Paper ID #38796Board 317: Improving Undergraduate STEM Writing: A CollaborationBetween Instructors and Writing Center Directors to Improve Peer-WritingTutor FeedbackDr. Robert Weissbach, Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis Robert Weissbach is currently chair of the department of engineering technology at IUPUI. From 1998 - 2016 he was with Penn State Behrend as a faculty member in Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology. His research interests are in renewable energy, energy storage, and engineering education.Ms. Ruth Camille Pflueger, Pennsylvania State University, Behrend Ruth Pflueger has been the
Paper ID #37231The CS POGIL Activity Writing ProgramDr. Helen Hu, Westminster College of Salt Lake City Helen H. Hu received her Ph.D. in computer science from the University of Utah. She is a Professor of Computer Science at Westminster College and a member of the ACM. Her research interests include active learning pedagogies and broadening participation iTricia D. ShepherdDr. Clifton L. Kussmaul, Green Mango Associates, LLC Clif Kussmaul is Principal Consultant at Green Mango Associates, LLC. Formerly he was Associate Professor of Computer Science at Muhlenberg College. Visiting Fulbright-Nehru Scholar at the University
Paper ID #36849Cultivating technical writing skills through a scaffold peerreview-approach of lab reports in a junior-level laboratory courseDr. Yan Wu, University of Wisconsin - Platteville Yan Wu graduated from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1996 with a bachelorˆa C™s degree in Precision Instruments and a minor in Electronics and Computer Technology. She received her M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Alaba ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Cultivating technical writing skills through a scaffold peer review of lab reports in a junior
Paper ID #38280Work in Progress: Can In-Class Peer Reviews of Written AssignmentsImprove Problem Solving and Scientific Writing in a Standard-Based,Sophomore Laboratory Course?Dr. Casey Jane Ankeny, Northwestern University Casey J. Ankeny, PhD is an Associate Professor of Instruction at Northwestern University. Casey received her bachelor’s degree in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Virginia and her doctorate degree in Biomedical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University where she studied the role of shear stress in aortic valve disease. Currently, she is investigating equitable
foundational research in student retention and other evidence-based practices that engage, enroll, and graduate their women and BIPOC engineers.5. Professional Learning a. Provide a toolbox of resources to guide collaboration and partnerships at their respective institutions, with partners, and with each other (broader impact/broadening participation, proposal development, writing research papers, etc.). b. Expand PEERs’ understanding of national funding opportunities aligned with their institutional goals (NSF grants, national education grants, industry grants, etc). 1017
Writing. Paper presented at 2019 ASEEAnnual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2—33610[2] Ware, R., & Turnipseed, N., & Gallagher, J. R., & Elliott, C. M., & Popovics, J. S., & Prior, P., &Zilles, J. L. (2019, June), Writing Across Engineering: A Collaborative Approach to Support STEMFaculty’s Integration of Writing Instruction in their Classes Paper presented at 2019 ASEE AnnualConference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2—33671[3] Damron, R., & High, K. (2009, June), Writing To Learn: The Effect Of Peer Tutoring On CriticalThinking And Writing Skills Of First Year Engineering Students Paper presented at 2009 AnnualConference & Exposition, Austin, Texas. 10.18260/1-2—5684[4
aerospace, automotive, and rail structures. He has been the author or co-author of over 180 peer-reviewed papers in these areas.Dr. Charles Riley, P.E., Oregon Institute of Technology Dr. Riley has been teaching mechanics concepts for over 10 years and has been honored with both the ASCE ExCEEd New Faculty Excellence in Civil Engineering Education Award (2012) and the Beer and Johnston Outstanding New Mechanics Educator Award (2013). ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Assessing Faculty Implementation of Laboratory Report Writing Instructional ModulesAbstract“An ability to develop and conduct appropriate experimentation, analyze and interpret data, anduse
, “ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback,” Computersand Composition, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 443–461, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002.[14] D. Boud and N. Falchikov, “Aligning assessment with long‐term learning,” Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 399–413, Aug. 2006, doi:10.1080/02602930600679050.[15] K. Lundstrom and W. Baker, “To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer reviewto the reviewer’s own writing,” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 30–43,Mar. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.[16] J. van der Pol, B. A. M. van den Berg, W. F. Admiraal, and P. R. J. Simons, “The nature,reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education,” Computers
