ENGINEERING WRITING
AND PROFESSIONAL
COMMUNICATIONS
CENTERS
Proceedings of a Workshop at the University of South Carolina
College of Engineering Professional Communications Center
July 20-22, 1998
Partially funded by the Gateway Engineering Education
Coalition
NSF Award #EEC-972713
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
4
Introduction
5
Keynote Address
Engineering Education: Integrative and Holistic
Edward W. Ernst, USC
8
Teaching Communications in Freshman Experience
Courses for Engineers
Incorporating the Writing Process into a Freshman Engineering
Design Project
David Rocheleau, USC
15
The Collaboration between the Freshman Writing Program
and College of Engineering Faculty at USC
Deanna Ramey, USC
23
Writing/Communications Centers and the Goals
of Engineering Education
Bringing the Field into the Classroom: Speaking and Writing for
Engineers at Florida:
Principles for Engineering Communication Courses
Fiona Barnes, UFla
27
Recipe for Success: Writing in the Disciplines
Jane Douglas, UFla
33
Student Transitions: Communications in the Engineering Curriculum
Charles Glagola, UFla
48
Integrating Engineering and Technology Issues into
Freshman Composition and Literature Courses
Teaching Freshman Engineering Majors Composition
and Rhetoric
Steven Luyendyk, NCSU
54
NJIT's Freshman Pairing: The Seven Year Itch
Rob Friedman, NJIT
65
2
Language and Life Long Learning in the Professions
Consultation as Discovery: Developing a Writing Consultants Program
for Freshman Engineering
Jean Gallagher, Polytechnic U
71
Programming as Writing
Robert O. Pettus, USC
78
Language and Ethics in the Professions
Ethics and Engineering
Charles Brice, USC
Edward Munn, USC
99
Introducing Engineering Ethics to Freshmen Using
a Case Study Model
Tom Ward, USC
103
Writing Consultation in Engineering: The Ethics of Process
Meets the Ethics of Production
Tom Smith, USC
105
Breakout Session 1: Writing in the Freshman
Engineering Course
110
Breakout Session 2: Models of Collaboration
113
Breakout Session 3: Integrated Curricula for
Engineering Education
126
Epilogue: Future Collaboration
130
Participants
131
3
PREFACE
This Proceedings contains papers, summaries of breakout group discussions, and group
presentations from a Workshop on Engineering Writing and Professional Communications
Centers, Columbia, SC, July 20-22, 1998. We present them with appreciation to all the
participants for the time and thought they contributed to make the Workshop successful.
We especially wish to thank the individuals and institutions that made the Workshop possible.
First, to Edward W. Ernst, Allied Signal Professor of Engineering, we express our gratitude for
his vision of a collaborative workshop on professional communications in engineering. Professor
Ernst has long been a proponent of integrated curricula in engineering, and his support was
indispensable in making this Workshop a reality.
To Dean Craig Rogers, we offer our special thanks for the commitment of the College of
Engineering to providing opportunities for students to excel in written and oral communications.
Finally, our deepest appreciation to the Gateway Coalition of Engineering Colleges for
sponsoring the original Workshop on Engineering Writing and Professional Communications
Centers in 1996 and for continuing its support for subsequent workshops. It is gratifying to be a
part of an organization that promotes and encourages collaboration to achieve the goals of
engineering education and to make continuing improvement possible.
The Professional Communications Center Staff
4
INTRODUCTION
For the past three summers, the University of South Carolina College of Engineering has hosted a
gathering of educators concerned about communications skills of engineering graduates. These
workshops, funded in part by the Gateway Coalition of Engineering Colleges, have fostered
collaboration among engineering faculty and writing professionals in developing new ways to
teach professional communications skills to engineering students.
Building a community for collaboration has been a major objective of the workshops. Each
conference has incorporated a process that fosters interaction as a means to achieve the goals of
individual participants and the larger group. This process, which we call Interactional Inquiry,
involves all the participants in creating ideas.
The process of inquiring together begins with the opening workshop session as the participants
introduce themselves and describe their purposes for attending the workshop. In this first
dialogue, members of the new community establish the group's agenda and the context for
collaboration.
These are the goals that participants at the 1998 workshop identified as they described their
special interests and the topics that they hoped to learn more about during the workshop:
David Rocheleau, University of South Carolina
what other institutions are doing to integrate communications into freshman
engineering, to learn about their successes and failures.
Floyd Bowles, Midlands Technical College of Engineering
better teaching of communication skills within an integrated curriculum.
Steve Luyendyk, North Carolina State University
ways to communicate the value of humanities programs to engineering faculty and to
learn what other schools are doing.
Sam Morgan, University of South Carolina
integrating writing into technical courses.
Summer Smith, Penn State
standards for evaluating technical writing used by engineering faculty and English
faculty.
Tom Smith, University of South Carolina
how to maintain dialogue between writing center staff and engineering faculty, how
professional codes of ethics can be modeled by faculty/student interaction.
Susan Creighton, University of South Carolina
what other institutions are doing to meet ABET standards.
Tom Bowers, University of South Carolina
what other institutions are doing to teach writing and literature to engineering students.
5
Tom Ward, University of South Carolina
—integration of critical thinking and communications into engineering and freshman
courses
Henry McGee, Virginia Commonwealth University
—how to emphasize synthesis, industrial collaboration, teamwork, communications skills
in an integrated curricula
Rob Friedman, NJIT
integration of engineering and humanities
Soronnadi Nnaji, Polytechnic University
integrating success strategies and communications skills into engineering content
Naomi Nemtzow, Florida A & M University – Florida State University
—how to understand the needs of the engineers, how to communicate with them, and
how to help staff understand needs of engineering students
Jean Gallagher, Polytechnic University
—how to make a freshman writing program successful through a peer consultant
program; practical aspects of developing a syllabus for freshman engineering
Martha Thomas, University of South Carolina
—learn about operations of discipline-specific communications centers, how to integrate
communications into business curriculum: what are the boundaries, and what are the
opportunities
Wes Bright, University of South Carolina
 to learn more about audience
Charles Brice, University of South Carolina
integrating ethics into engineering education; how to use reflective writing, what is the
next step after saying that writing is important.
Edward W. Ernst, University of South Carolina
"—do it."
This list of objectives and interests, reflecting each participant's personal dedication to the task of
helping engineers become better communicators, focused the groups’ interactional inquiry during
the workshop. Several shared goals are implicit in the list: integrating communications and
humanities subject areas into engineering education; designing effective freshman engineering
courses; implementing plans and establishing effective programs. These broad goals provided a
framework for discussing the participants’ particular interests. The goals also helped participants
examine the purpose of an integrated engineering curriculum: making all of education
humanities, communications, engineeringrelevant to the life of the individual and engaging
to students with a strong preference for science, math and technology studies.
6
Throughout the 2½-day workshop, the participants attended brief plenary sessions, but spent most
of their time in small groups, planning and creating course modules that could be used in a variety
of settings. The plenary sessions described professional communications center services,
freshman English, and freshman seminar programs for engineers. Breakout sessions focused on
these same topics, as participants identified projects that they could complete in a short time and
that would be useful to their own institutions and others. At the end of the workshop, each
breakout group presented its materials to the larger group. These materials are contained in these
Proceedings.
The modules drafted by the breakout groups reflect the synergy from interaction among
professionals from different disciplines and different institutions. The documents included here,
PowerPoint presentations and outlines, are distillations of the types of interdisciplinary
conversations that are necessary foundations for integrated curricula. The sponsors of the
workshop believe that while there is no substitute for actual conversation among those who create
interdisciplinary courses at their own schools, the results of scholarly conversations elsewhere
can be generative models for others engaged in similar pursuits.
We hope that readers find this summary of the workshop Proceedings provocative and useful.
Most of all, we hope that readers will join in our conversations about effective ways of helping
engineering students acquire both excellent communications skills and a holistic education that
motivates them for life-long learning. In our work as writing and professional communications
consultants, we have come to value dialogue and collaborative discourse as a principal means of
teaching and learning the arts and skills of human communications. In our consultation within
the engineering discourse community, we have listened to and watched engineering students
acquire increasing competencies in written and spoken language as they engage in dialogue with
professionals and peers. And we have listened with great pleasure as engineering students
discussed ethics, literature, history, political science  all the liberal education topics that they
explore through reading, writing, listening and conversation and that provide them the intellectual
foundation for their future as leaders within society and the profession.
We are convinced that discourse is at the center of education.
Editor: Deanna Ramey
Contributing Editors:
Elisabeth M. Alford
Thomas Bowers
Samuel Morgan
Thomas G. Smith
7
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Engineering Education: Integrative
and Holistic
Edward Ernst, College of Engineering
University of South Carolina
The idea of academe as an educational mecca – an academy – for fostering intellectual growth
has a history of more than two thousand years. The word academic derives from the public grove
in Athens once owned by the Greek hero, Academus. Academus gave this grove to Plato several
hundred years before the birth of Christ. It was here that Plato set the stage for mentors and
students to share thoughts, develop ideas, and propose philosophies of life. [1]∗
Plato’s Academy was a precursor of today’s university, a forum for seeking truth, creating
knowledge, and making connections to learn. Thus, the Academy has a special character
stemming from its origins: the responsibility to conduct civil dialogue concerned with the conflict
of ideas. Connections made among the correspondents in this way have been both encouraged
and protected in the intellectual groves of the world by the principle of freedom of thought and
expression – the freedom to learn, inquire, and challenge. Creating and promulgating new
knowledge cannot proceed without such freedom.
An innate syndrome of life in the Academy, fostered by the teachings of Plato’s (perhaps) most
famous student, Aristotle, is that of analysis-focused or narrow study in depth, i.e., reductionism
or so-called fractionization of knowledge. Thus, it is somewhat difficult for the Academy to
respect the concept of integration of knowledge, or synthesis, which is the hallmark philosophy of
engineering. Over its history, scholarly inquiry has become even more specialized than perhaps
even Plato had intended especially during the present century in which science and technology
have flowered so well. Now not only disciplines but also subdisciplines, and subspecialities
within subdisciplines, abound. Today we need to cross-disciplinary interfaces and mesh
disciplinary knowledge. In consonance, there is a growing need to influence academe to educate
students to see the world whole, to help them sense the coupling among seemingly disparate
fields of endeavor, to teach synthesis in balance with analysis, and to enhance their capabilities to
build connections between the world of learning and the world beyond.
As we approach the year 2000, our world grows more exciting and more complex. Complexity
requires specialization in the pursuit of discovery as we deepen our understanding of the modern
world and create the knowledge needed to resolve current dilemmas and improve the quality of
life. In this process, we continually fractionate knowledge, analyzing the ever-smaller pieces in
greater and greater depth. We have trained our 20th-century professionals quite well in this task –
it is a global strength we must sustain.
∗
Much of this presentation has been derived from reference [1].
8
Most present engineering curricula require students to learn in unconnected pieces, in separate
courses whose relationships to each other and to the engineering process are not explained until
late in a baccalaureate education, if ever.
Further, an engineering education is usually described in terms of a curriculum designed to
present to students the set of topics engineers need to know, leading to the conclusion that an
engineering education is merely a collection of courses. The content of the individual courses
may be valuable but this view of engineering education appears to ignore the need for
connections and for integration, which should be at the core of an engineering education.
But what additional skills will be demanded of 21st-century leaders? The ability to make
connections among seemingly disparate discoveries, events, and trends and to integrate them in
ways that benefit the world community will be the hallmark of modern leaders. They must be
skilled at synthesis as well as analysis, and they must be technologically astute. Within university
communities, in particular, we must create an intellectual environment where students can
develop an awareness of the impact of emerging technologies, an appreciation of engineering as
an integral process of societal change, and an acceptance or responsibility for civilization’s
progress.
Science is the process of discovering and creating knowledge. Engineers share in this process,
but they are also responsible for integrating knowledge to create what has never been: the
innovative integration of ideas, devices, and systems to implement change. Indeed, engineering
science is a critical component of an engineer’s mental toolbox, but as Jay Forrester has noted, [2]
Engineering has become preoccupied with its science and fails to focus on the more fundamental
objectives of bridging between isolated compartments…In this sense, the scholarship of
knowledge integration is an imperative for the intellectual progress of engineering in academe, as
well as a professional responsibility for the healthy progress of society.
Thus, the intellectual mission of educators must include the cultivation of each student’s ability to
bridge the boundaries between disciplines and make the connections that produce deeper insights.
The complexity and commingling of many engineering, industrial, economic, environmental,
political, and social problems demand individuals with the technical skills and professional
competence in the integrative approach to defining problems with care, seeking alternative
solutions for them, and participating in their ultimate application. In other words, there is a need
to focus on creating a holistic education for students, particularly undergraduate students, because
engineering’s core as a profession lies in integrating all knowledge to some purpose.
Information technology changes the learning environment. It has exploded what students can do
and what faculty should expect of them. These information technology tools are rapidly
becoming part of the infrastructure of the university campus.
Are these developments, this change of the intellectual mission for us as educators and this
change of the learning environment, related to anything in today’s – or tomorrow’s – engineering
education? Specifically, are they related to anything that brings us together today and for the next
two days? I think so and to help make the connection consider a few ripples or, perhaps, waves
on the peaceful academic pond.
