification
as analytic thinkers and problem solvers. It also indicates
engineers’ desire to express creativity and learn new things
in their work. As this study will examine the epistemic
frame of engineering—what makes an engineer, an
engineer—the research group plans to have practicing
engineers evaluate how well it succeeds in documenting
what it means to be an engineer. Just as these practicing
engineers provide feedback on this study, we hope our
work will strengthen the ties between engineering practice
and engineering education.
Index Terms – bridging education and practice, engineering
education, engineering epistemic frame, engineering practice
BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE TO THE ENGINEERING
COMMUNITY
Engineering practice in the United States is changing and
education needs to match those changes. According to the
Engineer of 2020 report, education practices must change “if
the United States is to maintain its economic leadership and be
able to sustain its share of high-technology jobs” [1]. Beyond
the need for change, statistics from the American Society for
Engineering Education also “indicate that engineering
graduation and enrollment rates at U.S. universities are not
keeping up with the country’s increasing demand for
engineering talent” [2]. Not only are enrollments insufficient,
retention of engineering students also needs improvement as
1
2
an estimated one third of college students who start in
engineering drop out [3].
One strategy for improving retention and enrollment is to
use a better understanding of the engineering profession to
refine engineering education. Considering the project-based
nature of engineering, some promising research done at the
University of Colorado at Boulder showed that including a
First-Year Engineering Projects course improved the retention
of engineering students [4]. This study and others show that,
“There is a clear need for more effective integration between
education and working life” [5]. As engineering work
changes, so do the skills needed for it. For example, engineers
today work in a global economy, and American engineers may
not have the cultural understanding to meet the intricate needs
of a global market [6].
In order to better align education with the evolving work
of engineers, it is essential to have a firm picture of that work.
Unfortunately, that picture is limited. “There are few reliable
reports of research on engineering practice…An accurate
account of engineering practice could help educators explain
the relevance of coursework to students, helping to provide
appropriate motivation for learning. Such an account may also
reveal opportunities to improve curriculum design” [7].
However, even research that has observed and analyzed
engineering practice often narrowly focuses on one skill that
needs more attention in engineering education. For example,
Jonassen, Strobel and Lee show that workplace engineering
problems differ significantly from the problems typically
found in engineering curriculum [8]. Trevelyn emphasizes the
skill of coordinating the work of other people [9]. Other
research emphasizes the place of problem scoping and
information gathering for engineers [10].
EXPECTED OUTCOMES
This study will not only consider the skills that engineers
need, but also consider practicing engineer’s values and ways
of thinking. These ways of knowing-doing-being constitute
the epistemic frame of engineers. An epistemic framework
acknowledges the importance of, “the understanding,
activities, and structures that comprise a traditional
mathematics or science classroom,” but it more fully
illustrates what it means to be an engineer, not simply
Kevin J.B. Anderson, School of Education, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Project Assistant
Sandra Shaw Courter, College of Engineering, Department of Engineering Professional Development, Director, Engineering Learning Center
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1A-1
Session T1A
the background knowledge required to become one [11].
This more complete picture of engineering will help
frame improvements to engineering education.
By the completion of this three year NSF project in 2010,
a more refined and updated picture of engineering practice
will emerge. This research will clarify the epistemic frame of
engineers by revealing how practicing engineers describe: 1)
values in engineering projects, 2) ways of thinking about
engineering, 3) traits of an effective engineer, 4) typical
engineering work, 5) reasons for being engineers, 6) essential
skills of engineers, and 7) the development of ways of
thinking about and doing engineering work. Furthermore, this
project will increase understanding of engineer’s educational
experiences, with a focus on what they found useful and how
they now apply that education.
CURRENT AND PROJECTED STATUS
To investigate engineering practice, we will triangulate data
from surveys, interviews and ethnographic observations. The
survey will reach engineers from a variety of disciplines,
engineering managers and those with an engineering
background who are currently in another field. Engineers
from different backgrounds (n =13) have piloted the survey.
Their responses were used to refine the questions. Ten to
fifteen thousand engineers will receive the online survey, with
a goal of over five hundred responses. By October 2008, we
anticipate some initial analysis of these five hundred
responses.
During the next year and a half, we plan to interview
practicing engineers and engineering managers. First-year
engineering students will conduct some of these interviews as
part of their technical communication course.
Survey
protocols have been developed and are currently being piloted;
initial data has been collected from a few engineers (n = 3).
By October, over forty engineers will have been interviewed,
with some initial analysis complete.
The research group will also conduct ethnographies of six
engineering firms. Collected data will include interviews,
observations and artifacts (i.e., memos, policy briefs, internal
documentation). As another source of data, researchers will
ask engineers to talk aloud during their work to understand
their thinking. Data collection at two firms will be complete
by October. While we will present initial data, much of the
analysis will occur after all of the ethnographies are complete.
thinking and problem-solving skills developed through their
engineering experience in their current work. Finally, many
responses reiterated the complex, problem-solving nature of
engineering.
EVALUATION
As this study will examine the epistemic frame of
engineering—what makes an engineer, an engineer—the
research group plans to have practicing engineers evaluate
how well it succeeds in documenting what it means to be an
engineer. Engineers who work at the engineering firms
studied will receive a copy of the research group’s analysis.
We will ask, “Does this capture your work? Does this capture
the values, skills and ways of thinking of engineers? Does this
represent where and how you learned this epistemology of
engineering? What did we miss?” Just as these practicing
engineers provide feedback on this study, we hope our work
will strengthen the ties between engineering practice and
engineering education.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study is supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. EEC-0648267. We also acknowledge the
editing assistance of Jesse Boyett Anderson.
REFERENCES
[1]
National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, Washington,
D.C., 2004.
[2]
Grose, T., K., “Trouble on the Horizon,” Prism, Oct 2006, pp. 26-31.
[3]
National Academy of Sciences, Rising Above The Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,
Washington, D.C., 2006.
[4]
Fortenberry, N., L., Sullivan, J., F., Jordan, P., N., Knight, D., W.,
“Engineering Education Research Aids Instruction,” Science, Vol 317,
31 Aug 2007, pp. 1175-76.
[5]
Collin, K., “Experience and Shared Practice: Design Engineers’
Learning at Work,” Jyvaskyla Studies in Education, Psychology and
Social Research, Jyvaskyla, 2005.
[6]
National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, Washington,
D.C., 2004.
[7]
Trevelyan, J., “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice,”
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, No. 3, July 2007, pp. 191201.
[8]
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., Lee, C., B., “Everyday Problem Solving in
Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators,” Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 95, No. 2, Apr 2006, pp. 139-151.
[9]
Trevelyan, J., “Technical Coordination in Engineering Practice,”
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, No. 3, July 2007, pp. 191201.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
As of March 2008, we have only limited pilot data. Initial
surveys and interviews do provide some insights into the work
of engineers. These engineers commonly choose projects to
exercise their creativity or learn something new. Most felt an
effective engineer has both technical knowledge and
communication skills.
Two wanted more management
practice as part of their education. All project leaders
considered themselves engineers even though they no longer
practiced traditional, hands-on engineering. Also, all four
individuals now in another profession used the analytical
[10] Atman, C., J., Adams, R., S., Cardella, M., E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., et
al., “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and
Expert Practitioners,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, No. 4,
Oct 2007, pp. 359-379.
[11] Shaffer, D., W., “Learning in Design,” Foundations for the Future In
Mathematics Education, Mahweh, NJ, 2007, p. 99-126.
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE
October 22 – 25, 2008, Saratoga Springs, NY
38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
T1A-2