application displays which students had correct answers sothese students were chosen to explain why they did not choose the incorrect answers. These stu-dents were selected because the instructor did not wish to single out students who got the questionwrong.An addition to the peer instruction model being followed here is the requirement that studentswrite down the questions and their answers to them. The instructor emphasizes that writing downthe question and all the answers, correct or otherwise, is important to their learning [12]. At theend of each class sessions students must turn in a PDF document with their individual answers aswell as the answer arrived at after group discussion. Students were also instructed to write downwhy any of their
research introductions. Class homework: Students apply what they learned in the workshop to their second draft. Students begin meeting UWC consultants. At the UWC: The BME writing instructor runs training sessions for consultants. Consultants begin working with students. Week 3 In class: Students bring to class the second draft for peer review. (This second draft is not included in the Assessment.) Week 4 Students submit their final (third) draft. Week 5 Students complete the first set of short reflections on their UWC consultation Post-Semester The BME writing instructor administers the second self
. Alba-Flores [5] implemented the peer review process in a Circuit Analysis lab course resulting in anincrease in students’ awareness about the importance of technical writing and improved writingassessment results. Corneal [6] developed a sequence of three templates to guide studentsthrough the process of technical report writing and implemented it in a first-year engineering labcourse.According to the theories of learning transfer [7], describing how past experiences affect learningand performance in a new situation, the transfer of writing skills from first-year composition toengineering can be classified as ‘far transfer’ that contains very few abstract or generaloverlapping features [8]. In a previous study to improve engineering
ability of scholarship, writing their career goals, and aligning their actions with their goals [12].Similarly, another facilitated peer-mentoring program with women faculty members yielded positiveimpact on academic skills and manuscript writing [14]. Another research involving junior doctors foundthat peer mentoring promotes psychosocial well-being by helping build support structures, building asense of community, and allowing the new interns navigate their professional environment.Related to peer mentoring is the use of accountability partners as a way of generating motivation towardsgoal achievement [17, 18, 19]. Accountability partners are based on the idea that having a peer partnercan influence one’s commitment towards a personal goal
enroll in the same required Physiology course, which includeslabs with multiple full scientific writing deliverables, in the Fall 2023 (FA23) semester. NorthCarolina State University’s Institutional Review Board has reviewed and approved theprocedures of this study.The technical writing modules focus on one report section at a time, allowing students to usefeedback to rewrite that section multiple times. For example, when learning about each section ofa scientific report (e.g., Methods), students were provided a handout describing conventions ofthe genre and appropriate writing style. With this information, they wrote an initial draft that wasanonymously reviewed by two peers. After using this feedback to make improvements, studentssubmitted a
knowledge of sound conventions[5]. Furthermore, student-centered approaches have been observed to be more successful whenthe student understands the genre conventions [5]. Three student-centered approaches forimproving writing include peer-to-peer, collaborative, and scaffolded.Peer-to-Peer ApproachesOne facet of peer-to-peer writing interventions is considering students’ academic level and thefeedback they can offer their peers. An approach to improving scientific writing sought todetermine if student academic year impacted the ability to provide effective peer-to-peer tutoring[6]. Peer-to-peer tutoring did show an improvement in student writing outcomes, regardless ofthe academic year of the peer. Conversely, researchers analyzing the writing
communicate” as part of homework, laboratory section andcoursework with their peers as audience. In a sophomore level circuits course, as part of ahomework assignment students had to write a user’s manual for PSpice, a circuit simulation software. Writing a User’s Manual is a common task for those entering industry involvingproduct design. In a junior level electronics course lab section, students were required to write amemo to their classmates explaining the behavior of their circuit. This assignment provided anopportunity for the students to explain their circuit to their peers while learning how their peers’circuits worked without having to
