Mechanical Engineering Reasoning Diagram: How Can Modeling Engineering Thinking Support Learning in Writing Intensive Labs?

Jingfeng Wu; Clay Walker

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Portland, Oregon
Publication Date: June 23, 2024
Start Date: June 23, 2024
End Date: July 12, 2024
Conference Session: Engineering Equity: Challenging Paradigms and Cultivating Inclusion in Technical Education
Tagged Divisions: Equity and Culture & Social Justice in Education Division (EQUITY)
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/47768

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Jingfeng Wu University of Michigan

visit author page

Jingfeng Wu is currently a PhD student at the University of Michigan majoring in Engineering Education Research. She holds a PhD in Chemical Engineering from University of Calgary in Canada, and a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering at Chang'an University in China. Her research interests include engineering identity, design thinking, and engineering professional development.

visit author page

biography

Clay Walker University of Michigan

visit author page

Dr. Walker is a Lecturer III in the University of Michigan's College of Engineering Technical Communication Program. He regularly teaches first-year, intermediate, and senior writing courses for students in all engineering disciplines, but especially Mechanical Engineering and Computer Science Engineering. His research focuses on the interplay between identity, experience, and agency in language and literacy practices in technical and workplace communication contexts through translingual and linguistic justice frameworks.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

The purpose of this practice paper is to suggest an equitable practice in writing-intensive engineering labs. There is an increasing interest in integrating communication into technical engineering courses. In the early 2000s, The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) set effective communication as one of the evaluation criteria for engineering programs. However, engineering students and lab instructors tend to focus more on technical knowledge rather than communication skills in the labs. Therefore, a writing-intensive lab course can simultaneously improve students’ disciplinary writing and technical knowledge.

Students’ readiness to write engineering lab reports varies depending on their previous educational experiences (Clair et al., 2021). Because of the wide variety of writing backgrounds that students bring to the engineering lab, teaching writing in engineering labs requires explicit focus on rhetorical and writing issues (Clair et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2021). This emphasis in teaching facilitates engineering thinking in the real world (Bucciarelli, 2009), and opens the learning barriers for students who use diverse languages (Lorimer Leonard and Nowacek, 2016), in particular first generation students and multilingual students. Compared with traditional writing intensive pedagogies, the writing-intensive lab course in engineering provides students with opportunities to develop genre awareness and flexibility in writing based on specific disciplinary contexts (Renna et al., 2022).

Academic literacy practices mediate the development of disciplinary expertise in engineering thinking (Geisler, 1994). One of the challenges of teaching engineering students is supporting their efforts to successfully transfer learning from one context to another. Students often struggle to think about their writing work in lab contexts beyond their individual experience of completing the lab (Poe et al, 2010), making it difficult for students to develop metacognition about how literacy in one practice relates to another. To respond to this limitation, Lane et al., (2022) showed evidence that reasoning diagrams could be used as effective instructional tools to help students explicitly integrate subject matter knowledge with rhetorical, genre, and writing procedural knowledge. They developed diagrams in several science and engineering disciplines (e.g. Materials Science and Engineering, Computer systems) through interviews with experts and article analysis. Our study replicates their approach but develops a novel reasoning diagram for the field of mechanical engineering (ME).

This paper presents the reasoning diagram for ME that we developed out of our interview study with experts in this field. In this study, we conducted two-sets of 60 minute semi-structured interviews with seven ME professors at a midwestern research intensive university. The interviews focused on these experts’ research narratives. Using a discourse-based interview approach, we collected reasoning diagrams from each individual. Our findings illustrated the iterative process of developing the reasoning diagram. We coded the interviews and analyzed the participants’ diagrams in order to develop a general reasoning diagram which we present in this paper. Discussion will suggest ways of introducing the diagram to students and talk about the implications of using the diagram as a teaching tool, including facilitating students’ engineering thinking, supporting the transfer of learning, and opening up barriers for education.

Citation
Format

Wu, J., & Walker, C. (2024, June), Mechanical Engineering Reasoning Diagram: How Can Modeling Engineering Thinking Support Learning in Writing Intensive Labs? Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/47768

TY - CPAPER
AB - The purpose of this practice paper is to suggest an equitable practice in writing-intensive engineering labs. There is an increasing interest in integrating communication into technical engineering courses. In the early 2000s, The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) set effective communication as one of the evaluation criteria for engineering programs. However, engineering students and lab instructors tend to focus more on technical knowledge rather than communication skills in the labs. Therefore, a writing-intensive lab course can simultaneously improve students’ disciplinary writing and technical knowledge.

Students’ readiness to write engineering lab reports varies depending on their previous educational experiences (Clair et al., 2021). Because of the wide variety of writing backgrounds that students bring to the engineering lab, teaching writing in engineering labs requires explicit focus on rhetorical and writing issues (Clair et al., 2021; Riley et al., 2021). This emphasis in teaching facilitates engineering thinking in the real world (Bucciarelli, 2009), and opens the learning barriers for students who use diverse languages (Lorimer Leonard and Nowacek, 2016), in particular first generation students and multilingual students. Compared with traditional writing intensive pedagogies, the writing-intensive lab course in engineering provides students with opportunities to develop genre awareness and flexibility in writing based on specific disciplinary contexts (Renna et al., 2022).

Academic literacy practices mediate the development of disciplinary expertise in engineering thinking (Geisler, 1994). One of the challenges of teaching engineering students is supporting their efforts to successfully transfer learning from one context to another. Students often struggle to think about their writing work in lab contexts beyond their individual experience of completing the lab (Poe et al, 2010), making it difficult for students to develop metacognition about how literacy in one practice relates to another. To respond to this limitation, Lane et al., (2022) showed evidence that reasoning diagrams could be used as effective instructional tools to help students explicitly integrate subject matter knowledge with rhetorical, genre, and writing procedural knowledge. They developed diagrams in several science and engineering disciplines (e.g. Materials Science and Engineering, Computer systems) through interviews with experts and article analysis. Our study replicates their approach but develops a novel reasoning diagram for the field of mechanical engineering (ME).

This paper presents the reasoning diagram for ME that we developed out of our interview study with experts in this field. In this study, we conducted two-sets of 60 minute semi-structured interviews with seven ME professors at a midwestern research intensive university. The interviews focused on these experts’ research narratives. Using a discourse-based interview approach, we collected reasoning diagrams from each individual. Our findings illustrated the iterative process of developing the reasoning diagram. We coded the interviews and analyzed the participants’ diagrams in order to develop a general reasoning diagram which we present in this paper. Discussion will suggest ways of introducing the diagram to students and talk about the implications of using the diagram as a teaching tool, including facilitating students’ engineering thinking, supporting the transfer of learning, and opening up barriers for education.

AU - Jingfeng Wu
AU - Clay Walker
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Mechanical Engineering Reasoning Diagram: How Can Modeling Engineering Thinking Support Learning in Writing Intensive Labs?
UR - https://peer.asee.org/47768
ER -