Write from the Start in Engineering: Mixed-Methods Results of a Collaboration between a First-Year Biomedical Engineering Class and a University Writing Center

D'Arcy Randall; Hyesun You; Daniel S. Puperi; Thomas E. Lindsay; Rhya Moffitt Brooke

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: Exploration of Written and Team Communication
Tagged Division: Educational Research and Methods Division (ERM)
Page Count: 19
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--44440
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/44440
Download Count: 209

Paper Authors

biography

D'Arcy Randall Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin

visit author page

Until 2022, D'Arcy Randall was a Professor of Instruction in the Department of Chemical Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. Now retired, she teaches part-time in the Dept. of Mechanical Engineering. She collaborated with other Cockrell School of Engineering faculty, the College of Liberal Arts’ University Writing Center, and Undergraduate Studies to train Consultants to assist engineering undergraduates with technical reports. She publishes and presents research in two fields: engineering ethics and writing, and literature.

visit author page

biography

Hyesun You The University of Iowa

visit author page

Hyesun You, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning. Before joining UI, Hyesun worked as an assistant professor at Arkansas Tech University. She also previously served as a post-doc fellow at New York University and Michigan State University, where she participated in NSF-funded grant projects. She earned her BS in Chemistry and MS in science education from Yonsei University. Her MEd in quantitative methods and Ph.D. in Science Education at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests center on interdisciplinary learning and teaching, technology-integrated STEM teaching practices, and assessment development and validation in STEM education.

visit author page

biography

Daniel S. Puperi The University of Texas at Austin orcid.org/0000-0003-4360-1597

visit author page

Daniel is an assistant professor of instruction in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Dan received a BS in aerospace engineering from Purdue University and then worked at NASA Johnson Space Center for 15 years before pursuing a PhD in Bioengineering from Rice University. In 2016, Dan graduated from Rice and began teaching four design/laboratory courses required for all undergraduate BME students at UT Austin.

visit author page

author page

Thomas E. Lindsay The University of Texas at Austin

author page

Rhya Moffitt Brooke The University of Texas at Austin

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

This Evidence-based Practice paper presents the mixed-methods results of an interdisciplinary program to improve engineering undergraduate writing. Engineering students’ difficulties in learning to write technical documents are all too familiar to engineering educators. Insightful research investigating these difficulties engages rhetorical theories of “writing transfer,” or the ability to draw from prior writing experience to meet new writing challenges or learn new genres. The problem facing educators is how to help students overcome writing transfer challenges when engineering curricula emphasize technical knowledge. Moreover, competing priorities and tight budgets at many academic institutions impede efforts to improve discipline-specific writing instruction. At our large public university, student fees support a writing center dedicated to helping students wrestle with various writing transfer challenges. However, our engineering students have historically neglected its consultants’ expertise. In addition, writing center research reflects controversy over the relative value of specialist vs. non-specialist writing consultants for engineering students. Responding to these problems, our team of engineering writing instructors hypothesized that training the writing center consultants to assist with specific engineering writing assignments could unlock this potential resource. Here, we present the program design and the quantitative and qualitative results from a Fall 2020 intervention in a first-semester Biomedical Engineering (BME) course.

The program design featured (1) modifications made in the intervention class's writing assignment and (2) parallel training sessions in BME writing for writing center consultants. We assessed students’ confidence in their writing skills from self-efficacy surveys gathered pre- and post- the modified assignment. In addition, we evaluated students’ views on the intervention and the course itself from reflection essays requested at the end of the semester. Finally, draft and revised writing samples were collected from both the intervention class and an earlier class used as a control. The writing samples—212 in the intervention; 206 in the control—were assessed and scored for both higher and lower order writing skills. For the quantitative analysis, paired t-tests compared the pre- and post-self-efficacy surveys, and MANCOVA compared the draft and final writing sample scores. For the qualitative analysis, the reflection essays were analyzed for themes. Results for the intervention showed significantly improved self-efficacy scores in assignment content, as well as in higher and lower order writing skills. The more objectively assessed writing samples showed significantly improved scores between the control and intervention, particularly in the categories of paragraph coherence and avoiding mechanical errors. We conclude that non-specialist Writing Center consultants can be trained to help improve undergraduate engineering writing for first-year students.

Citation
Format

Randall, D., & You, H., & Puperi, D. S., & Lindsay, T. E., & Brooke, R. M. (2023, June), Write from the Start in Engineering: Mixed-Methods Results of a Collaboration between a First-Year Biomedical Engineering Class and a University Writing Center Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--44440

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - This Evidence-based Practice paper presents the mixed-methods results of an interdisciplinary program to improve engineering undergraduate writing. Engineering students’ difficulties in learning to write technical documents are all too familiar to engineering educators. Insightful research investigating these difficulties engages rhetorical theories of “writing transfer,” or the ability to draw from prior writing experience to meet new writing challenges or learn new genres. The problem facing educators is how to help students overcome writing transfer challenges when engineering curricula emphasize technical knowledge.  Moreover, competing priorities and tight budgets at many academic institutions impede efforts to improve discipline-specific writing instruction. At our large public university, student fees support a writing center dedicated to helping students wrestle with various writing transfer challenges. However, our engineering students have historically neglected its consultants’ expertise. In addition, writing center research reflects controversy over the relative value of specialist vs. non-specialist writing consultants for engineering students. Responding to these problems, our team of engineering writing instructors hypothesized that training the writing center consultants to assist with specific engineering writing assignments could unlock this potential resource. Here, we present the program design and the quantitative and qualitative results from a Fall 2020 intervention in a first-semester Biomedical Engineering (BME) course.

The program design featured (1) modifications made in the intervention class&#39;s writing assignment and (2) parallel training sessions in BME writing for writing center consultants. We assessed students’ confidence in their writing skills from self-efficacy surveys gathered pre- and post- the modified assignment.  In addition, we evaluated students’ views on the intervention and the course itself from reflection essays requested at the end of the semester. Finally, draft and revised writing samples were collected from both the intervention class and an earlier class used as a control. The writing samples—212 in the intervention; 206 in the control—were assessed and scored for both higher and lower order writing skills. For the quantitative analysis, paired t-tests compared the pre- and post-self-efficacy surveys, and MANCOVA compared the draft and final writing sample scores. For the qualitative analysis, the reflection essays were analyzed for themes. Results for the intervention showed significantly improved self-efficacy scores in assignment content, as well as in higher and lower order writing skills. The more objectively assessed writing samples showed significantly improved scores between the control and intervention, particularly in the categories of paragraph coherence and avoiding mechanical errors. We conclude that non-specialist Writing Center consultants can be trained to help improve undergraduate engineering writing for first-year students.

AU  - D'Arcy Randall
AU  - Hyesun You
AU  - Daniel S. Puperi
AU  - Thomas E. Lindsay
AU  - Rhya Moffitt Brooke
CY  - Baltimore , Maryland
DA  - 2023/06/25
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Write from the Start in Engineering: Mixed-Methods Results of a Collaboration between a First-Year Biomedical Engineering Class and a University Writing Center
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/44440
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--44440
ER  -