An analysis of the prescribed and enacted curriculum of an engineering unit on helmet design

dc.contributor.advisorPetrosino, Anthony J. (Anthony Joseph), 1961-en
dc.contributor.committeeMemberAllen, Daviden
dc.creatorGustafson, Katherine Alessandraen
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-27T16:04:02Zen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-11T22:24:44Z
dc.date.available2012-02-27T16:04:02Zen
dc.date.available2017-05-11T22:24:44Z
dc.date.issued2011-08en
dc.date.submittedAugust 2011en
dc.date.updated2012-02-27T16:04:12Zen
dc.descriptiontexten
dc.description.abstractUsing grounded theory, action research and ethnographic case study methodology this research explores the contrasting ways in which a prescribed curriculum is translated into an enacted curriculum. The current study looks at a 12 week secondary engineering unit (helmet design) which was designed with significant input from a university based team including content experts, learning scientists, master teachers, classroom teachers and school district administrators as part of a grant focused on the creation of a high school engineering course. The unit was enacted in a rural/suburban school by a group of average students by a teacher with high content knowledge in engineering. Five thrusts were identified for analysis including Assessment, Activities, Apparatus, Technology and Standards. Findings indicate much alignment with Apparatus, Standards and Technology thrusts and disparity within the Assessment and Activities thrusts.en
dc.description.departmentScience and Mathematics Educationen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.slug2152/ETD-UT-2011-08-3996en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2011-08-3996en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.subjectSecondary educationen
dc.subjectEngineeringen
dc.subjectSTEMen
dc.subjectCurriculumen
dc.subjectEnacted curriculumen
dc.subjectPrescribed curriculumen
dc.titleAn analysis of the prescribed and enacted curriculum of an engineering unit on helmet designen
dc.type.genrethesisen

Files