Implementing Informal Writing Assignments And A Feedback And Revision Loop To Enhance Learning In Engineering Courses

Hull, Warren; Waggenspack, Warren N.; Bowles, Lillian B; Farrell, Jennifer; Bowles, D. Richard

doi:10.18260/1-2--3398

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two studies focused on introducing writing in large engineering classrooms proposed or "accidentally" implemented revisions [23], [24] suggesting again some recognition of the importance of process. Examples where a process orientation was named and emphasized typically arise from a close collaboration with experts from writing studies or technical communication (e.g., [4], [25]- [27]). It is difficult to conduct a comprehensive search for examples that do not use this terminology directly; elements of a process orientation are likely more widespread than is documented here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing Writing-as-Process in Engineering Education

Kovanen

Ware

Mericle

et al.

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although professional boards and engineering employers have emphasized written communication as a key feature of engineering education and practice, a range of challengesfrom lack of pedagogical training in writing to large class sizes and heavy content requirements-often prevent science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) faculty from incorporating writing instruction into classes. This paper focuses on a key theoretical concept from the field of writing studies, writing-as-process, and explores how it has been included by STEM faculty in their teaching. We first review theoretical and empirical work that supports writing-as-process as an effective tool for facilitating student learning. We then illustrate how writing-as-process has been incorporated into varied types of courses, drawing on a multi-year intervention project designed to enhance writing in engineering and STEM. The examples describe reflective, writing-to-learn activities for first-year orientation courses; scaffolded approaches for laboratory and problem-based-learning classes; and directed peer review and response to reviewer comments in middle-and upper-level courses. The paper concludes by addressing the vital role STEM faculty play in socializing their students into ways of thinking, being, and writing in their disciplines and demonstrates how a process orientation to writing instruction can help faculty achieve that goal. Section I: IntroductionThe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has identified effective communication as a key criterion of engineering competency, and engineering schools across North America have noted the specific importance of writing instruction [1], [2]. However, STEM faculty have faced persistent obstacles in designing and delivering writing instruction.Common challenges include the time constraints of grading and responding to student writing, particularly for large enrollment classes, and lack of training in writing instruction, response, and

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%