Work in Progress: Scaffolding Revision with Rubrics, Peer Review, and Reflection in a Technical Communication Course

Dianne Grayce Hendricks; William Charles Sobolewski

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: Writing and Technical Communications
Tagged Division: Liberal Education/Engineering & Society Division (LEES)
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/48512

Request a correction

Paper Authors

biography

Dianne Grayce Hendricks University of California, Santa Cruz

visit author page

Dr. Dianne Hendricks is an Associate Teaching Professor in the Biomolecular Engineering Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz. She teaches molecular biology labs and technical communication courses. Prior to UC Santa Cruz, Dianne was an Associate Teaching Professor in the Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering (HCDE), the Director of the Engineering Communication Program, and an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the University of Washington.

visit author page

author page

William Charles Sobolewski University of California, Santa Cruz orcid.org/0009-0006-3890-4808

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Technical communication is an essential skill for engineers. Unfortunately, many students of engineering undergraduate programs report that they do not feel prepared or confident in their technical communication abilities.

Revising drafts is an essential skill in technical writing. Best practices in teaching writing call for frequent, low-stakes revisions of written work with formative feedback before submitting a final deliverable. However, revision is time-consuming and students often report that they don’t know how to revise drafts, even when provided explicit comments on their work. To promote better revision of written assignments, we scaffolded revision with reflection, grading rubrics, and peer review in a technical writing course for engineers.

In early offerings of the course students received full credit for completing rough drafts (n=59 students). In the most recent offering, students received a grade based on a rubric instead of full credit (n=35 students). The first draft is worth 10 points and the final draft is worth 100 points. The grading rubric is identical for both the rough draft and final deliverable, except for the difference in points.

In the most recent offering, we changed the first step from receiving credit for completion to receiving a grade based on an instructional rubric. An instructional rubric describes various levels of quality (from excellent to poor) for specific dimensions of an assignment. Instructional rubrics include (1) dimensions or criteria, such as: content, organization, document design, word usage, formatting, and citation and (2) descriptions of student work in gradations or varying levels of quality.

In previous offerings of the course, (1) students were given credit for completion of rough drafts; (2) students received “broadcast feedback” from the instructor as a class, which involved the instructor describing the most common mistakes in drafts and asking students to check their own drafts for these mistakes; (3) students completed peer review of rough drafts; and (4) students wrote a reflection on the feedback they received from the instructor and their peer review group. In the reflection, students were asked to describe changes to be made as a result of feedback they received on their own draft as well as changes based on something they saw in another student’s draft.

We were concerned that receiving low grades on the first draft (rather than full points for completion) would discourage students, but we found that students were not discouraged because the first drafts were worth so much less (10 points) than the final deliverable (100 points). Students reported that losing a small number of points on the first draft motivated them to make changes because it drew their attention to areas of improvement.

In this work-in-progress, we describe how we scaffolded revision of rough drafts with reflection, grading rubrics, and peer review. We compare student revision with and without grading rubrics. We found that students were more likely to make revisions based on points lost from the grading rubric.

We provide data from end-of-course student evaluations, instructor observations, and excerpts of student work. In addition, we will include detailed descriptions of reflection activities, rubrics, and guided peer review to allow instructors to try these activities in their own courses.

Citation
Format

Hendricks, D. G., & Sobolewski, W. C. (2024, June), Work in Progress: Scaffolding Revision with Rubrics, Peer Review, and Reflection in a Technical Communication Course Paper presented at 2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon. https://peer.asee.org/48512

TY - CPAPER
AB - Technical communication is an essential skill for engineers. Unfortunately, many students of engineering undergraduate programs report that they do not feel prepared or confident in their technical communication abilities.

Revising drafts is an essential skill in technical writing. Best practices in teaching writing call for frequent, low-stakes revisions of written work with formative feedback before submitting a final deliverable. However, revision is time-consuming and students often report that they don’t know how to revise drafts, even when provided explicit comments on their work. To promote better revision of written assignments, we scaffolded revision with reflection, grading rubrics, and peer review in a technical writing course for engineers.

In early offerings of the course students received full credit for completing rough drafts (n=59 students). In the most recent offering, students received a grade based on a rubric instead of full credit (n=35 students). The first draft is worth 10 points and the final draft is worth 100 points. The grading rubric is identical for both the rough draft and final deliverable, except for the difference in points.

In the most recent offering, we changed the first step from receiving credit for completion to receiving a grade based on an instructional rubric. An instructional rubric describes various levels of quality (from excellent to poor) for specific dimensions of an assignment. Instructional rubrics include (1) dimensions or criteria, such as: content, organization, document design, word usage, formatting, and citation and (2) descriptions of student work in gradations or varying levels of quality.

In previous offerings of the course, (1) students were given credit for completion of rough drafts; (2) students received “broadcast feedback” from the instructor as a class, which involved the instructor describing the most common mistakes in drafts and asking students to check their own drafts for these mistakes; (3) students completed peer review of rough drafts; and (4) students wrote a reflection on the feedback they received from the instructor and their peer review group. In the reflection, students were asked to describe changes to be made as a result of feedback they received on their own draft as well as changes based on something they saw in another student’s draft.

We were concerned that receiving low grades on the first draft (rather than full points for completion) would discourage students, but we found that students were not discouraged because the first drafts were worth so much less (10 points) than the final deliverable (100 points). Students reported that losing a small number of points on the first draft motivated them to make changes because it drew their attention to areas of improvement.

In this work-in-progress, we describe how we scaffolded revision of rough drafts with reflection, grading rubrics, and peer review. We compare student revision with and without grading rubrics. We found that students were more likely to make revisions based on points lost from the grading rubric.

We provide data from end-of-course student evaluations, instructor observations, and excerpts of student work. In addition, we will include detailed descriptions of reflection activities, rubrics, and guided peer review to allow instructors to try these activities in their own courses.

AU - Dianne Grayce Hendricks
AU - William Charles Sobolewski
CY - Portland, Oregon
DA - 2024/06/23
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work in Progress: Scaffolding Revision with Rubrics, Peer Review, and Reflection in a Technical Communication Course
UR - https://peer.asee.org/48512
ER -