Writing In The Discipline: A Case Study For Architectural Engineering

This paper presents a case study of developing a writing intensive course using the Writing in the Discipline (WID) model for architectural engineering. Background issues are discussed, terms defined and a detailed course description and outline are given. A writing model is presented that outlines the process by which students construct complex theory papers, starting with "lowstakes" writing activities that lead to "high-stakes" formal papers. External course and internal student continuous improvement plans are explained. Survey data and sample grade patterns are presented and analyzed to support conclusions. Introduction There is little doubt that our students need to effectively write in the discipline. Writing is a critical form of thinking. Good writing and thinking is methodical and process driven. Our students may be technically competent but many times they cannot clearly express themselves in written form. This paper presents a case study of a writing intensive course using the Writing in the Discipline (WID) model for architectural engineering in an upper-level architectural theory course. A detailed course description and outline is presented in conjunction with a step-by-step process for writing. It shows how students develop complex theory papers starting with "lowstakes" writing activities that leads to "high-stakes" formal papers. This process incorporates a continuous improvement plan that uses several types of peer review. A campus-wide committee, referred to as the Writing in the Discipline Committee, also reviews and approves the pedagogical writing process used in the course. Student survey data is presented to measure student attitudes and perceptions. Sample grades are presented to show trends. Analysis, recommendations and conclusions are given. The goal here is to present a useful case study for faculty interested in teaching a writing intensive or WID course. Background There are two important background points that should be made. One, what type of writing is currently emphasized in this discipline pedagogically? Two, are there significant writing style differences in the discipline that that require faculty in the discipline to guide the student thought and writing process? The current emphasis in engineering and engineering technology programs is placed on highly formatted technical and scientific laboratory reports. 1 The problem with this type of technical writing in the discipline is that it doesn't really prepare students to communicate 1 It is interesting to note that students have had a difficult time writing the conclusions in their laboratory reports. That is because conclusions are the most open-ended aspect of the report and require the summation of ideas. This complaint was one of the reasons for developing an earlier program at SUNY Farmingdale called Writing Across the Curriculum, a forerunner to the Writing in the Discipline program. Shapiro (2005) noted similar comments. P ge 10479.1 "Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education" their ideas in areas such as design, ethics, policy, philosophy and social awareness because it's too stylized and canned. Writing about these larger ideas is important because it comprises much of the rational behind professional decision making. If students can't articulate these ideas then they will be limited in their professional careers. There are also differences, diversity, and heterogeneity that are emphasized in writing in each discipline (Monroe 2003). We should prepare students to use this discipline specific type of shorthand and thought process for professional writing. We can conclude that faculty outside the discipline can't effectively critique the content and discussion within the discipline because of these differences. Faculty in the discipline should also emphasize the non-technical and open-ended aspects of writing in the discipline. The Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) and Writing in the Disciplines (WID) movement were both developed to improve student writing. 2 There is literature on both sides to question or support WAC/WID goals and pedagogies (Ochsner & Fowler 2004). As faculty, we empirically know that the more students write the better they become so developing a structured writing routine is key to student success. As teaching practitioners, the issue is not so much about which program works better and can we prove it, rather how does the student become a better writer in their discipline? ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) through their accreditation process promotes good writing and communication skills. 3 This requirement is based on employer surveys that have indicated that students cannot clearly express themselves. 4 These issues are driving the State University of New York at Farmingdale toward requiring that students take a writing intensive course in the discipline as part of the graduation requirement. Thinking and Writing Writing is a critical form of thinking (Zinsser 1988). It is developed through a formal method or process. It starts with collecting thoughts and refining them into very specific ideas. Reading, discussions, thinking out loud, note taking and free writing is all part of this collecting process that lead to critical writing skills (Woodward-Kron 2002). These experiences and ideas eventually become the prepositions that lead to a conclusive explanation of whatever point a student is trying to make; especially for theory writing (Gale 1998). Writing, reviewing, refining and rewriting become part of the finished process. Writing in the Disciplines Committee and Review The Writing in the Discipline Committee provides several important functions. First it publishes a Faculty Handbook on Writing (Shapiro 2005), that includes guidelines for writing intensive courses. The handbook is an excellent resource that includes approved sample course outlines. Second, the Committee peer reviews the course outlines. This becomes an opportunity for faculty to obtain suggestions and constructive peer criticism for improving the course. The 2 Although it may seem that the older WAC evolved into WID, they are two distinct programs. WAC continues to be developed as its own program as is evident by many recent publications such as Guide to Writing and Technology across the Curriculum: A Resource for Professors and Student Assistants (2003), Writing across the Curriculum: A College Snapshot (2003), Writing across and against the Curriculum (2003), etc. 3 TAC/ABET and EAC/ABET Criteria (g) graduates must demonstrate an ability to communicate effectively 4 Similar comments are routinely expressed at the Department of Architecture & Construction Management at SUNY Farmingdale's Industry Advisory Board and graduate employer surveys. P ge 10479.2 "Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education" committee also sets standards for what qualifies as a writing intensive course. 5 It also guarantees that a continuous improvement model for writing is incorporated into the course. Third, it provides a forum for interested faculty to participate in discussions, workshops and expanded faculty development opportunities. The Writing in the Discipline Committee also has a larger mission. The College is in the process of instituting a graduation policy of requiring students to take at least one writing intensive course in the discipline. This committee is charged with overseeing the review and approval process. This process includes completing a formal application and submission of course syllabus that clearly indicates the quality or types of writing used and the word quantity. The committee also asks each faculty to make a presentation and answer questions. The course should be 200-level or above. After review, the committee either approves the course or makes suggestions for improvement to meet the standard for approval. Terminology High-stakes Writing 6 High-stakes writing activities in this course include the formal essays on take-home exams and the term paper. All high stakes writing is graded and revised. Low-stakes Writing 7 Low-stakes writing activities in this course include journal writing from the readings and discussions, summaries and simple comparative essays. Only the simple essays are graded and revised. Student Peer Review Three types of student peer review were used. 1. Individual (private/known) peer review of one or two student papers only 2. Public reading and peer review of all student papers 3. Blind peer review and ranking of all student papers The Process A course description, outline and detailed explanation of components is presented in the appendix. The course uses two writing processes: low-stakes and high-stakes. The low-stakes process is outlined below. Students repeated this process several times before advancing to the high stakes process. The step-by-step process is outlined as follows: 1. Reading 2 to 3 architectural theories 2. Note taking and journal writing 8 3. Discussion and additional note taking 4. Simple writing application, usually a short comparative essay 5. Submit draft version, graded by faculty 6. Student peer review and comments 5 The Writing in the Disciplines Committee sets a 2,500-3,000 word high-stakes writing standard for each student in the course that can be broken up into one long paper and several short papers. 6 This terminology differs slightly from the definitions found in the Faculty Handbook on Writing (Shapiro 2005). 7 Ibid. 8 Dyment & O'Connell (2003) present an excellent historical overview of journal writing. P ge 10479.3 "Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education" 7. Revision to essay 8. Submit