) working with writing centertutors, (2) creating (in-house) discipline-specific writing-intensive course, (3) building upsupport groups consisting of peers, advisors and writing specialists. For the purpose of thisstudy, I review below only first two areas of interest. For a fuller review of the currentlandscape of graduate-level writing support available in engineering, readers should refer toBatson [4].Working with writing center tutorsAs a university-wide service to students, employees and faculties who need professionalsupport for any kind of writing task, writing centers have long served as a default solution toproblems in writing. Engineering professors also commonly recommend the tutoring serviceat the writing center to those who struggle
the most useful resources were: • (Giroux & Moje, 2017) – defines “engineering literacy” and suggests ways for engineering faculty to design assignments to help students reach this goal • (Reynolds & Vogel, 2007) – describes a concrete exercise that teaches students the importance of linguistic precision in engineering writing • (Smelser, 2001) – introduces best practices for using peer review in engineering writing instruction • (Rosenberg, 2005) – is an accessible guide to technical writing that focuses on concision, tables and graphics, and other “professional secrets.”These resources provided a foundation for the project outcomes, especially the student and faculty-facing writing reference
Paper ID #36811Refining Instructional Modules for Engineering Lab Writing Using aCommunity of Practice ApproachDr. Charles Riley, Oregon Institute of Technology Dr. Riley has been teaching mechanics concepts for over 15 years and has been honored with both the ASCE ExCEEd New Faculty Excellence in Civil Engineering Education Award (2012) and the Beer and Johnston Outstanding New Mechanics Educator Award (2013). While he teaches freshman to graduate- level courses across the civil engineering curriculum, his focus is on engineering mechanics. He im- plements classroom demonstrations at every opportunity as part of a
have a dedicated time and place to get together towork on, improve on, and progress in their writing [8]. Funded by Graduate School, this writinggroup allowed peer discussions and interactions, as well as presentations by facilitators on avariety of writing topics [8]. This small group environment for dedicated writing is similar to theWriting Sessions described in our paper, but without the limitation of disciplines, or the type ofwriting. The importance of writing beyond graduate school has long been recognized by multiplegroups so much so that several institutions have incorporated writing related workshops andprograms for faculty [13]-[17]. Most of these efforts, though focused on writing engagementsand improving writing competencies
, two near-peer mentoring programs are described and implemented in thecontext of a large (200+ students) project-based introduction civil and environmental engineering(CEE) course. They were developed to provide sustainable, effective methods for near-peermentoring that could be implemented on a larger scale. The two near-peer mentoringframeworks, targeted mentoring and general mentoring, were developed based on the followingobjectives: 1. Provide first-year mentees with additional project input and technical writing and presentation feedback. 2. Provide first-year mentees additional information about campus life, the curriculum, and professional opportunities based on the experience of current upper-level students. 3. Create
-progress introduces the KLIQED tool along with itsrationale, a template, emerging evidence on its effectiveness from students’perspectives, and tips for instructors. Future work includes survey data analysisand a content analysis of the peers’ comments collected from completed KLIQEDsheets to further assess the effectiveness of the tool.Keywords: Oral communication, student engagement, project-based learning,attentionBackground and MotivationThe value of oral communication skillsCommunication skills, including reading, writing, listening, and presenting, are essentialcompetencies for entering the workforce and for participating in society. Therefore, degreeprograms in all disciplines (e.g. liberal arts, science, and engineering) are expected to
Georgia TechPeer Leader Resources Survey 1: What do you want out of a peer mentor in ECE Select all that apply Self-developed Discovery Studio? Write-in provided Survey 2: What support did your peer leader in ECE Discovery for “any other types Studio provide? of support” • Help completing ECE Discovery Studio Assignments • Help building a community at Georgia Tech • Help finding opportunities at Georgia Tech • Help navigating difficult