Over the past 50 to 60 years undergraduate education has become more important to a much
broader part of our society. As a nation, we acknowledge and affirm the importance of quality
education, academic values, the historic role of education for personal growth, and the human
need for freewheeling intellectual exchange. We recognize that universities are important to
9
society, to knowledge, and to individuals. Yet, if we look back over the past decade or so, we
find disquieting evidence that many groups view higher education with restrained enthusiasm at
best and at times with unrestrained hostility. Critics of undergraduate education seem to focus
their concerns on what students and their parents see as rapid increases in the cost of an
undergraduate education and on what the critics see as the decreasing quality of that education.
In short, consumers are perceived to be paying more for less. [3] Critics charge the quality of the
undergraduate experience has decreased; the faculty fail to require students to learn what they
should.
Faculty – and the institution – offer the curriculum as one important statement – a compromise of
the many views of individual faculty members – of what the faculty expects the student to learn.
The curriculum description found in most university catalogs may not reflect the discussion and
compromise that lie behind the document. Still, from a broader view every curriculum represents
a particular strategy for achieving the visions, the goals and the objectives the faculty and the
institution hold for the educational experience offered for the undergraduate student.
Determining curriculum content along with the vision, goals and objectives for the undergraduate
education has been – and is – a continuing debate within an institution. On a modern
multidisciplinary campus the debate takes on intense overtones with those favoring a broad,
liberal education at one pole and those favoring a career-oriented education at the other. The
demands of the engineering workplace and ABET accreditation together with the fascination of
engineering faculty with their disciplines have placed engineering faculty among those favoring a
career-oriented educational experience. Faculty from other disciplines, including business,
education, and the fine arts, also lean toward career-oriented curricula. Too often these debates
seem confined to faculty in a specific discipline.
Irrespective of whether one favors the broad, liberal education or the career-oriented education,
the content becomes the basis for the debate – which courses should be included and, to a lesser
extent, which topics should be included in each course. This is a normal outgrowth of the
reductionism we have as part of our heritage from Aristotle and the subsequent specialization of
scholarly inquiry.
The emphasis on course content and on the curriculum as a collection of courses has led to
compartmentalization of the learning experience, and away from integration of learning. It has
led to an emphasis on remembering facts, and away from learning how to learn. In its recent
report [4], the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University notes,
From the freshman seminar to the senior capstone course, communication skills should be
integrated with the subject matter. The report from the commission charges that research
universities confer degrees on inarticulate students – graduates unable to communicate what they
may know to others. A most serious charge but little different than that offered by employers of
our engineering graduates.
Our goal may be for students to understand the concepts behind the facts and the equations.
However, the students, their parents, and our critics all too often take their cue from what we do –
how we assess and test student learning – and evaluate the quality of the educational experience
based on the student’s knowledge of the facts.
What should we expect students to learn? If it is not facts (the course content), what is it? What
should our curriculum be beyond the courses? At several places, as I noted the limits of
specialization of knowledge and the dangers of compartmentalization of learning, I have used the
terms: connections, integration, bridge boundaries, make connections, knowledge integration,
10
and integrating all knowledge to some purpose. These words and phrases suggest a necessary
addition to what we should expect students to learn and what our teaching should emphasize.
The two columns that follow identify components of a balanced or holistic baccalaureate
engineering education. If we put the two columns side by side, this increases our perception that
one column is the antithesis of the other. We can note that the historical changes that have
brought a science base to engineering education have shifted our emphasis to those components
in the first column but has done so by a deemphasis of those components in the second column.
Components of a Holistic Baccalaureate Education [1]
Vertical (in depth) Thinking
Abstract Learning
Reductionism-Fractionization
Develop Order
Understand Certainty
Analysis
Research
Solve Problems
Develop Ideas
Independence
Techno-Scientific Base
Engineering Science
Lateral (functional) Thinking
Experiential Learning
Integration-Connecting the Parts
Correlate Chaos
Handle Ambiguity
Synthesis
Design/Manufacture/Process
Formulate Problems
Implement Ideas
Teamwork
Societal Context
Functional Core of Engineering
If we are to achieve the balance and the sense expressed by Ortega and others, we must redefine
the inclusiveness of the engineering educational enterprise, inclusiveness for intellectual and
functional completeness as well as intellectual rigor. To do so, will require a significant change
in the manner in which we conduct the business of engineering education, a change in structure
and culture.
How do we educate our students to understand that creation of knowledge and its integration go
hand in hand as a framework for organized cultural, intellectual, political, and social evolution?
The engineering education program toward this end will not accrue simply through incremental
adjustments in course content or rearrangement of traditional isolated segments but, rather, by
broad structural and cultural changes. As the focus for this change, baccalaureate-engineering
graduates must be educated to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Think across a variety of disciplines functionally (lateral thinking) as well as in terms
of disciplinary depth (vertical thinking)
Couple experience with abstract description
Develop ideas and nurture and implement them
Understand the functional core of the engineering process
Experiment with both design and research and understand their synergy
Synthesize and analyze
Formulate problems and solve them
Act both as a team member and independently
Recognize, contribute to, and enjoy the relationship of the engineering enterprise to
the social/economic/political/environmental context in which we live and work
11
The overall objective is to develop functional literacy or lateral depth across these core notions.
The concept of lateral depth in this attempt to develop integrative capabilities is in sharp contrast
to the in-depth or vertical depth effort needed for good research. As expressed by DeBono [5],
vertical thinking digs the same hole deeper, lateral thinking is concerned with digging a hole in
another place. For integrative capabilities, lateral depth is concerned not only with investigating
a number of holes in depth but also developing the connections among them. Both are needed in
tackling difficult problems.
Engineering is the integration of all knowledge to some purpose. When the emphasis of
engineering education is on reductionism/fractionization/specialization, the study of engineering
is the antithesis of what engineering is about.
How do we change that?
• Integrate student learning
• Reduce the barriers of the compartments we create
• Include context with content
• Seek lateral depth
We have seen how it can be done.
• Rose-Hulman’s freshman program integrates all technical topics in the freshman year
into one large course each quarter. [6]
• Drexel’s E-Four program integrates learning in the freshman and sophomore years.
[7]
• The WPI Plan focuses student learning on student projects with content oriented
courses as supporting elements. [8]
• Many of you have brought writing professionals and engineering faculty together to
help students learn to communicate as engineers do. You have integrated the
technical with the non-technical—the content with the context.
I see this as a precursor to the future of engineering education – engineering students learning the
context and the content of engineering guided by experts in each of the areas working
cooperatively. It will not be easy. We face many hurdles. We must change the way we organize
what students learn – change the curriculum, the WHAT—as well as change our approach for
delivering this education—the HOW. But it will be exciting and the rewards to our students will
be great. LET’S DO IT!!!
12
References
1.
Joseph Bordogna, Eli Fromm, and E. W. Ernst, “Engineering Education: Innovation
through Integration.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No.1, Jan. 1993, p. 38.
2.
Jay W. Forrester, “Engineering Education and Engineering Practice in the 21st Century,”
National Academy of Engineering, September 4, 1967.
3.
George Will, “College Costs Skyrocket While Quality Declines,” The State (newspaper),
Columbia, SC, Sunday, March 24, 1996.
4.
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University,
“Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research
Universities.”
5.
Steven M. Kim, “Essence of Creativity—A Guide to Tackling Difficult Problems,”
Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.
6.
Jeffery E. Froyd, “Integrated First-year Curriculum in Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics—A Ten-Year Process,” Proceedings FIE Conference, November 1995.
7.
Robert G. Quinn, “Drexel’s E4 Program: A Different Professional Experience for
Students and Faculty,” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 82, No. 4, p. 196-202.
8.
E. A. Parrish, W. W. Durgin, and L. E. Schachterle, “What Was Learned from Our
Reform Efforts.” Proceedings FIE Conference, November 1996.
13
TEACHING COMMUNICATIONS IN FRESHMAN
ENGINEERING COURSES
14
Incorporating the Writing Process
into a Freshman Engineering
Design Project
David Rocheleau, Mechanical
Engineering Department
University of South Carolina
The College of Engineering at the University of South Carolina requires all incoming freshmen to
take a course called University 101 for Engineers (U101-E). The desired outcome of the course
is to maximize the students’ potential to achieve academic success in the engineering curriculum
at USC. Along with student academic success issues, the course covers engineering specific
content by leading the students through a design and build experience, where freshman
engineering students are introduced to the design process through a design project. The design
project requires the student to write up their results as well as deliver a defense of their design
through an oral presentation given to faculty, students, and judges of the design project.
This presentation describes the integration of the design project into the course, as well as how
writing and communicating the results of the design project are incorporated into the course. The
presentation shows how students are introduced to the design process, and how the design process
parallels the writing process which, as freshmen, they may be more familiar with. The
presentation closes with a description of the Habitat for Humanity Shed Building Design project
that was used in the 1997-98 school year.
15
Incorporating the Writing
Process into a Freshman
Engineering Design Project
Add
Corporate
Logo
Here
David N. Rocheleau
University of South Carolina
Department of Mechanical
Engineering
U101-E
Desired Outcomes
• Excite Students about the practice of
engineering.
• Maximize students’ potential to succeed in
engineering.
• Acquire essential academic survival skills.
• Discover college specific technology
resources.
• Sharpen communication skills (written and
verbal).
16
All Engineers Create ⇒
All Engineers Design
Freshman engineering
students are led through a
product driven design
project.
Process is most important.
Design Process
vs.
Writing Process
Are there parallels?
17
Design is Getting Here
to There
• Detours into Discovery and Insight
• Taking Chances -- Innovation
• Identifying “Customer”
•
•
•
•
•
Many choices ⇒ One result
Brainstorming for concepts and alternatives
Bounded creativity
Sometimes we fail...
Sometimes we triumph!
Design is Revision
• How to Start
• False Starts
• Continuous improvement
18
Differences?
• Departure from paper
• Individual and collaborative efforts
• Consequences of failing
• Recognition
Habitat for Humanity Design
Project
Elements of Design Project
•
•
Community Service element of U101 satisfied.
Sustainable Design and Development introduce by using scrap
wood off recently constructed HFH houses.
Some Design Constraints...
•
•
•
Cost: Less than $350
Manpower: 6 people or less per shed
Time: Seven sheds in one hour
19
Design Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teams Formed
QFD Quality Functional Deployment
“Listen to the voice of the customer.”
- Customer identified
- Customer’s needs identified
Benchmark existing shed designs
Brainstorm design alternatives
Arrive at concept design
Develop detailed design
Build 1/6th scale prototype
Present (written and oral) design to customer
Upon approval — Deliver assembled product to customer
And the winner is...
• 7 teams per section — 1 team selected
to represent class.
• 10+ sections in the college — 1 team
selected to represent college.
• College winner is used to build all seven
Habitat Sheds.
20
Scrap Pickup
Modular Sections
21
A Completed Shed
22
The Collaboration between the
Freshman Writing Program and
Engineering Faculty at USC
Deanna Ramey, Professional
Communications Center, College of
Engineering
University of South Carolina
This presentation provides an overview of the Freshman Writing Program (FWP) and
will discuss three ways the Writing Program collaborates with Engineering faculty at
USC to teach writing:
1. The FWP staff give a writing workshop each semester for faculty and
graduate students. We discuss writing to learn, the creation of writing
assignments, and have a sample paper grading session.
2. Staff attend weekly meetings with U101-E faculty and give input into the
writing components of the course.
3. Staff collaborate with U101-E professors on creating writing assignments.
This work includes pre-assignment conferences and post-assignment
evaluation sessions.
These areas provide unique ways for the FWP staff to strengthen relationships with
Engineering faculty. The collaboration serves as a model for other programs as it
demonstrates realistic methods of working together to address the communications needs
of students.
23
Freshman Writing Program and
College of Engineering Faculty at
USC Collaborate in U101-E
Deanna Ramey
Professional Communications
Center
July 20, 1998
The Freshman Writing Program
! Staff
! Services
provided for U101-E classes
! Weekly planning meetings
! Assessment
24
Points of Collaboration
!
!
!
Writing Workshop for faculty and graduate
students
Weekly planning meetings with U101-E
faculty
Assignment planning and evaluating
Sample Assignment
Write a two-page reaction paper to the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test you
took in class. Discuss your
personality type in terms of your
learning style. How can you use this
information to maximize your
learning?
25
Conclusions
!
!
!
Creation of PCC
Strenghthen ties with faculty
Closer relationship with student needs
26
FURTHERING THE GOALS OF ENGINEERING
EDUCATION THROUGH
WRITING/COMMUNICATIONS CENTERS
27
Bringing the Field into the
Classroom: Speaking and Writing
for Engineers at Florida
Fiona Barnes, Writing Program
Jane Douglas, Writing Program
Charles Glagola, Civil Engineering
Department
University of Florida
This group presentation is split into three parts, with Fiona Barnes describing a course for
engineering students, Jane Douglas discussing the WAC and WID programs at the University of
Florida, and Chick Glagola discussing the purpose and progress behind the College of
Engineering’s National Science Foundation SUCCEED grant.
28
Principles for Engineering
Communications Courses
Fiona Barnes, Writing Program
University of Florida
Fiona Barnes gives a presentation, supplemented with student materials, videotaped
presentations, etc., on Speaking and Writing for Engineers, a course modeled on the real-world
demands facing engineers in the field.
