An Investigation Into Interdisciplinary Team Teaching In Writing And Engineering: A Multi Year Study

The Sophomore Engineering Clinic I is the third course in an 8-semester multidisciplinary engineering practice and design sequence taken by all engineering students at Rowan University. This course is taught jointly by a team of faculty from the College of Communications and all four departments within the College of Engineering. The Sophomore Clinic students receive classroom training in technical communication and in the engineering design process, and work on design projects in multidisciplinary teams of 3-4 students. This paper presents the second year results of an on-going experiment involving the integration of technical writing and engineering design in Sophomore Engineering Clinic I. The highlights of this experiment include: 1) Comparing sections which are jointly taught by engineering and writing faculty with sections solely taught by writing faculty, 2) Tracking the effectiveness of increasing active engineering faculty participation in writing instruction over multiple semesters, and 3) Fully integrating engineering design and communication deliverables and grading. Time series data from student surveys and faculty assessments are analyzed to investigate the effectiveness of the integrated teaching efforts. In addition, the nature, quality, and definitions of the interdisciplinary team teaching as seen from the perspective of the professors and the students are assessed. The results of this on-going study show that rectifying student misconceptions on the duality of engineering and writing requires active interdisciplinary team teaching efforts and full integration across all course aspects. 1. History and Background In 1992, Henry M. Rowan donated $100,000,000 to the then Glassboro State College to establish a unique engineering program in southern New Jersey. What is now Rowan University boasts an innovative College of Engineering comprised of four programs: Chemical, Civil and Environmental, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical. The College graduated its first class in May 2000 and serves 15 to 35 P ge 682.1 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering Education students per year in each of its four programs for a total of approximately 60 to 125 students per year. The hallmark of the Rowan engineering program is an emphasis on technical communication and integrated, hands-on design and experimentation, which is realized in the multidisciplinary, project-oriented Engineering Clinic sequence. Beginning in the freshman year, all students enroll in Clinics and work with students and faculty from all engineering disciplines on laboratory experiments, real-world design projects, and research projects of increasing complexity. Freshman Clinic focuses on reverse engineering and an introduction to each engineering discipline. In the sophomore year, students learn engineering design and effective technical communication skills. In the Junior/Senior Clinic, multidisciplinary student teams work closely with faculty on original research and design projects. The importance of effective written and oral communication skills, teamwork skills, and technical proficiency is reinforced in the Clinic sequence. In the sophomore year, students from all engineering disciplines work together on semester-long design projects and present results through either written reports (Sophomore Clinic I) or oral presentations (Sophomore Clinic II). Students learn not only the fundamentals of the design process, but also hone their technical communication skills. This paper focuses on Sophomore Clinic I, which is a combined composition and design course team-taught by faculty from the College of Engineering and College of Communication. The challenge in developing and delivering the course has been in integrating the various educational objectives of both the Engineering and Communications Colleges while maintaining a focus on meeting the students’ needs. The goals of Sophomore Clinic I include combining argumentative discourse, rhetorical awareness, technical communication, and engineering design principles. The course structure has been modified each year, with each new change reinforcing the integration between the two disciplines. 2. Current Team-Teaching Arrangement and Course Structure Throughout the history of Sophomore Clinic I, we have striven to strengthen the collaboration between communications and engineering faculty. These efforts are detailed elsewhere. Briefly, faculty from both colleges collaborate in designing all engineering and writing assignments. Team meetings are held throughout the semester to talk about classroom activities (both writing and laboratory sections), plan assignments, and discuss broad course planning issues. In addition, the team jointly evaluates several assignments as well as the individual final grade assessment for each student. The course is structured so that students meet twice a week in small (~20 students) 75 minute writing sections, and once a week in a 165 minute engineering design lab. The two aspects of the course are linked through the major deliverables. In the lab, students work in teams on designing and building a product. P ge 682.2 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering Education In Fall 1999 and 2000, students worked in teams to design a portable/semipermanent bridge large enough to accommodate a riding lawn mower and span a backyard brook. Students worked in conceptual design teams during the first 5 weeks of the semester to develop conceptual designs and write a persuasive proposal for their design. Three designs were chosen, and students were reassigned to product development teams with specific tasks that supported the full-scale product development effort. These design and product development efforts provided the subject matter for the major written deliverables during the semester. In Fall 1999, engineering professors “sat-in” on writing sections. They took seats with students and asked questions and made comments as if they were students. They did occasionally reinforce what the communications professor said, but they did not lead lessons. In Fall 2000, we increased this collaboration in two areas, crossclassroom faculty attendance, and further integration of writing and design assignments. We took this action based on the inconclusive results of the previous survey. The team felt it was necessary to place the engineering professors in a more active role in the writing classroom. In Fall 2000, to increase the opportunities for collaboration and communication between engineering and communications faculty, as well as demonstrate to students the importance of written communication skills, engineering faculty actively took part in selected writing sections of the course, in essence teamteaching the course. Engineering professors stood in front of the room, directed questions to the students, answered questions, and reinforced the lesson as much as possible. In several instances, the engineering and communications professors actually prepared and ran the class together. In Fall 2000, we also further cemented the connection between writing and design by relating more of the writing assignments (progress reports, memos, client reports) to activities in the lab. The major deliverables for the course and the extent of collaboration for each activity are shown in Table I. Table I: Major course deliverables Assignment Objectives Extent of collaboration Resume and Cover Letter (Individual assignment) • Writing for different audiences • Letter and document formats • Description of qualifications and interests as in employment correspondence • In-class motivation (in writing sections engineering faculty attended)—cover letters and resumes were required in both bridge proposals and client report. Proposal for Bridge Design (Team assignment) • Proposal requirements • Library and internet research • Summary • Persuasion • Collaborative Writing • Co-development of proposal requirements • Engineering faculty introduced patent search & other databases • Joint writing/engineering P ge 682.3 Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2001, American Society for Engineering Education faculty in-class discussions of report format, “nuts and bolts” of technical writing • Proposals jointly evaluated by all faculty Technical Description (Individual assignment) • Technical description • Document design • Graphic design • Library and internet search • Narrative techniques • Writing for different audiences • Engineering faculty developed bottle rocket laboratory (subject of technical description) • In-class emphasis of importance of relaying technical information to nontechnical audiences Annotated Bibliography & Literature Review (Individual assignment) • Summary • Library and internet research • Evaluation of sources • Bibliography • Organizing information • Citation and bibliography • In sections attended by engineering faculty, noted application of this form to proposal writing Bridge Design Final Report (Team assignment) • Interpreting technical data • Making recommendations • Persuasion & audience awareness • Summary • Library and internet research • Use of graphics • Short report format • Co-developed criteria and “client report” format • Writing and engineering faculty available for consultation on each team’s portion of report • Joint evaluation of final reports Memos & Progress Reports (Team assignment) • • Required in both lab and writing sections 3. Results of Current Investigation 3-1. Comparison of 1999 and 2000 Survey Results Over the course of two semesters, Fall 1999 and Fall 2000, we have compared the results of end-of-semester surveys with respect to students’ attitudes towards writing. Five que