Assessment of Communication Competencies in Engineering Design Projects

Abstract

Reforms in engineering education have caused a shift from the traditional stand-alone course in technical communication for Engineering students towards communication training integrated in courses and design projects that allows students to develop four layers of competence. This shift creates opportunities for realistic and situated learning, but offers challenges for assessment of communication competence at student, course and program levels. On the basis of a detailed definition of communicative competence, three formats for integrated communication training are described: Linked to design projects, integrated in design projects and integrated at program level. Assessment of communication competence in these formats is constrained by their characteristics with regard to student motivation, individual and group work, and situated learning. he Department of Communication Studies of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) provides service communication T courses for the engineering and social sciences programs of the university. Over the past decade we have responded to the demand for communication training integrated into project-based engineering courses by developing three instructional formats, which are inspired by Writing-Across-the-Curriculum (WAC) and Writing-Intensive (WI) courses as approaches to teaching communication. The three formats each pose their own opportunities and challenges for assessment at student, course and program levels, as distinguished by Jo Allen in her 1993 article. For this study, we will first outline what we mean by Engineering students' communication competence, which directs what should be assessed at the student, course, and program

“I Really Don't Know What He Meant by That”: How Well Do Engineering Students Understand Teachers' Comments on Their Writing?

“…Studies on instructor commenting have generally focused on the response practices of writing faculty members, but some work has been done to characterize the commenting of engineering faculty members as well (Brinkman & van der Geest, 2003;Miller, Bausser, & Fentiman, 1998;Smith, 2003aSmith, , 2003b. Studies that compare engineering teachers' comments to established best practices in the field of composition have typically found that engineering faculty members fall short (Patton, 2003;Taylor, 2007;Taylor & Patton, 2006).…”

A Sociolinguistic Approach to Oral and Written Communication for Engineering Students

“…This school of thought can be summarized by this typical course description: "[t]he major goals of this course are to facilitate the acquisition of rhetorical skills and strategies necessary for students to successfully integrate into their engineering school environment and to facilitate their transition to the workplace" (Artemeva, Logie & St-Martin, 1999). Sociolinguistic thought explains that "[e]ffective communication begins with rhetorical considerations, resulting in a trade-off of the interests of the target audience, the communicator's organizational and communicative goals (e.g., to inform, persuade or impress), and the context of the communication" (Brinkman & Geest, 2003). Another important cornerstone of sociolinguistic education is that " [w]riting assignments in English classes should be adapted to real readers in real situations, simulating as closely as possible what students will find on the job" (Andrews, 2003).…”

Towards an Integrated Assessment Framework: Using Activity Theory to Understand, Evaluate, and Enhance Programmatic Assessment in Integrated Content and Language Learning

“…They have seen wide use across professional fields as a way for students to demonstrate competence with a given domain such as nursing (Ramey and Hay 2003), teaching (Antonek et al 1997, Beck et al 2005, and engineering (Alha 2004, Bai and Pigott 2004, Gunn et al 1997and Turns and Lappenbusch 2006. They also have a relatively long history in U.S. writing assessment: they first gained prominence in the 1990s, where they were adopted by first-year writing programs, and have been used and theorized widely in writing studies research (Brinkman and van der Geest 2003, Driskill 2000, Peters and Robertson 2007, Scott and Plumb 1999, Williams 2002and Yancey 1993. They have also gained visibility in European contexts as a result of the European Language Portfolio (Little 2002(Little , 2005.…”