primary focus of this program was social, rather than academic, unlike many otherprograms studied in the past [3]. Mentees were required to join a peer group, but not required toattend, and no academic incentives or financial costs were attached, differing from someprograms [4]. Peer mentors and mentees met on alternating weeks for activities such as lunch,school athletic events, gaming, laser tag, and others.MethodsAt the start of the semester, mentors were asked to write a brief bio segment introducingthemselves and their interests. We had 80 first year students, and all were required to join a peermentor group. Mentees were then grouped based on shared interests with mentors. Next, mentorswere instructed to tabulate attendance, brief
, the instructor decided to pilot peer oral exams in the nextoffering of the course (Spring Quarter 2021).Several differences ought to be noted between peer review, as conventionally implemented, andpeer oral exams to further emphasize the motivation for the latter. Firstly, in peer review,students in reviewer roles typically evaluate or write a critique of the work of their peers beforemeeting with them, whereas during the meeting, they go through the work with them, givingtheir critique or explaining their evaluation and offer pointers for improvement [78], [19], [77].In peer oral exams, on the other hand, the objective of the peer examiner is to dynamically probethe peer examinee’s knowledge and understanding, or, technically speaking, to
. and Ph.D. degrees in Educational Psychology from the University of Kentucky. She also has nine years of industry experience. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Peer Mentorship in a Virtual University Setting: A Hispanic Perspective on How Mentorship Broadens Participation in Advanced DegreesAbstract Mentorship is crucial in providing a platform for academic and leadership developmentand success among underrepresented groups in STEM. Studies on mentoring students fromunderrepresented groups in STEM demonstrate the characteristics of strong peer relationships,superior communication skills, and favorable academic and career development
Paper ID #38622Board 216: Areas of Improvement and Difficulty with Lab Report Writingin the Lower-Division Engineering Laboratory Courses across ThreeUniversitiesDr. Dave Kim, Washington State University, Vancouver Dr. Dave Kim is Professor and Mechanical Engineering Program Coordinator in the School of Engineer- ing and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. His teaching and research have been in the areas of engineering materials, fracture mechanics, and manufacturing processes. In par- ticular, he has been very active in pedagogical research in the area of writing pedagogy in engineering laboratory
Paper ID #38620Investigating Engineering Laboratory Course Assignments and Assessmentsacross Four Institutions and a Case Study on Their Impact on Students’Lab Report WritingDr. Dave Kim, Washington State University-Vancouver Dr. Dave Kim is Professor and Mechanical Engineering Program Coordinator in the School of Engineer- ing and Computer Science at Washington State University Vancouver. His teaching and research have been in the areas of engineering materials, fracture mechanics, and manufacturing processes. In par- ticular, he has been very active in pedagogical research in the area of writing pedagogy in engineering
Paper ID #37054Student Use of Artificial Intelligence to Write Technical EngineeringPapers – Cheating or a Tool to Augment LearningDr. Ronald P. Uhlig, National University From 2010-2014, Dr. Ronald P. Uhlig was Dean, School of Business and Management, National Univer- sity, La Jolla, CA. He returned to the engineering faculty in 2014 and is currently Chair, Department of Engineering, School of Technology and Engineering. During 2005-2010 he served in multiple positions including Chair of the Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, and Academic Pro- gram Director for the Master of Science in Wireless
Paper ID #36941Board 205: A Web-Based Writing Exercise Employing Directed Line ofReasoning Feedback for a Course on Electric Circuit AnalysisProf. James P. Becker, Montana State University, BozemanDr. Douglas J. Hacker, University of Utah Dr. Hacker is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology and participated in both the Learning Sciences Program and the Reading and Literacy Program.Christine Johnson ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Web-Based Writing Exercises for a Course on Electric Circuit AnalysisAbstractThe use of writing-based exercises in a circuit analysis
they had done before in high school English, history, and other non-technical courses. Furthermore, they went through a writing revision process in which their paper went through three iterations of review: self, peer, and instructor review. All reviews were done prior to the final grading of the paper.• Individual Oral Presentation: The second project that was assigned early in the semester was an individual oral presentation (IOP) of the ITW paper. This project’s objective was to demonstrate effective oral communication of technical content. A lecture focusing on effective oral presentation techniques was presented to demonstrate effective oral presentations. Students presented their IOP in class. The presentations