| 1. |
- Gustafsson, Magnus, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
An Exploratory Study Mapping Approaches to Teaching Writing in Engineering
- 2023
-
Ingår i: IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. ; 2023-July, s. 44-48
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Approaches to teaching writing to engineers vary widely across institutions, from standalone courses housed in English departments to fully integrated writing-in-the-disciplines programs, as well as a range of models in between that represent partnerships between writing and technical faculty. But little is known about how widely each approach is used, who is responsible for instruction, or what the overall goals are. In this exploratory study, we present an initial meta-analysis to map current approaches to engineering writing instruction by analyzing papers presented at American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) conferences between 2012 and 2022. This exploratory study is a first step in a larger mapping project designed to better understand not only how engineering writing is taught and, perhaps more importantly, what approaches to engineering writing instruction are effective in what contexts and why. Such mapping can facilitate a deeper dialogues locally, nationally, and globally about the strengths and limitations of various approaches.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gustafsson, Magnus, 1965, et al.
(författare)
-
Which contextual factors influence writing programme design in engineering education and what are the consequences for disciplinary literacy?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Bidrag från den 9:e utvecklingskonferensen för Sveriges ingenjörsutbildningar. - 9789174856200
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This workshop aims to allow participants to compare and discuss different ways of organising writing development in engineering education. On providing some examples and possible frameworks for considering writing development design, the facilitators will introduce an explorative activity to describe and categorise writing intervention along the scales of how generic or discipline-specific they are and how integrated or independent they are. This activity will generate a discussion about what our learning outcomes are, who designs and delivers writing development interventions, where and when in a programme should writing interventions be prioritised, and how does writing development design help enhance students’ disciplinary literacy? What is the focus of the writing development provided students Participants in the workshop will be asked to refer to their own experience and course or programme design as well as their supervision experience.
|
|
| 3. |
- Paretti, Marie C., et al.
(författare)
-
Faculty and Student Perceptions of the Impacts of Communication in the Disciplines (CID) on Students’ Development as Engineers
- 2019
-
Ingår i: IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. - 0361-1434 .- 1558-1500. ; 62:1, s. 27-42
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background :Research suggests that communication instruction is particularly effective when situated indisciplinary courses. While studies show that this approach improves communication skills, less is known about how itenhances engineering learning. Literature review :Prior work includes approaches to integrating communication intoengineering, studies of writing to learn, and explorations of the role of communication in identity development. Research question :How might the integration of communication instruction and practice into undergraduateengineering courses support engineering learning? Methodology :Because little is known about how communicationinstruction enhances engineering learning, we conducted an exploratory case study of an established integratedprogram in one European university. Participants included six engineering instructors, five engineering program heads,and six engineering students. Using interviews and focus groups, we explored the engineering-specific gains thatfaculty and students perceived from integrating communication assignments into engineering courses. Results :Ouranalysis yielded three salient areas of learning: 1. understanding disciplinary content, 2. selecting importantinformation, and 3. justifying choices. While the first aligns tightly with writing-to-learn research, all three themes, infact, bridge content learning and disciplinary literacy to enhance students’ development as engineering professionals. Conclusions :Communication instruction can potentially support engineering learning through assignments that promptstudents to select information in ways that are consistent with both disciplinary values and the needs of stakeholders,and make and justify decisions about approaches and solutions in ways that demonstrate sound engineering judgment.
|
|
