Evaluation of a Technical Writing Program Implemented in a First-year Engineering Design Course

Christel Heylen; Jos Vander Sloten

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Publication Date: June 10, 2012
Start Date: June 10, 2012
End Date: June 13, 2012
ISSN: 2153-5965
Conference Session: Contextual Competencies
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods
Page Count: 14
Page Numbers: 25.588.1 - 25.588.14
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--21345
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/21345
Download Count: 324

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Christel Heylen Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven

visit author page

Christel Heylen obtained her master's of science in materials engineering in June 2000 and the academic teacher training degree in 2004, both from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). She is a member of the Tutorial Services of the engineering faculty and is responsible for the implementation and daily coordination of the course Problem Solving and Engineering Design in the first year of the bachelor's of engineering program at the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, with a special focus on the didactic interpretation. Regarding this subject, she obtained a Ph.D. in engineering in Aug. 2010 from the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven. She is a member of LESEC (Leuven Engineering and Science Education Centre).

visit author page

author page

Jos Vander Sloten Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Evaluation of a Technical Writing Program Implemented in a First Year Engineering Design CourseIntroduction. A typical engineer can spend up to half of his work-day on writing. Masteringthese technical writing skills is important, but difficult for first year engineering students.Leaving secondary school, freshmen are not familiar with common technical writing style orbest practices. They tend to write their by using a journal-type style. Often they do not proofread their manuscripts and forget about feedback on previous reports. Therefore theEngineering Faculty implemented an intensive technical writing program within the first yeardesign course. This paper describes a study that was performed to evaluate this program.The implemented technical writing program. In the first year engineering program, whichis common for all engineering disciplines, a technical writing program is implemented withinthe project-based design course ‘Problem Solving and Engineering Design’. By embeddingthe program within a design course, the writing assignments are meaningful for the studentsand the contents of the reports matter as well as the writing style. A mixture of teaching andassessment methods was developed to gradually improve students’ technical writing skills.Subsequent assignments force the students to reflect upon the basic writing principles and tolearn from their previous mistakes. The program consists of consecutive cycles of instructionwith clear guidelines about writing style, learning by doing and reflection on receivedfeedback. Furthermore, an interactive lecture using clicking devices is implemented, togetherwith a peer review assignment. Literature shows that peer review can be very effective toimprove student writing.Staff involved in the evaluation and feedback process, use a checklist that summarizes thedesired writing abilities. This ensures they use the same evaluation norms and it makes thegrading more easily. Table 1 gives an overview of the assignments, indicating the number ofstudents that work together and details about the instructions and evaluation process.Evaluation method. To study the efficacy of the implemented writing program, survey datawas gathered. At the end of the first year (from 2003 until 2011), all 300 to 400 studentsenrolled in the design course, filled out an extensive questionnaire consisting of Likert-typeclosed statements and open-ended questions. The writing program was then evaluated byitem analysis of the statements, examination of the open-ended questions and interviews withthe staff involved.Conclusions. Overall, the didactic staff involved, as well as the students, is enthusiastic aboutthe approach. Because of the large number of students enrolled in the course (about 400 eachacademic year), the staff really appreciates the use of the checklist with desired writingabilities. The students most appreciated the peer review process. Furthermore they agree thatthe clicking devices, made them think actively about their writing skills during the lecture.The current academic year, the study will be completed by adding detailed information aboutthe evolution of the students’ grades. Furthermore the students themselves will be encouragedto keep track of the evolution of their technical writing skills by summarizing receivedfeedback in their portfolio.Table 1. Overview of subsequent assignments within the first year engineering program to ensure that all students learn to write technical reports. Number of Instruc- Focus of Assignment Timing students Graded Feedback tions feedback working togetherduction Intro- Literature Beginning of Written by Writing 2 Written Yes (2 pages) semester 1 didactic team style End of team Project WritingTeam project project, Written by Semester 1 report 8 Written Yes style and halfway didactic team (6 pages) content semester 1 Revised End of project report 8 Oral Yes No feedback No semester 1 (6 pages) Concept Interactive Written peer report design Beginning of lecture and review by 8 WritingTeam design project 8 No project semester 2 written individual style Semester 2 (3 pages) instructions students Intermediate Writing Halfway Written by design report 8 Written Yes style and semester 2 didactic team (12 pages) content Final design Oral after Writing End of report 8 Written Yes final design style and semester 2 (12 pages) presentation content