29
PRINCIPLES FOR ENGINEERING COMMUNICATION COURSES
Transferable vs Technical Skills
Self-Learning Skills
Context-Based Courses
TRANSFERABLE SKILLS
Technical skills obsolesce and constantly must be upgraded..
Transferable skills transcend obsolescence…..
They are the building blocks of a career and form the
foundation of your repertoire of professional skills.
[Harry T. Roman, Senior Consultant PS&G]
30
SELF-LEARNING SKILLS
Engineering graduates must understand that career-long
learning is their own responsibility and must acquire the
skills for self-learning.
[The Green Report: Engineering Education for a Changing World, 1994]
CONTEXT-BASED COURSES
Today, engineering colleges must not only provide their
graduates with intellectual development and superb technical
capabilities, but following industry’s lead, those colleges must
educate their students to work as parts of teams, communicate
well, and understand the economic, social, environmental and
international context of their professional activities.
[The Green Report: Engineering Education for a Changing World, 1994]
31
SYLLABUS “ANCHORS”
Resumes, Cover Letters and Job Interviews
User Manuals
Team Project Proposals and Presentations
RESUMES, COVER LETTERS AND JOB INTERVIEWS
Most engineers fare poorly in their first two major tests…
These tests are the Resume and the Pre-Employment Interview..
The first speaking and writing requirement for an engineer is to
get the job.
[John Zahaly, Senior Principal Engineer]
32
FORMAT
FOCAL
AUDIENCE
PEER REVIEW
CLARITY
LOGIC
ORGANIZATION
USER MANUALS
TEAM PROJECT PROPOSALS AND PRESENTATIONS
A possible criticism of present university education is that
virtually all of the time is spent teaching students how to
answer questions, but very little attention is devoted to the
formulation of questions...
“Focusing on Communication Skills in Engineering Education”
Alan Jennings and J.D. Ferguson
33
COURSE DETAILS
Course URL:
http://www.nwe.ufl.edu/~fbarnes/1737.html
Course Title:
ENC 1145: Speaking and Writing for Engineers
Course Text:
David Beer and David McMurrey, A Guide to Writing
as an Engineer, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1997
34
Recipe for Success: Writing in the
Disciplines
Jane Douglas, Writing Program
University of Florida
Jane Douglas briefly discuses the differences between Writing Across the Curriculum and
Writing in the Disciplines, research in to the needs of students at colleges of engineering in
communication skills, collaborative work, etc., and how the University of Florida’s WID program
fits into other programs offering curricular reform nationally.
35
Recipe for success
❥
In 1994, more than 9,000 alumni of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison’s
College of Engineering responded to a
survey asking them to rank skills they
learned during their education in order
of their importance to success in
engineering.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
University of WisconsinMadison Survey (1994)
❥
1. Written communication skills
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
36
Written communication
skills
❥
“Most engineering proposals are page
limited. Therefore, skills in being able to
clearly and succinctly present thoughts
and ideas in a limited amount of space
are of great benefit . . . Much of my time
is spent in reading and correcting the
writings of others. . .” —Jack Zahrly,
Senior Principal Engineer, Harris
Corporation (1998).
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Written communication
skills
❥
“As someone who goes from company to
company teaching technical writing, I am
often astonished at the number of engineers
who tell me that they have never taken a
technical writing class. . .”
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
37
Written communication
skills
❥
“The result of [this inexperience and their
resulting] haphazard approach to
communication is billions of dollars in lost
corporate productivity and profitability each
year.”—Gary Blake, IIE Solutions (1998)
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Written communication
skills
❥
“The result of [this inexperience and their
resulting] haphazard approach to
communication is billions of dollars in lost
corporate productivity and profitability each
year.”—Gary Blake, IIE Solutions (1998)
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
38
Written communication
skills
❥
“As a professional on the job, you spent
probably 15% of your time working
with numbers and 85% of your time
writing.” —David Bloomquist,
Associate Professor of Engineering, U-F.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
University of WisconsinMadison Survey (1994)
❥
❥
1. Written communication skills
2.. Oral communication skills
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
39
Oral communication skills
❥
“I have long felt that most engineers
lack the ability to communicate
effectively. Therefore, I am extremely
pleased to see that you and the
university recognize the need for a
technical writing and speaking course
and have taken the steps toward
alleviating a long-standing problem in
the engineering world.” —W. R. Young,
Senior Scientist, Harris Corporation.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
University of WisconsinMadison Survey (1994)
❥
❥
❥
1. Written communication skills
2.. Oral communication skills
3. Basic engineering science
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
40
University of WisconsinMadison Survey (1994)
❥
❥
❥
❥
1. Written communication skills
2.. Oral communication skills
3. Basic engineering science
4. Core math courses
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
University of WisconsinMadison Survey (1994)
❥
❥
❥
❥
❥
1. Written communication skills
2.. Oral communication skills
3. Basic engineering science
4. Core math courses
5. Design courses
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
41
State-wide study of
California college graduates
❥
College graduates with degrees in a
wide range of disciplines and
professions were asked to rank 17
disciplines in order of their importance
to them as employed adults.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
State-wide study of
California college graduates
❥
1. Written communication skills
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
42
1995 National Survey of
IEEE Members
While engineering programs “sometimes”
required students to demonstrate skills in
group communication and technical
writing, most respondents felt that they
were “poorly” prepared in their
communication skills for the demands of
the field.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Florida Employer Opinion
Survey
❥
Employers were more likely to be
satisfied with job-related technical skills
than with even merely basic
communication skills.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
43
Florida Employer Opinion
Survey
❥
Respondents while “satisfied with
many basic skill areas with which they
had been dissatisfied in the past [five
years] . . . continued to be dissatisfied
with writing skills.”
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
1995 National Survey
IEEE Members
97% advocated either formal or informal
teamwork experience in the
engineering curriculum.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
44
1995 National Survey
IEEE Members’
Recommendations
* Cooperative problem-solving as
precursor to work place environment.
* Grading should strongly reflect
communication competence of student,
including adapting to different
audiences, persuasive strategies, and
style.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Writing across the Curriculum
vs
Writing in the Discipline
WAC uses writing as a learning
tool, enabling students to
absorb, assimilate, and use
classroom material more
efficiently and rapidly than any
other method.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
45
Writing to learn
❥
In studies of undergraduates enrolled in
the Department of Criminal Justice at
Southeastern Missouri State University,
writing was found to be the most active
form of engagement in achieving the
goals of higher education more
thoroughly and quickly than any other
type of learning experience.
(Fulwiler & Walvoord, 1982)
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
BUT . . .
❥
After ten years of writing intensive
courses offered at Virginia
Commonwealth University, faculty
complained that they hadn’t observed
“significant improvement in student
writing” as a result of the university’s
writing-intensive course requirements
(Chronicle of Higher Education, 1997).
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
46
Why we aren’t writing better
❥
While more instutitions are offering
WAC courses, few students receive
intensive instruction or practice in
writing in the major communication
categories and styles required in their
profession/field.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Writing in the Discipline(s)
* instructs students explicitly and intensively
in the conventions, methods, style, and
forms of the major written genres in their
field.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
47
Writing in the Discipline(s)
* instructs students explicitly and intensively
in the conventions, methods, style, and form
of the major written genres in their field.
* When possible, models real-world tasks,
scenarios, and materials for classroom
assignments.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
Students speak
❥
“I have never before taken any college
course that so clearly applied to the
‘real world.’. .”
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
48
Students speak
❥
“I have never before taken any college
course that so clearly applied to the
‘real world.’ My only suggestion for this
course is, don’t change anything.”
—Graduating senior, College of
Engineering.
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
49
Student Transitions:
Communications in the
Engineering Curriculum
Charles Glagola, Civil Engineering
Department
University of Florida
Charles Glagola discusses the purpose and progress of the University of Florida’s National
Science Foundation SUCCEED grant.
50
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
NSF
SUCCEED COALITION
STUDENT TRANSITIONS
COMMUNICATIONS
IN THE ENGINEERING CURRICULUM
DELIVERABLES
• INTEGRATING WRITING COMPONENT
IN ENGINEERING COURSES
• DEVELOP TECHNICAL WRITING
COURSE FOR ENGINEERS
• CREATE A CULTURE WITHIN
ENGINEERING COLLEGES THAT
ACCEPTS THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY
FOR INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF
ENGINEERING STUDENTS
51
HOW DO YOU DO IT?
• EXPERTISE
– NOT IN THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE
– LOGICAL PROVIDER
– ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY WRITING CENTER
MEETING THE GOALS
• INTEGRATION
– PILOT PROJECT IN ENGINEERING
ETHICS COURSE FALL 1997
• TA PROVIDED BY THE WRITING CENTER
– ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR
ASSIGNMENTS
– CRITIQUE STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS
– DEVELOP SET OF MEASURABLE
ATTRIBUTES
– WORK WITH STUDENTS TO IMPROVE
PERFORMANCE
52
MEETING THE GOALS
• TECHNICAL WRITING FOR
ENGINEERS
– ESTABLISH A SUSTAINABLE COURSE
RUBRIC
– GENRE
– COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT
• WRITING DEPARTMENT FACULTY
• ENGINEERING FACULTY
• EVALUATE RESULTS
MEETING THE GOALS
• SUSTAINABILITY
– SUCCESS FOR MARKETING THE CONCEPT
• ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE
– DEFINE RESOURCE REQUIREMENT
• INTEGRATED SUPPORT (COOPERATION)
• MONEY (TA’s, FACULTY, ETC.)
• TIME (DEVELOPMENT, COURSE LOAD)
– OVERCOME OLD PARADIGMS
• TURF BATTLES (FTE’s, PRIDE, POWER)
• MISTRUST (CULTURAL DIFFERENCES)
– GET BUY-IN AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS
53
WHERE WE ARE
•UNIVERSITY WRITING CENTER
–JANE DOUGLAS
•WRITING IN THE THE DISCIPLINES vs.
WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
– FIONA BARNES
•WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMUNICATION
54
INTEGRATING ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY ISSUES INTO FRESHMAN
COMPOSITION AND LITERATURE COURSES
55
Integrating Freshman Composition
and Engineering
Steven Luyendyk, English Department
North Carolina State University
Abstract
Not surprisingly, many freshman engineering majors want nothing to do with English
composition. Most feel they are simply not good writers and all a composition class will do is
highlight this weakness; moreover, at a time when they are taking foundational math, science, and
computer courses for their engineering degree, composition seems like nothing more than an
impediment to success in their chosen engineering major. The task for a composition teacher
who teaches freshman engineering majors, then, is to show that strong writing skills are not
beyond their reach and make composition relevant to engineering. This can be done by using
readings written by engineers and others that focus on issues growing out of technological
development and devising writing assignments that invite students to explore topics and identify
specific skills they need for success in their engineering majors as well as in their general
education requirements.
Introduction
Citing the need to improve the communication skills of engineering majors, Dr. David Ollis,
professor of Chemical Engineering, proposed collaborating with an English department faculty
member to develop a freshman level writing course (three credits) that would instruct freshman
engineering majors in effective writing strategies for academic audiences. Linked to this
engineering focused composition course would be a two credit “take-apart” laboratory in which
student teams would dissect, assemble, perform calculations, and teach each other about modern
consumer devices. The purpose of the laboratory would be to teach freshman engineering majors
the importance of teamwork and have them practice oral presentations to an engineering
audience.
Writing across first-year engineering, the title for the collaborative project, teaches four sections
of the composition and laboratory each semester. The project is small and will stay that way until
assessment provides data to support an increase in the number of sections offered. Further,
territorial issues must be sorted out between the engineering schools and the English department
to insure that cooperation between the disciplines, the key to this project, will occur.
The remainder of this article will focus on the development of the composition component of this
collaborative project.
56
Freshman Composition at North Carolina State
University
•
•
•
•
NCSU offers approximately 175 sections of freshman composition courses each Fall and
Spring semester (with an average class size of 19 students).
All students are required to take at least one semester of composition and rhetoric.
Most students take two semesters of composition and rhetoric in a two course sequence
(English 111 and English 112).
Students normally fulfill this requirement during their freshman year.
Writing Across First-Year Engineering at NCSU
1. Goals:
•
•
To prepare freshman engineering majors for the thinking, writing, and speaking they
will need to perform to succeed in their engineering curriculum and in the university
general education requirements.
To prepare freshman engineering majors for the laboratory environment and to
present findings effectively to others.
2. Objectives:
• To create a freshman-level writing course that targets the needs of freshman
engineering majors as engineering majors and as students of the university.
• To create a freshman-level laboratory that targets the laboratory skills needed by
freshman engineering majors.
3. General Needs:
• To bridge the gap between the English Department and Engineering Departments.
• To create an environment where freshman engineering majors are comfortable
practicing their thinking, writing, and speaking skills.
• To create an environment where freshman engineering majors feel comfortable
practicing their laboratory skills.
4. Specific Needs:
• To find faculty members from Engineering and English willing to respect and work
with each other.
• To create writing assignments that:
❒ specifically meet the needs of engineering majors (the lab report / the
observation report).
❒ specifically meet the needs of university students (summaries / research reports
/ proposals / critical analyses).
•
❒ invest freshman engineering majors in their topic and in their writing.
To choose readings that:
❒ deal with academic and social issues arising out of engineering.
57
❒ provide examples of general rhetorical principles (thesis statements /
introductions / fallacies).
