describe our approach of scaffolding the process of student revision of writtenassignments with grading rubrics, peer review, and reflection. This work-in-progress is the firsttime we have graded rough drafts according to a rubric, although we have extensive experiencein using peer review and reflection to scaffold better writing outcomes for students [1-4].Here we describe our approach to scaffolding the student revision process in three steps: 1) Grade based on grading rubric for rough drafts. We provide grading rubrics for rough drafts when the assignment is posted, and then give students a grade on their rough draft. Using a grading rubric on rough drafts is the novel aspect of our work-in-progress. (10 points in total
existing assignments and course structure, the embedded technicalcommunications faculty member assessed where writing interventions could be added to the flowof the course without adding too much additional work for students or faculty. This resulted in: 1. Adding status memos where each team member, in rotation, took turns sending out weekly agendas, leading meetings, taking minutes, and communicating project status via the memo genre. 2. Embedding points in assignment rubrics dedicated to revision to incentivize students to review and incorporate changes based on previous instructional feedback. 3. A peer response activity for student presentations where each student in the class was guided in providing
continued success in industry [12]-[16]. Despite the importance of technicalcommunication skills, there exists a disparity between what academia reports the technicalcommunication capabilities of recently graduated engineering students is and what industry isreporting. Other research has found that 50 percent of mechanical engineering department headsconsidered recently graduated students to have strong technical communication skills, whereasindustry leaders considered only 9 percent of graduates to have strong technical communicationskills [17]. This disconnect may exist because of a lack of targeted communication and writingassignments that do not teach an iterative and peer review process for writing [18]. There mayalso be a need for engineering
Paper ID #42974Small Shifts: New Methods for Improving Communication Experiences forWomen in Early Engineering CoursesDr. Jonathan M Adams, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott Jonathan Adams is an assistant professor of rhetoric and composition and the writing program administrator at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, AZ. His research on rhetorical theory, infrastructure, and communication pedagogy informs his teaching of courses in rhetoric, composition, and technical communication in engineering.Ashley Rea, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, PrescottBrian Roth, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
human experiences, values, and emotions. 8. Building Confidence and Resilience: Provide a supportive environment for students to experiment with creative expression, take risks, and overcome challenges, thereby building confidence and resilience in their academic and professional endeavors. 9. Cultivating Aesthetic Sensibility: Cultivate an appreciation for the aesthetic aspects of engineering design and innovation by exploring the beauty and elegance inherent in both poetry and technological solutions. 10. Facilitating Collaborative Learning: Promote collaboration and peer feedback by engaging students in group discussions, workshops, and constructive critique sessions to refine their poetry writing
determining the extent to which students’ engagement with Frankensteinwas able to facilitate ethical reflection and professional identity formation. To address thisquestion, the current study begins by situating the class discussion of the novel within thebroader aims and structure of the course; then, it analyzes a series of student written reflectionson moral aspects of the novel and its portrayal of Victor Frankenstein specifically. The analysisorganizes the data into salient themes that emerge from the written reflections illustrated byselections of student writing. The data indicate that students were able to articulate severalethical themes that emerge from the novel’s depiction of Victor Frankenstein’s practice of roguetechno-science and
Paper ID #43129Design Iterations as Material Culture Artifacts: A Qualitative Methodologyfor Design Education ResearchDr. Grant Fore, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Grant A. Fore, Ph.D. is the Assistant Director of Research and Evaluation in the STEM Education Innovation and Research Institute at IUPUI. As a trained anthropologist, he possesses expertise in qualitative methods and ethnographic writing. His primary research interest is in the teaching and learning of ethics in higher education through community-engaged and place-based pedagogies. ©American Society for
of a scientist. Scientists aim to observe, infer,classify, predict, and hypothesize [14], [15]. In this sense the scientific method is based uponconsidering all of the different factors and data to form a conclusion. Another important aspect ofscience is that the “Scientific method does not insure the satisfactory solution of the problem...anymore than it insures the construction of an adequate hypothesis for the research problem” (p. 238)[16]. This statement suggests that a scientist’s mindset is primarily focused on the problemdefinition stage of problem solving.The problem-solving mindset is also evidenced in an expansive range of disciplines through theiracademic writing. It is apparent in social sciences, such as psychology, through
reimaginingengineering education as one informed by tensions (Cheville and Heywood, 2016) and inherentto the “wicked” or sociotechnical pursuit of engineering design (Coyne, 2005; Norman &Stapper, 2015).We are writing from our positions as founding faculty members of an engineering department ina liberal arts institution coming from scholarly traditions in science and technology studies andengineering/engineering design education. In this paper, we hope to conceptualize “engineeringas conflict” as an analytical framework for engineering liberal education and share examplesfrom our curricular and program development work.Context and positioningBelow we share our disciplinary backgrounds and current teaching contexts to help situate howwe use the analytical
coursework, suggesting that as they become more aware of theimportance of non-technical skills (i.e. professional skills such as communication, writing,creativity) they may feel less like they belong in the engineering profession.Previous findings have indicated that coursework highlighting the broader social aspects ofengineering can help attract and retain women, who view the social aspects of engineering asmore important than do their male peers. While we found strong positive relationships amongself-confidence, understanding the broad nature of engineering, sense of belonging inengineering, and attitudes toward persisting and succeeding in engineering for all studentsregardless of their exposure to sociotechnical coursework, our findings suggest
departmenttransformation. While the level of engagement during this co-creation process varied across thedepartment, the majority of faculty and staff played a significant role in writing, reviewing, andmodifying it. • We envision diversity in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, and other social identities (in all their combinations) that transcends current institutional structures. • We envision a place in which all find community, where there are support structures that connect students with their peers, that provide mentoring between faculty and students, and promote collaborative work between faculty. • We envision a place where if one encounters an unjust or arbitrary barrier, it is the system that yields. We
. Onestudent stated that, “using ChatGPT to smooth over your writing is definitely a positive”especially for students for whom “English is not their first language” (P57 White man domesticstudent). Similarly, another student used AI to translate “niche technical terms” from lecturesinto more easily understood descriptions (P55 Black woman domestic student). There wasgeneral appreciation for AI technologies and a sense that “AI is not going to replace humans. AIis just going to become a tool that humans are gonna coexist with” (P42 Asian man domesticstudent). This student described unique opportunities for “collaboration” between humans andAI. When sharing about a situation in which a professional board game player watched AlphaGo,a computer programmed
wasn’t given the opportunity.Carroll mentions a “type of expertise” that is required for communicating with the men on herteam to understand where they “click.” The type of expertise she refers to is the understanding ofthe ways in which peers with shared identities operate socially and in a cohesive manner (wherethey “click”). This is the process of examining the hidden epistemologies that drive the socialinteractions she has with her team. Because of the historically white male majority inengineering and Carroll’s positionality as the only African American female on her team, sheacknowledges silently the potential her gender and race play in her exclusion from socialinteractions with others on her team.Carroll learns of the necessity of
, based in science.”Interestingly, despite our explicit prompt to discuss engineering culture, very few participants framedtheir responses in cultural terms. Instead, they spoke about the engineering-intensive work they did thatbrought them career satisfaction. The prominence of technical affinity in the responses of racializedwomen was also noteworthy. This finding challenges the implicit, and somewhat essentialistassumptions about women in general, and racialized women in particular, underlying recruitment andretention efforts that magnify the socio-emotional features of engineers’ work in order to diversify theprofession. Racialized women, just like their peers, tended to speak about “nerd