Citation
Format

Heylen, C., & Vander Sloten, J. (2012, June), Evaluation of a Technical Writing Program Implemented in a First-year Engineering Design Course Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21345

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                 Evaluation of a Technical Writing Program           Implemented in a First Year Engineering Design CourseIntroduction. A typical engineer can spend up to half of his work-day on writing. Masteringthese technical writing skills is important, but difficult for first year engineering students.Leaving secondary school, freshmen are not familiar with common technical writing style orbest practices. They tend to write their by using a journal-type style. Often they do not proofread their manuscripts and forget about feedback on previous reports. Therefore theEngineering Faculty implemented an intensive technical writing program within the first yeardesign course. This paper describes a study that was performed to evaluate this program.The implemented technical writing program. In the first year engineering program, whichis common for all engineering disciplines, a technical writing program is implemented withinthe project-based design course ‘Problem Solving and Engineering Design’. By embeddingthe program within a design course, the writing assignments are meaningful for the studentsand the contents of the reports matter as well as the writing style. A mixture of teaching andassessment methods was developed to gradually improve students’ technical writing skills.Subsequent assignments force the students to reflect upon the basic writing principles and tolearn from their previous mistakes. The program consists of consecutive cycles of instructionwith clear guidelines about writing style, learning by doing and reflection on receivedfeedback. Furthermore, an interactive lecture using clicking devices is implemented, togetherwith a peer review assignment. Literature shows that peer review can be very effective toimprove student writing.Staff involved in the evaluation and feedback process, use a checklist that summarizes thedesired writing abilities. This ensures they use the same evaluation norms and it makes thegrading more easily. Table 1 gives an overview of the assignments, indicating the number ofstudents that work together and details about the instructions and evaluation process.Evaluation method. To study the efficacy of the implemented writing program, survey datawas gathered. At the end of the first year (from 2003 until 2011), all 300 to 400 studentsenrolled in the design course, filled out an extensive questionnaire consisting of Likert-typeclosed statements and open-ended questions. The writing program was then evaluated byitem analysis of the statements, examination of the open-ended questions and interviews withthe staff involved.Conclusions. Overall, the didactic staff involved, as well as the students, is enthusiastic aboutthe approach. Because of the large number of students enrolled in the course (about 400 eachacademic year), the staff really appreciates the use of the checklist with desired writingabilities. The students most appreciated the peer review process. Furthermore they agree thatthe clicking devices, made them think actively about their writing skills during the lecture.The current academic year, the study will be completed by adding detailed information aboutthe evolution of the students’ grades. Furthermore the students themselves will be encouragedto keep track of the evolution of their technical writing skills by summarizing receivedfeedback in their portfolio.Table 1. Overview of subsequent assignments within the first year engineering program to          ensure that all students learn to write technical reports.                                                      Number                                                         of                                                                  Instruc-                               Focus of                      Assignment         Timing       students                  Graded    Feedback                                                                    tions                                feedback                                                      working                                                      togetherduction Intro-                       Literature      Beginning of                                       Written by     Writing                                                         2         Written       Yes                       (2 pages)        semester 1                                       didactic team    style                                       End of team                         Project                                                                          WritingTeam project                                         project,                                         Written by Semester 1                          report                         8         Written       Yes                     style and                                         halfway                                         didactic team                        (6 pages)                                                                         content                                        semester 1                          Revised                                          End of                      project report                     8          Oral         Yes     No feedback       No                                        semester 1                         (6 pages)                          Concept                                Interactive             Written peer                      report design    Beginning of              lecture and             review by 8     WritingTeam design project                                                         8                       No                          project       semester 2                 written                individual      style    Semester 2                         (3 pages)                               instructions              students                      Intermediate                                                                        Writing                                         Halfway                                          Written by                      design report                      8         Written       Yes                     style and                                        semester 2                                       didactic team                        (12 pages)                                                                        content                       Final design                                                       Oral after      Writing                                          End of                           report                        8         Written       Yes     final design    style and                                        semester 2                        (12 pages)                                                       presentation     content
AU  - Christel Heylen
AU  - Jos Vander Sloten
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Evaluation of a Technical Writing Program Implemented in a First-year Engineering Design Course
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/21345
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--21345
ER  -