❒ provide a foundation for writing assignments.
Common Problems Writing Across First-Year
Engineering Addresses
1. The audience absent paper assignment.
•
•
Students are asked to target specific audiences to give purpose and direction to their
writing.
Students are encouraged to consider other engineers as their audience.
2. The lack of interest and investment first-year engineering majors have in
composition.
• Students are given a context tailored to their major.
• Course context provides a range of academic, social, economic, and ethical questions
that grow out of engineering.
3. The lack of confidence first-year engineering majors have in their writing skills.
• Students read examples of strong writing by engineers.
• Students know from the start that the course is focused on improving their writing so
that they can succeed in their studies.
4. The lack of interest in reading.
• Course offers readings by engineers on engineering issues (both from the popular
press and from the academy).
• Course offers science fiction.
5. The wall between first-year engineering students and their composition teacher.
• Course context and materials show the instructor values what the students value.
• Students have a level of expertise that moves them from the position of student to
participant and, at times, teacher in the classroom.
Types of Writing Assignments in Writing Across FirstYear Engineering
Student writing in writing across first-year engineering focuses on academic genres and rhetorical
skills that are commonly expected from university instructors. This somewhat narrow view of
teaching writing results from two factors: 1) NCSU currently requires all engineering majors to
complete a three credit technical writing course (Eng. 331) that focuses specifically on the kind of
writing these students will do as professionals, and 2) freshmen can expect that the majority of
their writing in the university will target an audience of professional academics from across the
disciplines.
Freshmen often enter the university with little or no experience in writing in common academic
genres, with discipline specific documentation styles, or with rhetorical conventions expected by
58
academic audiences. The following types of writing assignments familiarized students with the
formats and conventions common in written academic discourse:
• The Research Proposal
• The Research Project
• The Essay Exam
• Summary and Response
• The Lab Report (Appendix A)
• The Literature Review
Many of the writing assignments above are, of course, commonly used in the humanities, but to
insure a proficiency with interpretive writing that is often a component of humanities
requirements and electives paper assignments that specifically required textual interpretation are
required (see Appendix B).
Student writing is evaluated on organization, style, and mechanics and grammar, focus, and
development (see Appendix C).
Selected Readings from Writing Across First-Year
Engineering
Normally, composition courses rely on articles written by authors with a humanities background
and concerned with current social issues (e.g., abortion, gun control, etc.) or literary works.
Composition courses at NCSU use the former in 111 and the later in 112. Rather than try to
radically change the kinds of reading assignments for writing across first-year engineering, the
content was simply changed. In 111 students read articles written primarily by engineers and
scientists that show a serious concern with the social, economic, ethical, and environmental issues
that grow out of technological development. This trend is continued in 112 with the articles
becoming more abstract until the course moves to literary texts that come from the science fiction
genre instead of the traditional literary canon.
The importance of this content shift is the effect it has on how the students perceive their
relationship to the authors and thus their relationship to the overall content of the course. The
authors of the articles speak as accomplished professionals in the discipline the students have
chosen to study. While role model may be too strong a word, the students do have examples of
engineers who are good writers on topics that are not purely technical. This can help breakdown
the belief that many freshman engineering majors hold about how they are “bad” writers and
cannot improve because they want to be engineers, and engineers, as everyone knows, can’t
write. The content of the readings creates a context where students feel less like students and
more like participants. They can project themselves into the role of an engineer through the texts.
Perhaps most importantly, the use of these articles and science fiction sends the message to
students that their composition instructor values what they want to study and who they want to
become. The chasm that often exists between the composition instructor and the engineering
students is bridged through the use of these texts. This is especially true in 112 where science
fiction texts are used with academic articles written by humanities authors. Here the connection
between the humanities and engineering comes clear and students begin to see the value of a
universal education.
59
Following are some of the texts used in 111 and 112:
111
• Understanding Computers. Grace Murray Hopper and Steven L. Mandell. St. Paul: Westpub,
1990 (3rd edition).
❒ "It's Midnight. Do You Know Where Your Data Is?"
❒ "Computer Mistakes: Who is Responsible?"
❒ "Creative Computers: Is Michelangelo Threatened?"
❒ "Industrial Robots: Improving Work or Eliminating Workers?"
❒ "Are Computers Breaking Down Interpersonal Relationships?"
•
"Bringing New Materials to Market." Taken from Technology Review. Thomas W. Eagar.
February/March 1995 (42-49).
•
"Progress Through Planned Obsolescence." Taken from The Waste Makers. Vance Packerd.
New York: McKay, 1960.
•
"Info Highwayman." Taken from Civilization. Walter Isaacson. March/April 1995 (48-53).
•
"I Gotta Have My Road" and "Who Needs a Swamp?" Taken from America the Raped. Gene
Marine. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969.
112
• The preface and conclusion of The Axemaker's Gift by James Burke and Robert Ornstein.
New York: Putnam, 1995.
•
•
•
"How the Fork Got Its Tines." Taken from The Evolution of Useful Things. Henry Petroski.
New York: Knopf, 1993.
"The Electronic Revolution" by Frederick Turner and "Imagination and Information" by R.
Patton Howell. Found in Beyond Literacy.
•
"A Manned Moon Shot." Taken from Invention and Technology. Jack Gieck. Spring 1994:
(9-15).
Philip K. Dick's novel Blade Runner (originally titled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep).
•
Ridley Scott’s film Blade Runner.
•
Four academic articles are also used in this section, and are taken from Retrofitting Blade
Runner. Edited by Judith B. Kerman. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular
Press, 1991.
❒ Joseph Francavilla, “The Android as Doppelgänger.”
60
❒ Marleen Barr, “Metahuman 'Kipple' Or, Do Male Movie Makers Dream of Electric
Women? Speciesism and Sexism in Blade Runner.”
❒ Marilyn Gwaltney, “Androids as a Device for Reflection on Personhood.”
❒ Judith B. Kerman, “Technology and Politics in the Blade Runner Dystopia.”
Conclusion
Writing across first-year engineering is still in its infancy and a great deal of work lies ahead in
implementing it on a larger scale at NCSU. The results of this collaboration are primarily
anecdotal and based on my personal experience with the students at this point. What I have seen
in the classroom are students who take a stake in reading and writing assignments that are
matched to their concerns and needs. The context of the courses initiate serious consideration of
the ethics of engineering and the impact of technological development on humanity at an early
stage of the students’ engineering education (thus the courses work to meet some of the ABET
criteria).
This collaboration also serves as an example to the larger academic community at NCSU that
cross-disciplinary collaboration is manageable, and dare I say it, exciting. Writing across firstyear engineering can provide the foundation for improving student communication skills; a
benefit for all faculty members and students at NCSU. We can also show students by example
that differing disciplines hold equal value in the university and offer a wide range of powerful
strategies for writing, thinking, and speaking about the issues they face as students and, later, as
professionals in the field of engineering.
61
Appendix A
English 111E--Writing Assignment #1: Lab Report for the first Take-Apart Laboratory
Assignment
Due Dates: Rough Draft due Wed., Aug. 27
RD returned Wed., Sept. 3
Workshop Wed., Sept. 3
Final due Wed., Sept. 10
Paper Length: 3-4 pages
Topic: The lab report. The pairing of the take apart lab and this writing course provides you with
an opportunity to try your hand at writing about the process of disassembling and assembling
your given technological object, and with an opportunity to analyze the results.
Method: The lab report that should be organized according to the following pattern:
1. Introduction: It should be written in paragraph form, setting up the context for the lab
experiment and establishing its objectives.
2. Apparatus and/or Materials used: List items used in the lab.
3. Procedure: This should consist of precise and concise statements about what you did in the lab.
It should be written in past tense and passive voice. For example, do not say “I used the
screwdriver to remove the screws securing the CD player’s outer casing.” Instead say, “A
screwdriver was used to remove the screws securing the outer casing of the CD player.”
4. Results: This section may include tables, graphs, and calculated results. But it is important that
you begin with a brief paragraph that summarizes the results.
5. Discussion of Results: Do not simply restate results. The purpose of the discussion section is
to interpret the results. That means that you state what the results mean to you and why you
found what you found. You may speculate on the validity of your results and address any
possible problems that may have arisen in the lab.
6. Conclusion: It is in this section that you tell what you learned from the lab, especially as it
relates to course materials. In the conclusion you return to the introduction to keep your
answer within the context of your original purpose.
7. References: List any outside sources you used to help with the lab.
Audience: You have a number of audiences for this paper: your fellow classmates, the laboratory
teaching assistants, and, most importantly, the professor. We will look at examples of lab reports
in class to understand the tone and diction expected from a lab report audience.
Purpose: First, to familiarize you with the kind of writing that engineers do in the academy.
Second, it will provide foundation material for the oral report component that accompanies the
lab.
Evaluation:
1. The introduction will be important. It should provide your overall task and purpose. The
conclusion asks that you return to this focus and show its importance. Focus is worth 15
points.
2. You should have a clear organizational pattern for your report. I have given your some general
guidelines, but you will have to organize the details of the report. We will discuss the possible
ways to organize your report in class. Organization is worth 20 points.
62
3. Your description of the disassembling and reassembling of your given item requires precision
and detail. Also, your analysis must provide convincing evidence to support your claims about
the laboratory. Development is worth 35 points.
4. Tone will be important. This is a formal writing assignment and this means that you will be
expected to write with a professional tone. Remember that you are an engineer writing to
advertising professionals. Style is worth 15 points. Grammar and mechanics are worth 15
points.
63
Appendix B
English 112E--Writing Assignment #4: Critical Analysis
Due Dates: Rough draft due Fri., April 17
RD #4 returned Mon., April 20
Final draft #4 due Fri., May 1
Length: 5-6 pages
Topic: Blade Runner the novel and Blade Runner the film exhibit many differences in plot and,
more importantly, in argumentative focus. While Scott built his film on the content and ideas
found in Dick's novel, the film clearly shows that Scott wants to explore different questions and
place emphasis on different points. Although it is evident that both artists share a similar vision
on many issues, each one provides a distinct way (in form and structure) of presenting his
particular vision. (In both cases consider the divergent way in which androids/replicants are
treated in each work.)
Method: After reading the novel, watching the film, and considering two critical articles you
have a great deal of connected information that you can work into a paper. Here, then, is your
choice of tasks:
1. Compare and contrast how Dick and Scott present a similar idea in dissimilar ways. Your
argument would show not only how the two artists differ, but why they chose different modes of
presentation.
2. Where do you see divergence between the two? This topic would not necessarily lead to a
comparison contrast paper because you would be focusing on an issue you see being developed
fully in only one of the works. You concern here would be trying to argue why either artist chose
to develop the issue you have focused on. However, comparison and contrast may be important if
you decide to also explore why one of the artists chose to leave it out. In fact, your paper could
discuss solely why one of the artists chose to leave out an idea the other artist found important. In
either case, you would most likely use one work as the focus and one work as a foil to make your
point clear.
3. Use an argument or idea found in any of the articles to create a paper. You could disagree
with an interpretation and attempt to refute it. Perhaps you feel that a given argument is a good
one but is underdeveloped and needs further analysis. Since the articles are mainly concerned
with the film, you may want to see if any of the arguments found in the articles could be applied
to the novel. You could search for conflicts between the articles and the film or novel as well.
4. Come up with your own idea for a paper. Simply have me approve it before you start.
*Other places to search for topics: Consider your position paper as a core piece of work that you
can extend into a larger work. Beware, however, that you do not make your paper into a long
position paper. You may also want to review the Blade Runner crib sheet for ideas.
Audience: Your audience is critics like Barr and Francavilla.
64
Purpose: To improve argumentative and analytical skills as well as sharpen your ability to
synthesize outside material in your writing. This assignment will also help you work
on how to develop and focus a topic.
Requirements:
1. You must use at least two sources in your work: the film and the novel, the film or the novel
and one article, or both the film and novel and an article.
2. Direct quotations and, in the case of the film, direct reference to scenes.
3. A formal tone.
4. Adherence to the conventions of Standard Written English.
5. Documentation and a works cited page in the style of your choice.
Evaluation
1. Focus is worth 20 points.
2. Development is worth 25 points.
3. Organization is worth 20 points.
4. Style is worth 15 points.
5. G & M are worth 20 points.
65
Appendix C
Grade Category Sheet
Focus: importance, clarity, and interest of the main idea of your paper; sense of purpose and
audience; a clear thesis statement.
Worth ______ points.
Development: inventive exploration of topic; thorough analysis of supporting evidence;
fulfillment of purpose and appropriateness for audience.
Worth ______ points.
Organization: logical, coherent, and clear arrangement of ideas; clear transitions from idea to
idea; useful strategy for organizing supporting evidence.
Worth ______ points.
Style: appropriateness of tone and diction for purpose and audience, varied sentence structure,
seamless incorporation of quoted material when used.
Worth ______ points.
Mechanics and Grammar: grammar, spelling, punctuation, documentation. Worth ______ points.
66
NJIT's Freshman Pairing: The
Seven Year Itch
Rob Friedman, Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences
NJIT
NJIT's collaboration between Composition (HSS 101) and the initial engineering course (FED
101) is out of balance. HSS instructors have reshaped their syllabi to include reading, writing and
oral presentation assignments that address mechanical, electrical, chemical and civil engineering
modules, but no similar efforts have come from engineering. Moreover, interest in, oversight and
critique of FED communication components -- laboratory reports, a final written project report,
and team presentation, have fallen to HSS faculty. HSS has offered to work with FED to achieve
a balance, perhaps even a common syllabus, to no avail.
