Implementing Informal Writing Assignments And A Feedback And Revision Loop To Enhance Learning In Engineering Courses

Several studies have shown that two methods enhance student learning in courses requiring written assignments. The first, informal writing, is an exercise that encourages students to “think on paper” (or perhaps more often, “think on a screen”). Fundamental to this exercise is learning to record observations, interpret data, and document the solutions to problems. The second method requires that students receive feedback on formal assignments they have submitted. The student is then required to revise the assignment using this feedback and then resubmit for grading. While both of these methods are well proven enhancements to the leaning process, they have historically been shunned by engineering faculty. At our university, a campus-wide program for integrating communication requirements into various curricula has had success in overcoming faculty and student resistance to these and other teaching methods not typically found in the engineering disciplines. The Communication Across the Curriculum (CxC) Program uses workshops, Summer Faculty Institutes, discipline-specific communication studios, and an online searchable database to assist faculty in the development and implementation of innovative assignments to build students’ communication skills. Incorporating these two learning techniques for written assignments was found to be most challenging in Capstone and laboratory courses; therefore, examples of successful implementation in each are presented. Workload impact was found to be minimal when the faculty member had obtained tools at a CxC workshop or institute and also took advantage of the Engineering Communication Studio resources. Student acceptance was documented via course-end questionnaires and selected focus groups. Both assessment approaches have yielded consistently positive student responses. Other assessment methods are in development, but early indicators are encouraging. Introduction. In most composition classrooms, informal writing techniques and revision strategies have long been accepted as effective for improving student writing. Broadly, informal writing is risk-free (not graded and does not follow specific conventions) writing that is designed to aid the student thinking and learning process. Informal writing takes many forms: listing, freewriting, journaling, and even doodling. Ultimately, informal writing is a place where the writing process begins. When informal writing is applied to a larger assignment, it may also be referred to as generative writing or prewriting since its goal is to generate ideas for and approaches to a larger project. Conversely, formal writing is writing that must follow conventional forms and is usually graded for grammar, form, and correctness. It is the product of a writing process. As the teaching of writing has expanded beyond English departments, settled strategies for the teaching of writing have slowly made their way into classes across the curriculum. Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) programs owe much to James Britton’s The Development of Writing Abilities 1 , in which he not only coined the phrase “Writing across the Curriculum” but also discussed the role informal writing should take in the teaching of writing Peter Elbow’s Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process 2 expanded on Britton’s work, focusing on the need to teach the entire writing process, including revision and editing techniques. P ge 13709.2 Although informal writing’s importance in the writing process has been well-accepted by English faculty, its adoption has met significant resistance from engineering faculty members, who quite often view this as a burdensome addition to an already demanding academic program. However, the need for implementing such a process gained considerable momentum when it was acknowledged that the teaching of communication skills was crucial to preparing students for professional engineering careers. This need was formalized when the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditations Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) put forth criteria in the Engineering Criteria 2000, specifically criterion 3 under “Program Outcomes and Assessments,” which requires students to graduate with both teamwork and communication skills. 3 At our university, implementation of these writing techniques is a multi-layered process involving a campus-wide communication initiative, a certification process for communication intensive courses, and an engineering-specific communication studio. As these new techniques are integrated into the engineering curriculum, we are concurrently developing an assessment program to critically review the impacts on the curriculum and the increase in writing skills gained by the students. This assessment utilizes an outside advisory body, digital portfolios, and student feedback via questionnaires. The Campus-Wide Communication Program. Writing across the curriculum has been updated to include visual, oral, and technological communication in addition to writing in an initiative called Communication across the Curriculum (CxC). CxC offers students the opportunity to earn Distinguished Communicator (DC) certification by completing 12 hours of CommunicationIntensive (C-I) courses with exemplary grades, demonstrating evidence of leadership on campus and in the community, and assembling a digital portfolio showcasing their communication skills. In addition to the DC program, the initiatives described below are key elements of the CxC program that have been successfully implemented in the College of Engineering in order to integrate communication skills into the existing engineering curricula. Communication-Intensive Courses. One way of accomplishing the goal of improving communication is through the support of C-I courses within the CoE curriculum. C-I designated courses meet specific criteria concerning communication, such as focusing on at least two of four communication modes (spoken, visual, technological, and written), multiple iterations of written and/or oral projects, and concentrating at least 40% of the course grade on communication. Currently in the CoE, there are 31 C-I designated courses throughout the curriculum, ranging from introductory to capstone courses. All Engineering disciplines have at least one C-I designated course in their core curriculum. CxC provides several resources for faculty who are interested in designing a C-I course. Faculty Summer Institutes. Since 2005, CxC has held three Summer Faculty Institutes for faculty interested in improving communication skills in their classes and curricula. The participants are introduced to strategies and techniques by both internal faculty leaders and outside consultants. Previous faculty participants set the tone for each subsequent Summer Institute by discussing successes and setbacks experienced in their classrooms when implementing communication strategies. Consultants from other universities are invited to lead workshops on how to design and assess oral, written, and visual communication projects. So far, P ge 13709.3 27 engineering faculty members have participated in the CxC Summer Faculty Institutes. In order to teach a C-I course in the CoE, Engineering faculty must attend a Summer Institute. In turn, the faculty are invited back to Summer Institutes to provide a feedback loop as they discuss their experiences teaching C-I courses. Summer Institute participants learn about assessment strategies and rubric design, and they also learn ways to effectively integrate assessment into the iterative process throughout the course of a project and a semester. Lively debate between the consultants and the faculty is encouraged. The faculty participants are divided into inter-disciplinary teams (except for the Engineering faculty, who need to concentrate on ways to fill the void left by the removal of Technical Writing from the English Department), which design presentations that highlight what they have learned at the institute, as well as how they plan to implement the various techniques in their classes. Workshops. Schedules for various workshops offered by CxC and workshop materials can be found on the CxC website by any interested faculty member. Since its inception in 2005, CxC has presented 13 faculty-focused workshops on topics ranging from designing a website to using video in a classroom. The majority of the workshops (7) have focused on incorporating communication into the classroom and developing C-I syllabi, and two have been specifically focused on grading informal and formal writing and incorporating them into a syllabus. The workshops are led by faculty members who have experienced success in their classrooms or who feel that their experiences may be valuable to other faculty members. Engineering faculty have served as leaders for three workshops. Searchable Database. CxC also offers an online searchable database for faculty interested in looking at syllabi, rubrics, and assignment ideas. The resources in the database are produced by faculty at this institution and are also gathered from other universities, providing a wide scope of ideas, discussion, and viewpoints on issues regarding communication. The Engineering Communication Studio (ECS). The ECS assists Engineering faculty through consultation on syllabus and assignment generation, help with meeting C-I course requirements, and sharing lecture responsibilities and class preparation. Because ECS staff members work with such a wide array of faculty in a variety of disciplines within the CoE, they are familiar with a range of pedagogical approaches to the many communication requirements of C-I courses. While Engineering faculty have long been comfortable with teaching and grading technical reports and other assignments found in traditional Engineering courses, they may be less familiar with other ideas for meeting communication requirements, including informal assignments like freewriti