WIP: Improving Writing Instruction, Practice, and Feedback in an Introduction to engineering course

Shazib Z. Vijlee; Molly Hiro

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: First-Year Programs Division (FYP) - WIPS 1: Programs & Curricula
Tagged Division: First-Year Programs Division (FYP)
Page Count: 10
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--44090
Permanent URL: https://strategy.asee.org/44090
Download Count: 117

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Shazib Z. Vijlee University of Portland orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-9041

visit author page

Dr. Shazib (Shaz) Vijlee is the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and an Associate Professor of Engineering at the University of Portland's Donald P. Shiley School of Engineering. He has Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas (Austin). He received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Washington (Seattle). He has held various positions in industry (Boeing Phantom Works) and government (Sandia National Labs and Air Force Research Labs).

Dr. Vijlee has been at the University of Portland since 2014.

visit author page

author page

Molly Hiro University of Portland

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This Work in Progress (WIP) paper will describe an interdisciplinary partnership and project to design and implement a writing improvement intervention in a first-year introduction to engineering course at [University]. Motivation The project’s motivation was to create stronger engineering writers in the [School of Engineering] and to infuse the curriculum with a healthy understanding of and respect for good writing as an aspect of a successful engineering graduate.

Background The project focused on the first-semester course required of all students in the [School of Engineering]. Students typically take EGR 110 in the fall of their first year (which means that most have not yet taken the introductory-level Core writing courses). Engineering faculty members teach 7-8 sections of approximately 30 students each (around 200 students total).

Students design and build a tabletop wind turbine while learning engineering via five overarching topics: design process, hands-on skills, teamwork, ethics/impact, and communication. The entire course focuses on a single project introducing essential concepts over the semester. Over the last few years, the technical portions of the course have entirely transformed, and results have improved dramatically. Students are more engaged, interested, and skilled after the course. This project aims to create a similar transformation in how we address writing in this course.

The writing in EGR 110 falls under the overarching topic of communication. Throughout the semester, students write reports that build upon one another and culminate in a final design report. EGR 110 instructors use common writing assignments and should provide some instruction on discipline-specific writing. But students’ writing in EGR 110 is often substandard, and engineering instructors generally have no training to teach or respond to student writing. We want to develop a systematic methodology for improving the writing of first-year engineering students without appearing to replace engineering content with writing content.

Students in their first engineering course do not want to spend time learning how to write. They want to design, build, test, and analyze. They want to solve problems. They think that is all they will do for their engineering careers. They do not think writing is valuable, no matter how emphatically we tell them it matters. The problem we are trying to address is how to consistently get some basic writing instruction to first-year engineering students by faculty that don’t feel comfortable teaching or grading writing.

Methods The project was a collaboration between the [School of Engineering] and the [University’s] Integrated Writing Program. This collaboration focused on identifying areas of improvement in introductory-level writing instruction in engineering and then crafting durable and long-term modules that will instruct first-year engineering students in critical writing components for their discipline. The project also aimed to establish professional development for introduction to engineering faculty, who often don’t have the expertise to evaluate student writing or help students improve their writing.

We undertook the project in three phases. Phase 1 focused on understanding needs and best practices in introductory-level engineering writing and instruction. Phase 2 focused on constructing specific writing modules to instruct students in various aspects of the engineering writing process. Phase 3 focused on implementation by adding these modules to the introductory course and training faculty in writing instruction and assessment. We considered writing instruction, assignments, and feedback at every point in the project.

The primary tasks and methods we used were: 1) a faculty survey regarding writing-related issues in engineering, 2) a review of the course’s writing assignments, 3) a review of students’ submissions for the course’s writing assignment, 4) and a compilation of resources relevant to writing in engineering.

Results We will present results in two broad categories – 1) an overview of the current state of writing in the [School of Engineering] and the introduction to engineering course; and 2) the updated assignments, instructional modules, and faculty training materials. In assessing the current state of writing in [School] and the course, we implemented a faculty survey and a comprehensive, systematic review of the course assignments and student submissions. The faculty survey questions focused on asking where students need improvement, where faculty need support, and the importance of various specific topics. We reviewed student submissions and found three categories that represent the issues we needed to focus on – 1) organizing the paper for flow and focus, 2) helping the audience follow the organization, and 3) strategies to convey technical information. We also reviewed the assignments to look for possible ways to improve the way we explain our expectations to students.

The outcomes from the project were a new set of revised writing assignments in the course, the creation of educational video-based modules for writing instruction in the course, and the creation of writing in engineering references for both students and faculty. One of the most innovative aspects of this project is its train-the-trainer approach. Students who expect to learn writing from English or communication faculty will perceive it as what other people need to know. However, if they learn the basics of writing from engineering faculty, our students might realize the importance of it in their future professions.

Next Steps Our project successfully developed concrete resources to improve student writing (video modules) and support faculty in writing instruction and assessment (checklists, Q+A sessions, and assignment revision consultations). Yet we have not yet overcome the resistance on the part of students who are unenthusiastic about writing and faculty who don’t feel they have room in their full classes to address writing. An ongoing larger goal, then, will be to figure out how to shift the culture and attitudes in the [School of Engineering] toward understanding the central role of writing competency in a successful engineer.