We seek strategies that will entice our engineering colleagues to redesign assignments so they
reflect the importance of communication in the engineering disciplines. Curricular inertia is one
obstacle we currently face which we hope can be overcome with leadership and incentives for
collaboration from our new Acting Dean of NCE and the new NJIT Provost who will arrive in
October.
67
NJIT’s Freshman
Pairing
The Seven Year Itch
Rob Friedman
Dept. of
Humanities & Social Sciences
11/1/00
Parallel v.Integrated
■
Discipline Autonomy
■
Humanities Provides a Service
■
Engineering Appeases ABET as it Strives to
Improve Enrollment and Retention
11/1/00
68
Gateway to the Rescue
■
Senior Faculty Involvement
■
Modularized Projects
■
Written Reports
■
Oral Presentations
11/1/00
Humanities’ Involvement
■
Thematic Readings
■
Engineering’s Perceptions
■
Internal Divisiveness
11/1/00
69
Present Status
■
Nostalgia for a Romanticized Past
■
Disaffected Faculty
■
Program Director with little Support
■
Student Confusion
11/1/00
Working Out a Response
■
HSS Goals
• Creativity
• Ethics
• Subjectivity/Technology
■
FED Goals
• CAD Proficiency
• Engineering Report and Presentation
11/1/00
70
Roadblocks to Progress
■
■
■
■
■
Departmental Discontent
Disciplinary Bravado
Working From the Same Page
Shared Mission
Clear Articulation of Goals From Top Down
11/1/00
71
LANGUAGE AND LIFE-LONG LEARNING IN
THE PROFESSIONS
72
Consultation as Discovery:
Developing a Writing Consultants
Program for Freshman Engineering
Jean Gallagher, Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences
Polytechnic University
This year, I participated in a Gateway Coalition grant to develop a Writing Consultants Program
for all sections of Introduction to Design (EG 102), the second semester of the Freshman
Engineering Program at Polytechnic University. The program’s goal was to attach a writing
consultant to each section of the course. Consultants not only held open consulting hours to
discuss drafts of reports and other writing assignments, but also read, provided
written observations on, and scored each piece of writing which students submitted for a grade.
The structure of EG 102 is a challenge for such a program. Undergraduate TA's are responsible
for supervising labs and overseeing all writing projects as well as grades for lab-related work.
While the peer-teacher model is enormously successful in many ways, engineering faculty and
the undergraduate TA's themselves felt the need for a more focused response to student writing
from experienced writing consultants.
My presentation will tour the difficulties, discoveries, and progress made during the semester of
the program. I will consider issues of authority, collaboration, and communication between and
among the writing consultants, the TA's, and the engineering faculty as well as more concrete
concerns such as training and assessment.
73
Writing Consultants Program
for EG 102
Jean Gallagher
Naomi Nemtzow
Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences
Polytechnic University
EG 102: Introduction to Design
◆ 2nd-semester
of Freshman Engineering
◆ 2 design projects
◆ Writing component:
– 2 major reports
– 7-10 individual assignments (“mini-essays”)
◆ Labs
taught by undergraduate TA’s,
who are also responsible for grading
student writing
74
Writing Program Objectives
◆ Consulting
with students
– One-on-one and small-group sessions
– Providing written observations and
assessment
◆ Consulting
with EG faculty
– Help revise EG 102 syllabus to include:
» more writing assignments
» clearer assignments
– Provide undergrad lab TA’s with
support/guidance in responding to student
writing
Consulting with Students
◆ For
each draft, consultants:
– met with individual students
– met with project design teams
◆ For
all finished writing, consultants:
– wrote observations and suggestions
– assigned scores
75
Number of Consultations
35
# of Sessions
30
25
Proj. 1 Due
20
Proj. 2 Due
15
10
5
h
8t
9t
h
10
th
11
th
12
th
13
th
h
7t
6t
h
5t
h
h
4t
3r
d
2n
d
1s
t
0
Week
Enrollment/Consultation Facts
◆ ~165
students enrolled in 11 sections
◆ ~55 teams of 3 students
◆ ~200 consultation sessions
◆ Good TA-Consultant relations generated
traffic:
89 of 200 sessions (46%) were with students
from 3 sections where the Writing Consultant
had forged strong ties with the lab TA
76
Scoring
◆ “Holistic”
scores: 1-4 scale
◆ Students receiving score of 1 or 2 on
individual assignments were required to
work with consultant on draft of next
assignment
◆ Lab TA’s used scores as guides in
assigning grades
Consulting with EG Faculty
◆ Made
written assignments incremental
◆ Increased number of project-related writing
assignments
– Project I: 3 assignments (up from 1)
– Project II: 7 assignments (up from 1)
◆ Revised
individual writing assignments
– clarified technical “genres” and their
component parts
– devised “mini-essay” assignments to draw on
students’ own experience in design lab
77
Surprises
◆ Consultants
became team facilitators and
mediators
◆ Consultants helped identify plagiarism
◆ Culture clashes between “corporate” and
“educational” models of course delivery
◆ View of writing consultation as
punishment:
“ We don’t want to make Shakespeares out of
them.”
Challenges & Questions
◆ Where
is “the writing center”?
◆ Consultant scores:
– Diminishing our role as coach?
– How best to guide undergrad TA’s in
assessment?
◆ Forging
relations with undergrad TA’s
◆ Communicating and explaining writing
assignments to students
78
Plans for Next Semester
◆ Consultants
will attend lab meetings and
open lab hours to:
– provide “on-site” consultations to students
– forge stronger relations with TA’s
– present and explain writing assignments
◆ Consultants
will receive training in
assessing presentation skills
◆ Consultants will attend recitations to
provide feedback and consultation on
oral/graphic presentation skills
Pending Assessment Issues
◆ Patterns
in scores
◆ Relation of writing consultants’ scores to
TA grades and final grades
◆ Case studies: portfolio assessment
◆ Student perceptions of:
– Themselves as writers
– The role of writing in engineering projects
79
Programming as Writing
Robert O. Pettus, Electrical and
Computer Engineering Department
University of South Carolina
Professional communications instruction in the College of Engineering began in a writing center
in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Pettus, who initiated this first
writing center, quickly become intrigued by the similarities between writing processes and
processes used to write computer code. In this presentation, Dr. Pettus examines the parallels
between the processes of writing and computer programming. He focuses on the similarities and
differences in the grammars of programming and writing and then traces the connections between
the respective grammars and the differing goals of writers and programmers or software
engineers.
80
PROGRAMMING AS WRITING
“Finally, there is the delight of working in
such a tractable medium. The programmer,
like the poet, works only slightly removed
from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles
in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the
imagination. Few media of creation are so
flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so
readily capable of realizing grand conceptual
structures.”
The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Frederick P. Brooks, Prentice-hall
We will use the term software engineering rather than programming
81
BUT, IS IT REALLY …
Actually, the question that we
pose is “are there enough
similarities that some techniques
from one area might be useful in
the other?”
82
THE PRESENTATION
• Background and comparisons
• The programming culture
• Linguistic basis for
programming
• Some ideas about the use of
crossover skills and knowledge
83
SOME COMMON GROUND
• Most practitioners have no
formal training.
• We believe that (either) is
important, but do have enough
educational programs to meet
the need.
• The importance of formal
training to the real artists is not
universally accepted (or even
obvious).
84
SOME DIFFERENCES
• Programming focuses on the
grammar while writing focuses on
style and semantics.
• Programming is much more
collaborative.
• Diversity of expression is good in
writing but considered bad in
programming.
• Programming language grammars
tend to have greater scope than
natural language grammars.
85
SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
The goals of software engineering
are to improve
• Programmer and team
productivity
• The quality and utility of the
software
• Our ability to predict costs and
deadlines (control of
commitments)
86
PROGRAM QUALITY
87
PROGRAM REFINEMENT
88
LANGUAGE COMPONENTS
Language
alphabet
grammar semantics
a, b, c, ...
• Alphabet – Set of atomic elements
(primitives) used to build sentences
in the language.
• Grammar – Used to determine if a
sentence is legal in the language.
• Semantics – Used to define the
meaning of sentences in the
language.
89
GRAMMARS
A grammar (<T, N, S, P>) consists of
• Terminal vocabulary – The words
(including numbers, operators, etc. –
the syntactic constants)
• Non-terminal vocabulary – The
syntactic variables
• Start symbol – Member of nonterminal vocabulary representing the
largest syntactic construct, such as
<sentence>.
• Syntax – The rules which are used
to define legal statements in the
language.
90
TYPES OF GRAMMARS
•
•
•
•
Regular Grammars – The least
powerful grammar. Can be recognized
by a state machine. Useful for scanners
but not powerful enough for most
computer languages.
Context-Free Grammars (CFG) – The
most common grammar for computer
languages. Canonical derivation may
be used.
Context-Sensitive Grammars – Used
for early languages (COBOL,
FORTRAN). Much more difficult to work
with than CFG without much more
power. Canonical derivation can not be
used.
Unrestricted Grammars – Most
powerful grammar. Natural languages
fall into this category.
91
PARSERS
Consider the CFG expression grammar G1
given below:
Vn = {E, T, F}, Vt = {+, ∗, (, ), a}, S = E
Production Rules:
Rule 1.
Rule 2.
Rule 3.
Rule 4.
Rule 5.
Rule 6.
E
E
T
T
F
F
→
→
→
→
→
→
E+T
T
T∗F
F
(E)
a
Notation:
E ⇒ Expression, T ⇒ Term, F ⇒ Factor
92
Left-Most
Derivation
Derivation of a + (a ∗ a)
E
→ E+T
E+T
→ T+T
T+T
→ F+T
F+T
→ a+T
a +T
→ a+T
a+F
→ a + (E)
a + (E)
→ a + (T)
a + (T)
→ a + (T ∗ F)
a + (T ∗ F)
→ a + (F ∗ F)
a + (F ∗ F)
→ a + (a ∗ F)
a + (a ∗ F)
→ a + (a ∗ a)
93
(1)
(2)
(4)
(6)
(4)
(5)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(6)
Right-Most
Derivation
Derivation of a + (a ∗ a)
a + (a ∗ a)
→
F + (a ∗ a)
(6)
F + (a ∗ a)
→
T + (a ∗ a)
(4)
T + (a ∗ a)
→
E + (a ∗ a)
(2)
E + (a ∗ a)
→
E + (F ∗ a)
(6)
E + (F ∗ a)
→
E + (T ∗ a)
(4)
E + (T ∗ a)
→
E + (T ∗ F)
(6)
E + (T ∗ F)
→
E + (T)
(3)
E + (T)
→
E + (E)
(2)
E + (E)
→
E+F
(5)
E+F
→
E+T
(4)
E+T
→
E
(1)
94
Alternate Format
By showing a reversed, mirror-image version of
the right-most derivation we can compare it
directly with the left-most version:
E
E+T
E+F
E + (E)
E + (T)
E + (T ∗ F)
E + (T ∗ a)
E + (F ∗ a)
E + (a ∗ a)
T + (a ∗ a)
F + (a ∗ a)
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→
E+T
E+F
E + (E)
E + (T)
E + (T ∗ F)
E + (T ∗ a)
E + (F ∗ a)
E + (a ∗ a)
T + (a ∗ a)
F + (a ∗ a)
a + (a ∗ a)
95
(1)
(4)
(5)
(2)
(3)
(6)
(4)
(6)
(2)
(4)
(6)
TWO CANDIDATES
• Increased understanding use of
semantics
• Formalizing thinking and doing
96
SEMANTICS:
INTENT AND UNDERSTANDING
Source
Program
Compiler
Target
Program
Only the semantics
are preserved
Programming
What is said.
What is heard.
Writing
97
Programming
Writing
Code Reviews
Reflective Thought
IMPROVING QUALITY
98
LANGUAGE AND ETHICS IN THE
PROFESSIONS
99
Ethics and Engineering
Charles Brice, Electrical and Computer
Engineering Department
Edward Munn,Philosophy Department
University of South Carolina
Introduction
Recently many stakeholders in the engineering profession, including educators, industries, and
professional organizations, have greatly increased interest in engineering ethics. As an example,
a number of colleges of engineering have posted information about engineering ethics on the
World Wide Web, including Texas A&M University (ethics.tamu.edu), University of Virginia
(repo-nt.tcc.virginia.edu), Case Western Reserve University (ethics.cwru.edu) and North Carolina
State University (www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users /j/jherkert/ethicind.html). Also, the National
Institute for Engineering Ethics (www.niee.org) has useful information and more links. There are
many other ethics-related sites, and the reader will find many of these listed as links from these
pages.
This paper briefly examines the subject of engineering ethics from the point of view of faculty
members interested in multi-disciplinary approaches to teaching engineering ethics at the
undergraduate level. Obviously, ethics is an important field of study itself, historically rich,
applicable to any educated person’s experiences, and intellectually challenging. Ethics as a field
of study is much too broad and deep to be summarized in such a short paper. Rather, we simply
try to present our ideas about how a course in ethics of science and technology might fit into the
education of the modern engineer.
The Modern Engineer
Historically, the engineer has been perceived as a narrowly educated technical specialist, with
very deep knowledge in certain areas, but not particularly adept at communication skills or very
interested in social consequences. The engineer’s task is sometimes understood as solving
specific technical problems, to provide means to an already established end. The appropriateness
of the end, however, does not concern the engineer. This view of the engineer is now being
modified; consequently we need to reconsider how we educate engineers.
For several years, there has been growing consensus that the undergraduate engineering education
was in need of drastic changes. These efforts have culminated in new engineering accreditation
criteria, the ABET EC2000, commonly called ABET 2000. The new criteria mandate a continual
quality improvement process using assessment of student outcomes. One significant aspect of the
new requirements is an increased emphasis on concepts and skills such as ability to communicate,
understanding the importance of lifelong learning, and understanding professional and ethical
responsibility. In short, the modern engineer is still expected to understand how to apply science
and mathematics to engineering design and analysis problems, but she is also expected to have a
100
broad liberal education. Furthermore, it is apparent that the modern engineer must be concerned
with professional ethics.
As we look at how our approach to engineering education is evolving, we see that there are
several groups of stakeholders or constituencies: industry (those who hire engineers), the public
(those who use engineered products and systems), the university faculty itself (those who teach
the next course and who recruit graduate students), and the student (and his family members).
Each of these has some but not all of the characteristics of a “customer”, but each holds a “stake”
in the outcome of the educational process. The challenge to the engineering faculty is how best to
incorporate into an undergraduate education process, which is heavily loaded with challenging
material already, the necessary educational experiences for the student to fully understand
professional and ethical responsibility.
It is fairly obvious that no professional engineer can fully understand this responsibility until she
has actually experienced the profession. Nevertheless, we argue that a student who is not yet a
professional can greatly benefit from a formal study of ethics, particularly if the experience is
directly related to realistic engineering design cases.
Approaches to Educating Engineers in Ethics
What is the best way to educate engineering students in ethics and professional responsibility?
There are several obvious approaches: 1) require a course in ethics, 2) work modules on
professional responsibility into several engineering design courses, 3) offer an elective course on
ethics of science and technology but require all students to perform reflective writing exercises
that demonstrate understanding of ethical issues. The writing assignment can be included in
several design courses or laboratories at several different levels.
The first approach, taken alone, would be to let the Philosophy Department handle it. This
approach has some appeal to many engineering faculty members, who may not be inclined to
modify their present courses to accommodate unfamiliar material. It is not the optimal approach
to increasing the student’s understanding of professional responsibility, since it does not involve
engineering faculty in the process and could end in the situation where engineering students have
not thought about the kind of ethical problems that they will face as engineers.
The second approach, taken alone, would be to let some of the engineering faculty handle it. This
idea has some appeal in terms of simplicity, but it would either ignore much of ethics (since most
engineering faculty are not experts in ethics), or else require excessive effort on the part of the
engineering faculty. Even if a student has an idea of how to be a responsible professional
engineer, he might have simplistic views of ethical dilemmas.
The third approach is a little more complex for implementation, but allows the student more
freedom in choosing how he wishes to demonstrate understanding of ethical issues. It assumes
that a writing center or similar resources are available to the student, and that writing and
communication skills have already been integrated into (at least) part of the engineering
curriculum. It appears that the third approach may be the best one, at least for our curriculum. It
avoids the challenges of adding a required course, and it avoids the problems of drastic changes
in the engineering curriculum. However, since the student is not required to take the ethics
course, it becomes a challenge to construct a course that is appealing to the prospective engineer.
Otherwise, few students would choose to take the course. We think that this is the central
challenge that we face, but we also believe that the engineering design process is one that is
101
appealing to most of the students in engineering. If the material contained in the ethics course is
such that the student is better able to design, we believe that the enrolment will follow.
The Ethics Course
There is at least one sense in which an engineer could simply ignore any ethical concerns. For
example, the problems faced by Nazi engineers as the death camps increased the volume of
killings could be understood as simply a technical problem about how to build larger, more
efficient crematoriums and gas chambers. This problem could be seen as simply an engineering
problem abstracted from any moral dimension. In order to do this, one must take an approach
that understands the role of the engineer as radically separated from any other roles that
individual might be playing. Here ‘engineer’ becomes a description of an element of one’s life
that can and should be radically separated from the rest of one’s activities. With such an
understanding, there really is no place for ethics in engineering or in the education of engineers
proper. If there are any ethical concerns, they come from outside of engineering proper.
We reject such an approach to engineering, and the Nazi example is meant to point to the
absurdity of such a position. The design and construction of gas chambers does not simply point
to the failure of the individual as a person, but also to the failure of that person as an engineer.
Engineering here is understood to be a constitutive part of one’s identity, much like the medicine
or law. Being a physician is, or at least should be, crucial in constituting who that individual is
and not simply an occupation. It is a part of what Alaisdair MacIntyre has called the narrative
unity of a life. Engineering should be similarly constitutive. This position reflects the new
emphasis on ethical responsibility, communication, education and awareness of social and global
contexts, life-long learning, and the knowledge of contemporary issues, presented in the ABET
EC2000 Criteria.
The ethics course is meant to help engineering students understand why being better able to
design includes taking account of moral and social issues. The idea here is that “better” means a
bit more than simply more efficient and includes some concern for a shared, common good. The
goal of the course is to make engineering students more aware of ethical presuppositions,
concerns, and commitments in better design. In this sense, the course is intended to help students
understand and put into practice both the ABET 2000 Criteria and the first canon of the NSPE
Code of Ethics: “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”
Course Description
There is a common theme in both the few engineering ethics textbooks and in the more numerous
engineering ethics sites on the Internet: cases, cases, and more cases. The emphasis on casuistry
which “focuses on practical decision making in particular cases” and where “appropriate moral
judgements occur … through an intimate understanding of particular situations and the historical
record of similar cases” [Beauchamp and Childress, 1994] is one with which we agree. But this
can only be a starting point for a course in the ethics of science and technology. Cases,
particularly ones taken from the real working lives of engineers (the Challenger case is an
example), allow the students to see the applicability of the course to their working lives, begin the
process of moral deliberation by raising dilemmas, can help clarify and point to the tensions
between the values that the engineer has and ought to have, and offer a clear starting point for
understanding the nature and difficulty of moral deliberation specifically connected with issues in
engineering. Depending purely on a case-oriented approach, however, also falls into the danger
of turning discussion into nothing more than a comparison of subjective moral intuitions where
ethical deliberation is reduced to what each individual ‘feels’ about the case.
102
Though case studies need to be and will be a major part of a course in the ethics of science and
technology which is aimed at engineers, these case studies must be supplemented with a
substantial discussion of moral theory. The cases will come alive as the students realize that
approaching some of them from different theoretical standpoints will affect how the cases are to
be resolved. Here discussions of moral theories become fundamental to the success of the course.
Finally a more complicated issue needs to be introduced to the students. What is technology and
what kind of good, if any, is it? The value and nature of scientific and technological thinking has
itself been called into question. Just how do scientists and engineers think and why do we think
that it is a good approach? Is technology and technological thinking the high mark of human
civilization, or is it a sophisticated way for a few to gain power at the cost of the humanity of us
all? These questions have been a topic of philosophic concern for most of this century, but their
discussion has often been shrouded in philosophic jargon difficult for the non-philosopher to
penetrate. Raising the question concerning technology in an effective manner is crucial for the
course because it asks the student to step back and consider just what engineering is, and what her
ethical, social, and political roles in our society might be. In this sense, she could become a more
critical, and therefore, a more effective engineer.
A course in the ethics of science and technology for engineers, then, will have three components:
1. Extensive discussion of cases to make the students more aware of the nature, role, and scope
of the ethical issues facing engineers.
2. An investigation of moral theory to provide the students with analytic tools that will move
them beyond a narrow intuitionism to coming to grips with the problems raised by the cases.
3. And a discussion of the nature of technological thinking itself so that they might begin to
consider the ethical, social and political role of engineers in our society.
Conclusion
The modern engineer faces many challenges, including the need to be technically competent in
mathematics and science, to be capable of designing devices, systems and processes to meet
desired needs, to be able to take part in multidisciplinary teams, to be able to communicate
effectively, and to understand the societal and global context of a design. Not the least of these
challenges is to understand professional and ethical responsibility. This must be understood as a
part of the engineering design process, not separate from it. Professional responsibility must
include some balance of concerns among sometimes competing forces. For example, the
designer of a building has a responsibility to the building owner to meet the stated needs in an
economical manner and a responsibility to the public who will use the building to meet safety
standards.
We believe that engineering students will benefit from a formal course in ethics, but one that is
aimed at the practice of engineering design. We have described a course design that begins with
cases studies to show relevance to engineering practice, then uses moral theory to increase the
level of insight of the student, and finally discusses the nature of technological thinking itself.
103
Introducing Engineering Ethics to
Freshmen Using a Case Study
Model
Tom Ward,College of Engineering
University of South Carolina
With the growing emphasis on demonstrable student outcomes, specifically on engineering
ethics, it is important to incorporate this topic in a meaningful way into the freshmen curriculum
of engineering education. The College of Engineering at the University of South Carolina has
developed a case study-based instruction module that not only introduces freshmen to the Code of
Ethics for Engineering, but also develops skills in critical thinking, group communication and
analysis, public speaking skills, and writing.
The instruction module utilizes actual cases and judgments rendered by the Ethical Review Board
of the National Society of Professional Engineers. Students are broken into working groups to
read, discuss and present assigned cases. Follow up writing assignments can then be given to
assess the level of knowledge and understanding by the student.
104
USC College of Engineering
May 1998
University 101 for Engineers
Tom Ward
Proposed instruction module on engineering ethics (1-3 classes)
I.
Objective:
To introduce and facilitate a meaningful working knowledge of the embodied principles of the
NSPE Code of Ethics and the ability to apply them.
II.
Recommended Materials:
•
•
III.
Methodology:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IV.
26 copies of the NSPE Code of Ethics (www.nspe.org)
6-7 individual case summaries and actual judgements (www.nspe.org)
Distribute and assign students to read the Code of Ethics
(next class) Break class up into random groups of 4.
Distribute case studies to each group along with instructions for analysis and
presentation to class (10-15 min.).
Distribute actual outcomes to cases for completion of analysis (10 min.).
Have each group present their case to the class including their analysis, their
recommended actions, as well as the actual outcomes.
Discussion/Q&A.
Assessment:
Follow up quiz (short answer) on the ability to understand and apply the principles behind the
basic canon of the Code of Ethics.
105
Writing Consultation in
Engineering: The Ethics of Process
Meets the Ethics of Production
Tom Smith,College of Engineering
University of South Carolina
Engineering and Writing Center Ethical Tropes
In a case like exists here at the USC College of Engineering, where writing center staff
members are beginning to collaborate with engineering faculty, there are bound to be incidents of
misunderstanding and confusion. Discussing “ethics” offers an example. For engineers, a
standard way of introducing the idea of ethics to students is with what I’ll call the bridge trope. It
is also a useful way of explaining the importance of engineering ethics to writing center personnel
and other non-experts. According to the bridge trope, engineers must be interested in ethics
because the beneficiaries of their work—the public—put their lives at risk. If a bridge collapses,
people will die, thus presenting a clear ethical problem for bridge-builders if their designs are
flawed.
This trope is not usually analyzed beyond its basic ethical question: was the engineer who
built the bridge at fault? But there is a variable that writing center workers would not readily
recognize in the bridge trope: time. Surely all bridges could be built better a decade from now
than they are today. But, at some point, engineers must simply build that bridge with the best
technology available today. I refer to this as an ethic of production because the term
“production” is a loaded one for writing center workers and composition teachers schooled for
over a decade on the importance of their field of study as the study of processes (how writers
write) rather than products (texts writers produce).
Writing center workers present the ethics of their field in what is often a confusing
manner to non-experts.1 The most common ethical issue presented to non-experts by writing
center staff is the “we don’t proofread” dictum. Writing centers all over this country greet the
question “Could someone here please proofread my paper?” with a gruff response: “We don’t
proofread.” This firm ethical statement by staff members must come as a shock to students and
others who perhaps have a different conception of what the term “proofread” means. For those
who have not worked in a writing center, it must also be surprising to encounter such rigidity
regarding a seemingly neutral activity, morally speaking.
An engineering TA at USC once, finally, in exasperation, half way through a semester in
which he had heard that ethical pillar ad nauseum, wondered what the staff in the writing center
could be doing if they were not proofreading. It took some time to explain the difference
between, on the one hand, copy-editing and, on the other, teaching a student techniques to use in
revising lab reports. The ethic of process so dominant in writing center work dictates to tutors
and consultants that we want better lab report writers; not better lab reports. This distinction, to
1
Not only is it confusing, but considerably less life-and-death than the bridge trope of engineering ethics.
It is worth pointing out that most ethical issues faced by engineers are not life-and-death issues either.
106
an audience of engineers who have to “build that bridge,” flies in the face of a crucial element of
lab reports—they have due dates.
The Design of Typical Writing Center Ethics Codes
When I first began working at the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Writing
Center, my interest in composition instruction and writing center work focused on issues of
ethics. I was concerned with all sorts of issues that would be familiar to those in composition and
writing center studies: student “ownership” of the texts they write; the nature of collaboration and
its embarrassing bedfellow, plagiarism; the function of extra-classroom institutions like writing
centers in an academic environment not always hospitable to them.