Citation
Format

Vijlee, S. Z., & Hiro, M. (2023, June), WIP: Improving Writing Instruction, Practice, and Feedback in an Introduction to engineering course Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--44090

TY - CPAPER
AB - This Work in Progress (WIP) paper will describe an interdisciplinary partnership and project to design and implement a writing improvement intervention in a first-year introduction to engineering course at [University].

Motivation
The project’s motivation was to create stronger engineering writers in the [School of Engineering] and to infuse the curriculum with a healthy understanding of and respect for good writing as an aspect of a successful engineering graduate.

Background
The project focused on the first-semester course required of all students in the [School of Engineering]. Students typically take EGR 110 in the fall of their first year (which means that most have not yet taken the introductory-level Core writing courses). Engineering faculty members teach 7-8 sections of approximately 30 students each (around 200 students total).

Students design and build a tabletop wind turbine while learning engineering via five overarching topics: design process, hands-on skills, teamwork, ethics/impact, and communication. The entire course focuses on a single project introducing essential concepts over the semester. Over the last few years, the technical portions of the course have entirely transformed, and results have improved dramatically. Students are more engaged, interested, and skilled after the course. This project aims to create a similar transformation in how we address writing in this course.

The writing in EGR 110 falls under the overarching topic of communication. Throughout the semester, students write reports that build upon one another and culminate in a final design report. EGR 110 instructors use common writing assignments and should provide some instruction on discipline-specific writing. But students’ writing in EGR 110 is often substandard, and engineering instructors generally have no training to teach or respond to student writing. We want to develop a systematic methodology for improving the writing of first-year engineering students without appearing to replace engineering content with writing content.

Students in their first engineering course do not want to spend time learning how to write. They want to design, build, test, and analyze. They want to solve problems. They think that is all they will do for their engineering careers. They do not think writing is valuable, no matter how emphatically we tell them it matters. The problem we are trying to address is how to consistently get some basic writing instruction to first-year engineering students by faculty that don’t feel comfortable teaching or grading writing.

Methods
The project was a collaboration between the [School of Engineering] and the [University’s] Integrated Writing Program. This collaboration focused on identifying areas of improvement in introductory-level writing instruction in engineering and then crafting durable and long-term modules that will instruct first-year engineering students in critical writing components for their discipline. The project also aimed to establish professional development for introduction to engineering faculty, who often don’t have the expertise to evaluate student writing or help students improve their writing.

We undertook the project in three phases. Phase 1 focused on understanding needs and best practices in introductory-level engineering writing and instruction. Phase 2 focused on constructing specific writing modules to instruct students in various aspects of the engineering writing process. Phase 3 focused on implementation by adding these modules to the introductory course and training faculty in writing instruction and assessment. We considered writing instruction, assignments, and feedback at every point in the project.

The primary tasks and methods we used were: 1) a faculty survey regarding writing-related issues in engineering, 2) a review of the course’s writing assignments, 3) a review of students’ submissions for the course’s writing assignment, 4) and a compilation of resources relevant to writing in engineering.

Results
We will present results in two broad categories – 1) an overview of the current state of writing in the [School of Engineering] and the introduction to engineering course; and 2) the updated assignments, instructional modules, and faculty training materials.

In assessing the current state of writing in [School] and the course, we implemented a faculty survey and a comprehensive, systematic review of the course assignments and student submissions. The faculty survey questions focused on asking where students need improvement, where faculty need support, and the importance of various specific topics. We reviewed student submissions and found three categories that represent the issues we needed to focus on – 1) organizing the paper for flow and focus, 2) helping the audience follow the organization, and 3) strategies to convey technical information. We also reviewed the assignments to look for possible ways to improve the way we explain our expectations to students.

The outcomes from the project were a new set of revised writing assignments in the course, the creation of educational video-based modules for writing instruction in the course, and the creation of writing in engineering references for both students and faculty. One of the most innovative aspects of this project is its train-the-trainer approach. Students who expect to learn writing from English or communication faculty will perceive it as what other people need to know. However, if they learn the basics of writing from engineering faculty, our students might realize the importance of it in their future professions.

Next Steps
Our project successfully developed concrete resources to improve student writing (video modules) and support faculty in writing instruction and assessment (checklists, Q+A sessions, and assignment revision consultations). Yet we have not yet overcome the resistance on the part of students who are unenthusiastic about writing and faculty who don’t feel they have room in their full classes to address writing. An ongoing larger goal, then, will be to figure out how to shift the culture and attitudes in the [School of Engineering] toward understanding the central role of writing competency in a successful engineer.
AU - Shazib Z. Vijlee
AU - Molly Hiro
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - WIP: Improving Writing Instruction, Practice, and Feedback in an Introduction to engineering course
UR - https://strategy.asee.org/44090
DO - 10.18260/1-2--44090
ER -