Initially, in adapting to the more objective, scientific ethos of engineering, these issues of
ethics in teaching seemed less important than the more basic task of acquiring a vocabulary to
speak about technical writing to engineers. But my growing comfort in dealing with engineering
texts now makes it possible for me to revisit these common writing center concerns for this panel
on ethics and communications instruction.
Discussions of ethics and engineering are a increasingly common if the internet and
journal articles are good measures. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
defines engineering ethics in the following way:
Engineering Ethics is 1) the study of moral issues and decisions confronting
individuals and organizations involved in engineering and 2) the study of related
questions about moral conduct, character, ideals and relationships of peoples and
organizations involved in technological development.”
Ethics are professionalizing, as the second precept explains; and ethics are about the impact of
products (understood in the broadest sense of the term) on those not in the profession.
These two basic functions of the NSPE ethics code are important to keep in mind as they
compare to writing center ethics, a field I will attempt to characterize generally. For five years,
one of the two journals devoted to research in writing center work has included a monthly column
on ethics.2 This (borderline) obsession with ethics in writing center work stretches back to the
early seventies when current-day writing labs and centers began to form.3
As in engineering ethics, the rhetoric of writing center ethics is two-pronged. First,
questions of ethics concern the nature of the relationship between the student and the writing
consultant. Second, questions of ethics abound concerning the relationship between the center
and the institution wherein it is located.
2
Michael Pemberton. “Writing Center Ethics.” Writing Lab Newsletter. January 1993-.
I recall that at last year’s conference, Jennie Ariail warned attendees not to shorten writing center history
as I have just done, but, for the purposes of this paper, I’m discussing writing center scholarship
specifically named as such.
3
107
The rhetorical structure of writing center ethics codes4, like ethics codes in general,
consists of a series of principles or canons, followed by admonitions that suggest ways to follow
them. The canons are fairly consistent from one center to the next; the admonitions vary widely
in the inferences they draw from the canons. Note these examples based on my experience in
three different writing centers:
Canon One:
Students own their texts.
Possible admonitions: Consultants should not write any portion of students’
assignments
Consultants should not proofread
Consultants should not write on students’ papers
Consultants should not hold a pen or pencil
Canon Two:
Writing is a process
Possible Admonitions: Consultants should not suggest likely grades of student work.
Consultants should not use evaluative words (e.g. “great paper!”)
Canon Three:
Consultations are confidential
Possible Admonition: Consultants should inform instructors of visits only with student
permission
Another common rhetorical feature of ethics codes is the case study—sometimes real; sometimes
hypothetical. The following is real, from my work in the ECE Writing Center.
Faculty/Writing Center Consultation: Improving the
Grading Process . . . or its Product?
An engineering instructor meets with writing center consultants to discuss students’
writing. She brings with her copies of every student’s lab report and asks the writing center staff
to read through them and offer suggestions about how to comment on them.
This basic situation seems like good news—engineering faculty and composition
instructors are collaborating. Consultants quickly skim through the papers and offer various
comments. One asks the instructor if she thinks a student’s abstract is effective. The instructor
reads it, considers, and begins to explain what is good and bad about that abstract. Another
consultant notices an awkward sentence in the abstract and asks the instructor if she would phrase
it differently. “Why yes,” comes the response, “I would have written it like this: . . .” A third
consultant asks if the abstract is the issue at all: does the student exhibit a full understanding of
the topic of the lab regardless of whether the student’s abstract adequately summarizes the report?
Maybe not, realizes the instructor of the course.
The instructor leaves the writing center with some concrete issues to deal with in student
writing. Score one for the writing center’s effort to improve communications instruction in
engineering . . . maybe. After the consultation with the instructor, what will be the outcome for
this student? Will the student be a better writer of lab reports? Will the student have a grade that
more accurately reflects the quality of his or her writing products? Will the student receive a
grade that is comparable to the grades of other students in the class whose work was not
discussed in such detail, or will the grade reflect the intense scrutiny of the writing
center/instructor consultation? Will the instructor realize that consultant comments were intended
as general instruction about questions to ask of all students’ writing rather than questions to ask
4
The statements I refer to here as “ethics codes” are rarely identified as such. More often, these guidelines
for writing center practice are presented in the form of a handbook or manual for tutors.
108
about this particular student’s work? What will writing center staff say to this student if he or she
appears in the center wondering why suddenly the instructor seems to be singling out mistakes in
his or her paper that the instructor is not noticing in others’ work?
The Ethics of Consulting with Students . . . and
Teachers
On its face, engineering and writing center ethics codes share similar rhetorical features
and basic questions about their respective activities. First, those concerned with ethics ask, “How
do we do what we do with each other?” Second, they wonder, “How does what we do affect
others?” But these two questions—vastly oversimplified abstractions of the ethical
considerations of both fields—do not do justice to the conflicts that can result when writing
centers collaborate with engineering instructors to improve the communications skills of students.
Discipline-specific writing centers need to discuss with the faculty of their discipline ethical
concerns that emerge from collaboration.
At times, working in the engineering setting, writing center staff notice that instructors
seem exasperated with compositionists’ hand-wringing over their relationships with students. As
I have worked in this setting, my hand-wringing has decreased because I have realized that it is
not an effective way to communicate with many instructors and students. But I believe the
questions above about the ethical situation encountered in the ECE Writing Center are
appropriate concerns of writing center ethics and engineering education. The difficulty is that
“ethics” and ethical behavior describe very different ideas to writing center staff and engineering
instructors. For the former, ethics refer to pedagogy; for the latter, they refer to engineering
practice.
As the collaboration between engineering and composition instructors increases,
exploring this distinction is vital. I would like to pose two questions that I hope engineers and
compositionists will consider. First, how does the ethics of engineering inform the teaching of
engineering?
In briefly exchanging emails with Dr. Pettus about the issue of ethics, he suggested to me
that engineers are more concerned than those in the humanities with the idea of “time” when they
discuss ethics. For writing center staff, this difference may suggest the necessity of focusing not
only on the writer or on the writing process. At some point, students just need to get that lab
report done; they have to build that bridge instead of waiting for better building processes. And
in order to satisfy the demands of students and the expectations of instructors, writing center staff
should understand that an ethic of production is not inimical to their work—their audience,
engineers, demands it.
Second, how can collaboration between faculty and writing center staff be unethical? In
collaborating with students, writing center workers daily decide how much help “crosses the line”
between teaching and cheating. Collaboration with students working on assignments to be graded
is a touchy business, so touchy that sometimes real improvement achieved in the writing center
consultation still does not appear as improvement to a grader, the course instructor.5
But what about the collaboration of writing center staff with engineering instructors
illustrated in the case study above? Because a discipline specific writing center is much more
likely to act as a consulting service to both students and faculty, does it not encounter the ethical
dilemma of cheating by helping duly hired teachers grade their assignments? Two reasons
writing center personnel are told never to write student texts is because a) such plagiarism
misrepresents the students learning to the instructor and b) it upsets the fairness of grades as
5
Those who believe foremost in an ethic of production might then frown on the student-tutor consultation
that has little measurable impact on student texts.
109
indicators of learning in relation to other students. I would suggest that helping an instructor
comment on specific papers as part of those papers’ grading process also a) misrepresents the
instructor’s views of the students’ work and b) upsets the accuracy of grades as relative
indicators. I don’t mean to suggest that faculty/instructors and writing center staff should never
discuss student writing. But they should discuss it in general terms and only when the grades of
specific students are not at stake. Upon first inspection, such a separation between writing center
staff and faculty might seem to contradict the point of collaboration in the first place. But a
separation of roles is what defines writing center work, not an impediment to improved textual
production from students. In discussing the ethics of teaching, sociologist Everett Wilson warns
of the danger of bi-polar relations between students and teachers.6
“Dyadic relationships,” he feels, are dangerous in their capacity to become repetitious,
predictable, boring and, ultimately, alienating. They are fragile in the same way that a twolegged stool is. For such stools, the issue isn’t why one is sitting in the first place; the issue is
how frustrating it is to remain seated. Similarly, a simple teacher-student relationship allows each
party or both to make that relationship the focus of attention rather than the course goals. Writing
centers support course goals, but to do so effectively, they need to become the third leg that
balances the stool.
When a triadic relationship is formed, stools and education are improved. In a triadic
relationship, disparities in experience become resources for each of three parties to rely on in
dealing with the others. In the ethical case study I presented above, the problem that should have
been avoided, it seems to me, is that two parties merged—teacher and writing center consultant—
became a single pole against which one student, unbeknown to him or her, was pitted.
The title of this paper mentions the distinction between engineering instruction and
composition instruction. It suggests there is an ethics of production and an ethics of process.
Writing center staffs focus on processes by dealing with students’ texts as exemplary of more
general ideas about what is effective or ineffective communication. In that way, they avoid
focusing on the production of a better grade for the student and instead try to make the student
generalize about ways to improve their writing processes in the future. Similarly, in consulting
with faculty about grading writing, writing center workers need to avoid focusing on the
production of better grading for a specific student. Instead, the processes of effective and
ineffective feedback need to be emphasized. Making this distinction is crucial if disciplinespecific writing centers are to maintain what has proven to be an effective, independent site of
learning within higher education institutions. Initiating a discussion of this distinction with
engineering faculty is vital for the survival of discipline-specific writing centers as the third of
three important legs on which communication instruction can sit.
6
Everett Wilson. Sociology: Rules, Roles, and Relationships. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press,
1971. Chapter 2.
110
BREAKOUT SESSION 1: WRITING IN THE
FRESHMAN ENGINEERING COURSE
The participants of the breakout session on Writing in the Freshman Engineering Course all
shared the common goal of integrating writing into the curriculum of the freshman engineering
course. Backgrounds varied considerably, as did proposed methods of how to integrate writing
into the course. Interesting questions were also raised about what type(s) of writing freshman
engineering students should be doing, and to what particular ends. Ideas for writing assignments
were discussed, recorded, and then organized into broad categories that reflect the desired
outcomes of the proposed writing assignments.
Goals of Breakout Session Participants
We compared the course structures that we are working in at present. We also shared
expectations of what we would like to take from this discussion. Our expectations
included:
Sam Morgan (Writing Center perspective): I want to use this document as a starting
point to increase the Professional Writing Center’s involvement with the U101E class and
make it easier for instructors to incorporate writing into their classes.
Susan Creighton (Assessment Coordinator): I want to use this as documentation for the
ABET 2000 accreditation visit, to provide evidence of critical analysis, oral and written
communications within each program area.
Tom Ward and David Rocheleau (U101E Instructor): I’m looking for a unified
approach to facilitate the incorporation of various writing (“g” word) and to make U101E
a more writing intensive course.
Soro Nnaji (CE Instructor): Use some of these assignments in his freshman engineering
course.
Deanna Ramey (Workshop Coordinator): I want to have this document on the Web so
that other engineering faculty can get this information and see what we do.
Jean Gallagher (Writing Center Director) and Naomi Nemtzow (Writing Consultant):
I want to use this to strengthen Poly’s commitment to making the freshman-engineering
course more effectively and consistently writing intensive. I would like to suggest to the
engineering faculty that we use and improve upon these assignments next semester.
GOALS FOR WRITING IN FRESHMAN ENGINEERING COURSES
111
1. Using writing to foster creative and critical/analytical skills.
2. Ability to identify and address particular audience with respect to language usage and
subject content
3. Familiarize students with types of writing produced by professional engineers.
Ideas for Writing Assignments
Writing Types
Informal – journals,
goal statements,
autobiographies,
feedback to instructor on
instruction
methodologies, etc
Suggested Examples
What do you want to do/expect from this class? (Design a
syllabus with the class as an exercise which encourages
students to take ownership of course)
Why do you want to be an engineer?
“Dear Freshman” letter written at end of semester, addressed
to next group of incoming students (“If I had to do my first
semester over…”)
Academic exercises:
synopsis, lit reviews,
research essays, etc.
Based on your Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and your Strong
Interest Inventory, identify strengths that will assist you in
accomplishing academic success and also identify weakness
that may become barriers to your goal of obtaining your BS in
engineering.
Assign students to write about significant (mechanical,
electrical, civil, industrial, chemical, etc) engineering
achievements during a particular decade. Do you find a
common thread among them? If so, what? What led up to
those significant developments? How did those developments
set the stage for the next decade? Also present orally (cite &
document sources).
Interview an engineer (develop questions, prepare interview
strategies). Based on what you learn, identify salient qualities
of a successful engineer.
Take a given engineering product (e.g. auto) and trace its
evolution over time, speculate about future development
Assign professional articles to summarize
Choose an engineer to research and write a biography (what
education, training, experience, career path, accomplishments)
112
Project-related reports
Professional
communication
Have students read 2 credible but contradictory arguments on
a professional question
Ethics case study: discuss opposing arguments
1. Project proposal
2. Progress reports
3. Final report on project
4. Oral presentation of project
5. As part of ongoing group design project: Reflect on your
group’s experience with “brainstorming” (or collaboration, or
group dynamics)
1. Cover letters (to accompany project writing in “business
model design presentation”, or resumes)
2. Resumes
3. e-mail
4. memos
113
BREAKOUT SESSION 2: MODELS OF
COLLABORATION
The Role of the Writing Center
-
-
-
-
The role of the writing center is in the process of being defined. The tendency exists for
writing centers to become a publication center for faculty and staff rather than a tool for the
student.
Few writing-intensive courses exist in the engineering disciplines. As a result, the success of
the engineering writing center hinges heavily upon its performance with students in one
particular course.
Compartmentalization exists within the present system. Writing centers are expected to write.
Professors are expected to lecture. The union of the two, we hope, comes together with the
student. In practice, this oftentimes is unsuccessful.
Just as writing center consultants would be hesitant to grade an engineering exam,
engineering professors are hesitant to grade narrative essays. Engineering professors most
often fit the mold of left-brained thinkers, who prefer concrete, detailed objectives to look for
in grading; whereas writing center consultants are right-brained thinkers, who favor a more
subjective, overall impression of a student’s work to arrive at a grade. We must meet in the
middle to incorporate the classroom and the writing center into the student’s experience.
Group goals for the workshop:
1.
2.
3.
Work to define further the role of the writing center
List principles to guide writing centers
Address the writing center’s integration with the curriculum vs. assisting students from an
objective viewpoint.
Models for Collaboration
Fiona Barnes
Tom Bowers
Wes Bright
Jane Douglas
Tom Smith
114
Models
“Traditional” writing center
" Writing across the Curriculum
" Integrative composition courses
" Writing in the Discipline(s)
" Other
"
“Traditional” Writing Centers
"
Usually consultative, non-evaluative
115
“Traditional” Writing Centers
College/University-wide
" English department-affiliated
" Discipline-specific
"
General
"
New York University’s Expository Writing
Program
– Supervised by senior faculty from a range of
disciplines
– Staffed by graduate students in a broad range of
disciplines, hired for their interest in and
willingness to embrace program methods
116
General SWOT
Strengths
" ‘free-floating” within university
"
– No political pressures from any constituents
– Not integrated with any curriculum/program
– Intellectual independence – no compromises on
academic goals
– Freedom to innovate/respond to demands as
they arise
*SWOT = strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
General SWOT
"
Weaknesses
– Limited effectiveness in penetration in any one
program
– Obligations distributed through entire
college/university
– Tends to be used to assist students in general
ways not always useful or generalizable to
students’ specific disciplines
– Regarded as remedial center
117
English department affiliated
"
University of Wisconsin-Madison
English-affiliated SWOT
"
Strengths
– Theoretically “experts” in writing
– Cheap labor
118
English-affiliated SWOT
"
Weaknesses
– Seen as “cash flow” for English department
– Writing as “ugly stepchild” of
research/literature
– Lack of motivation to meet needs of other
programs/departments
– Regarded as remedial center
– Itinerant graduate student staff
Discipline-specific
Polytechnic University
" University of South Carolina
"
– Engineering Professional Communications
Center
– Darla Moore Center for Business
Communication
119
Discipline-specific SWOT
"
Strengths
– Specificity to discipline writing genres, topics,
goals
– Establishes close working relationships with
faculty in discipline
– Staff interests/goals/methods are geared toward
a single discipline
– Represents and transmits students’
concerns/interests to faculty
Discipline-specific SWOT
"
Weaknesses
– Subject to changes/whims of
college/department
– Not necessarily well-integrated into discipline
– Disciplinary boundaries still exist between
faculty and staff
– May have to adopt assumptions of discipline
under duress
120
Writing across the Curriculum
"
University of Michigan’s English
Composition Board
– Fosters development of writing-intensive
courses across curriculum, provides some
assistance in designing assignments
WAC SWOT
"
Strengths
– CrossCross-pollination between communication and
other disciplines
– Writing to learn as the most effective teaching
tool
– Increases awareness of the importance of
writing across university
– Spans all levels of courses and widest range of
disciplines
– Can reach large numbers of students cheaply
121
WAC SWOT
"
Weaknesses
– Lack of transfer of skills to other disciplines
– Assistance in writing tends to be limited
– Sketchy implementation/quality/definition
– Doesn’t lead to helping students learn
conventions/methods/values in their individual
disciplines
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
University of Florida’s William and Grace
Dial Center for Written and Oral
Communication
– Offers courses in Anthropology, Chemistry,
Communication Sciences and Disorders,
Psychology, Sociology, Engineering, Business,
MBA programs, Neurobiological Sciences
122
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
Strengths
– Virtually autonomous – can forge connections
with interested/invested departments/programs
– Can offer courses strictly relevant to disciplines
– Seen as important/compulsory by faculty
– Students learn how to communicate as
“experts” and see course as useful to them
in/outside of university
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
Weaknesses
– ResourceResource-intensive: low facultyfaculty-toto-student ratio
– Require faculty/staff to learn
values/practices/methods/genres/exemplary
journals inside individual disciplines
– Territorial battle over who “owns” courses
– Faculty in disciplines may not believe Center is
“qualified” to teach in their discipline as an
“outsider”
123
Integrative composition courses
"
Strengths
– Introduces (engineering) students to humanities
issues
– Promotes dialogue between humanities and
other programs/disciplines
– Highlights relevance of communication skills in
engineering/other programs
– Doesn’t require new resources
WAC SWOT
"
Weaknesses
– Lack of transfer of skills to other disciplines
– Assistance in writing tends to be limited
– Sketchy implementation/quality/definition
– Doesn’t lead to helping students learn
conventions/methods/values in their individual
disciplines
124
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
University of Florida’s William and Grace
Dial Center for Written and Oral
Communication
– Offers courses in Anthropology, Chemistry,
Communication Sciences and Disorders,
Psychology, Sociology, Engineering, Business,
MBA programs, Neurobiological Sciences
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
Strengths
– Virtually autonomous – can forge connections
with interested/invested departments/programs
– Can offer courses strictly relevant to disciplines
– Seen as important/compulsory by faculty
– Students learn how to communicate as
“experts” and see course as useful to them
in/outside of university
125
Writing in the Discipline(s)
"
Weaknesses
– ResourceResource-intensive: low facultyfaculty-toto-student ratio
– Require faculty/staff to learn
values/practices/methods/genres/exemplary
journals inside individual disciplines
– Territorial battle over who “owns” courses
– Faculty in disciplines may not believe Center is
“qualified” to teach in their discipline as an
“outsider”
Integrative composition courses
"
Strengths
– Introduces (engineering) students to humanities
issues
– Promotes dialogue between humanities and
other programs/disciplines
– Highlights relevance of communication skills in
engineering/other programs
– Doesn’t require new resources
126
Integrative composition courses
"
Weaknesses
– Relevance seen as highly limited to engineering
– Fosters parallel “tracks” of courses without
much interaction between faculty or shared
assumptions/content
– May not address students’ greatest
communication needs
Others?
127
BREAKOUT SESSION 3: INTEGRATED
CURRICULA FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION
The composition of breakout group three was ideal for exploring the topic of integrated curricula
for engineering education. Three of the group members represented the humanities and four
represented engineering. Most of them had experience and a long-standing interest in
interdisciplinary education.
Criteria for Effectiveness of Integrated Curricula
In its initial meeting, the group explored criteria for effective integration of curriculum. The
discussions focused on four critical measures for predicting success and evaluating effectiveness
of integrated curricula. These measures were
-
collaborative planning by disciplines involved
agreement on grading issues and philosophy
student recognition of relevance and meaning
funding and resources (evidence of institutional and governmental/societal
recognition of relevance)
This list goes beyond the customary approach to collaborative planning for course content and
assignments that link humanities topics or writing assignments to standard engineering courses.
First, in pointing out that humanities and engineering faculty need to reach agreement on issues
and philosophies of grading, the participants recognized that the two disciplines may have
differing conceptions of what constitutes knowledge and what forms of knowledge are privileged.
Second, in declaring that students help to determine the effectiveness of integrated courses by
recognizing (or failing to recognize) their relevance and meaning, the group identifies students as
primary customers of the institution. Finally, the inclusion of funding and resources as measures
of effectiveness reminds us that funding levels reflect an institution’s or agency’s evaluation of
the relevance of a budget item.
Goal for Integrated Curriculum
In formulating the primary goal for integrated curricula, the group explored the notion of wellroundedness a breadth and depth of liberal education and knowledge of humanities that enables
the individual to engage in meaningful discourse with others. While the discipline of engineering
requires advanced knowledge in science and math, it also requires understanding of the human
enterprise throughout history. Too narrow a focus on science and math diminishes the potential of
engineering education; it produces graduates who have not explored the myriad cultural
influences that give rise to technological change. How then can they appreciate the purpose of
their careers or explain the value of engineering to society? From their discussion of the
necessity of integrating humanities, and especially the arts of written and oral communication,
into the engineering curriculum, the group formulated the following goal:
To create Engineering Education that fosters the development of students who are
well-rounded and effective communicators.
128
Cultures and Collaboration
Since engineering educators and professional communications faculty represent different specific
disciplines, steps toward collaboration by the two should begin with a discussion of the goals,
values, and methods of each group.
The breakout group members listed characteristics commonly associated with the humanities and
engineering as a beginning point of discussion. Representatives of the two disciplines might find
it fruitful to examine each of the pairs shown on the third slide (Divisions of Culture). What
accounts for these common assumptions? Would another group produce a similar list of traits?
Regardless of the answers, the conversation about the paired terms would help newly formed
teams identify and address values and assumptions of the groups represented.
In-service Faculty Training Website
While sharing common goals and appreciation of differing perspectives of team member is a
necessary condition for collaborative educational ventures, it is not sufficient for success.
Collaborative efforts need resources. To provide at least one resource to support interdisciplinary
teams teaching communications skills to undergraduate engineers, the breakout group proposed a
faculty training website. This website, once established, would be a site that all workshop
participants could help to maintain by providing case studies of successful courses and
assignments, names of consultants and speakers to help in program development, methods for
assessing program outcomes, and instructional modules. The workshop sponsors plan to seek a
permanent home and technical support for such a website.
129
Breakout Group Three
Developing Integrated Curricula for
Engineering Education
■ Group Members:
■
– Libby
– Richard
– Steve
– Rob
Chick
Floyd
Henry
Goal
■
Engineering Education that fosters the
development of students who are wellrounded and effective communicators
130
Divisions of Cultures
■
Humanities
Engineering
Emotion/Feeling>
■ Imagination>
■ Creativity>
■ Verbal>
<Logic/Reason
<Reality
<Practical Application
<Visual
■
131
EPILOGUE: FUTURE COLLABORATION
We ended the 1998 Workshop with a roundtable discussion with participants sharing strategies
and successes from their programs. Once again, there was a strong sense of community and
collaboration between Gateway and SUCCEED Coalition members and other institutions.
The University of Florida team plans to host the next gathering, and we look forward to joining
forces again. Our USC Professional Communications Center Website is still under construction,
but we will email you all as soon as our space is assigned.
We encourage the 1998 Workshop participants and other readers of the Proceedings to suggest
ideas for future workshops. These suggestions can be sent to:
Professional Communications Center
College of Engineering
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC 29208
Or you can e-mail us at:
pcc@engr.sc.edu
Finally, we have included a list of workshop participants and their current e-mail addresses so
that we can continue to collaborate in our efforts to integrate communications into engineering
curricula.
132
WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
The Cooper Union
Richard Stock
Department of Chemical Engineering
Stock@cooper.edu
Florida A & M University – Florida State University
Soronnadi (Soro) Nnaji
Director, Engineering First Year Program
Nnaji@eng.fsu.edu
Midlands Technical College
Floyd E. Bowles
Program Coordinator, Mechanical Engineering Technology
Bowlesf@mtc.mid.tec.sc.us
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Rob Friedman
Humanities and Social Sciences
Friedman@admin.njit.edu
N. C. State University
Steve Luyendyk
Department of English
Srluyend@unity.ncsu.edu
Polytechnic University
Jean Gallagher
Humanities and Social Sciences
jgalla@photon.poly.edu
Naomi Nemtzow
Nnemtzow@duke.poly.edu
University of Florida
Fiona Barnes
Center for Written and Oral Communication
fbarnes@nwe.ufl.edu
Jane Douglas
The William and Grace Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication
jdouglas@nwe.ufl.edu
133
Charles Glagola
Department of Civil Engineering
Cglag@ce.ufl.edu
University of South Carolina
Elisabeth Alford
Professional Communications Center
Alford@engr.sc.edu
Tom Bowers
Professional Communications Center
Charles Brice
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Brice@engr.sc.edu
Wes Bright
Center for Business Communication
Brighm2k@mail.badm.sc.edu
Susan Creighton
Coordinator of Assessment
College of Engineering
Creighto@engr.sc.edu
Edward Ernst
AlliedSignal Professor of Engineering
Ernst@engr.sc.edu
Sam Morgan
Professional Communications Center
Ed Munn
Department of Philosophy
munne@garnet.cla.sc.edu
Robert Pettus
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Pettus@engr.sc.edu
Deanna Ramey
Professional Communications Center
Ramey@engr.sc.edu
David Rocheleau
Mechanical Engineering Department
Rocheleau-David@sc.edu
134
Tom Smith
Professional Communications Center
Smithtg@engr.sc.edu
Martha Thomas
Center for Business Communication
Thomasm@darla.badm.sc.edu
Tom Ward
Director of Institutional Services
Tward@sc.edu
Virginia Commonwealth University
Henry A. McGee, Jr.
Founding Dean
hmcgee@vcu.edu
135
136