The Role of Rhetoric in Engineering Judgment

Weedon, Scott

doi:10.1109/tpc.2019.2900824

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, recent research on naturalistic decision-making in teams (Mosier et al 2018), coupled with work by Weedon (2016Weedon ( , 2017Weedon ( , 2019 and House et al (2014) as well as our own research on engineering judgment Francis et al , 2022, points to the ways that within engineering, judgment is not solely an individual cognitive act, but rather a discursive negotiation involving the ability to be recognized -by one's self and others -as someone legitimately able to exercise judgment. This recognition aligns with Gee's (2000) definition of discursive identity, which in turn intersects with studies highlighting the ways in which engineering identity is discursively constructed and not equally available to all students (e.g., Tonso 2006).…”

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focusing on structural engineers, Gainsburg identified eight categories of engineering judgment that range from "determining what is a good or precise enough calculation or estimation" to "determining appropriate uses of technology tools" to "discretizing (grouping elements to reduce the number of types to be designed)" (cited in Swenson et al 2019, p. 4). Weedon (2016; In building our framework, we follow the work of Bruhl et al (2017), Swenson et al (2019), Weedon (2019), and others, to focus on the processes of analyzing and interpreting data and contexts to predict and evaluate potential outcomes. Implicit in these processes are not only technical Francis et al…”

Section: Background: Judgment In Engineering Education Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While cognitive science research has historically focused on decision-making by individuals (Gonzalez 2017;Mosier et al 2018), in practice, especially in engineering, decisions typically emerge in and through collaborative contexts (Trevelyan 2010(Trevelyan , 2014aWeedon 2019). Increasingly, particularly in naturalistic decision-making research, scholars have been exploring team cognition (Mosier et al 2018).…”

Section: Decision-making In Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To that end, recent findings from both other scholars and our own research suggests that engineering judgment may be a key learning outcome of writing instruction embedded in engineering courses, in which the process of developing reports, presentations, and posters about ongoing projects creates contexts that require students to exercise judgment and justify a range of decisions. In his ethnographic work on student design teams, for example, Weedon (2019) identifies the ways in which judgments are constructed and negotiated rhetorically through words, texts, gestures, and figures, and he explicitly positions engineering judgment as "a rhetorical competency" rather than simply a technical one. Similarly, our empirical research on engineering student writing finds that students are continuously making complex judgments across a full range of complex technical, social, and rhetorical dimensions Francis et al , 2022.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Francis¹,

Paretti²,

Riedner³

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering judgment is critical to both engineering education and engineering practice, and the ability to practice or participate in engineering judgment is often considered central to the formation of professional engineering identities. In practice, engineers must make difficult judgments that evaluate potentially competing objectives, ambiguity, uncertainty, incomplete information, and evolving technical knowledge. Nonetheless, while engineering judgment is implicit in engineering work and so central to identification with the profession, educators and practitioners have few actionable frameworks to employ when considering how to develop and assess this capacity in students. In this paper, we propose a theoretical framework designed to inform both educators and researchers that positions engineering judgment at the intersection of the cognitive dimensions of naturalistic decision-making, and discursive dimensions of identity. Our proposed theory positions engineering judgment not only as an individual capacity practiced by individual engineers alone but also as the capacity to position oneself within the discursive community so as to participate in the construction of engineering judgments among a group of professionals working together. Our theory draws on several strands of existing research to theorize a working framework for engineering judgment that considers the cognitive processes associated with making judgments and the inextricable discursive practices associated with negotiating those judgments in context. In constructing this theory, we seek to provide engineering education practitioners and researchers with a framework that can inform the design of assignments, curricula, or experiences that are intended to foster students' participation in the development and practice of engineering judgment.*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article 80 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education 83 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education 93 Francis et al. Studies in Engineering Education individual cognitive and discursive practices and the cumulative, collaborative enactment of engineering judgment remain practical problems.

show abstract

Section: Studies In Engineering Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Background: Judgment In Engineering Education Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decision-making In Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Francis¹,

Paretti²,

Riedner³

2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others define engineering judgment as the practice of making decisions under uncertainty, ambiguity, or incomplete information (Douglas et al, 2012;Wait et al, 2013). Still others define engineering judgment as embodied communication processes engaged by teams of engineers to perform engineering work (Weedon, 2019). This paper builds upon these views through exploration of the following research questions:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A thematic analysis of the intersection of engineering judgment and student writing practices

Francis

Riedner

Paretti

2022

9th Research in Engineering Education Symposium (REES 2021) and 32nd Australasian Association for Engineering Education Confere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engineering judgment is one of the defining characteristics of engineering practice and identity. Despite the prominence of engineering judgment in shaping engineering education and practice, the definition of engineering judgment as embodied communication processes and practice is under explored. Most studies of engineering judgment view judgment as something an individual does, however, engineering judgment also emerges from communication and work practices among team members. Moreover, engineering judgments are also communicated when work products, including a range of written documents, are disseminated to target audiences. PURPOSE OR GOALThe objective of this study is to explore the ways that undergraduate engineering students' engineering judgments are embodied and communicated in and through writing practice and processes. Specifically, our work addresses the question, "What is the interplay between engineering judgment and communication practices involved in completing a capstone systems engineering project?" APPROACH OR METHODOLOGY/METHODSThis study employs the academic literacy and discourse identity frameworks. Semi-structured interviews were collected with 5 systems engineering undergraduate students at a US mid-Atlantic private engineering school. The interview protocol involved two 60-90 minute interviews with each participant: one after initial scoping of the project, and one after the project was completed. This paper analyzes data obtained from the first of the two interviews. The data will be analyzed using thematic analysis. ACTUAL OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMESThis research yields four themes that may help engineering educators understand how students' engineering judgments emerge from praxis and writing processes: framing and positioning, audience awareness, analysis, and synthesis Engineering judgments are both conveyed in writing through documents produced and also emerge from writing processes represented by these themes. These judgments are forged by complex interplay between students' engagement with their engineering knowledge base, the technical nature of the engineering work, and the communication requirements perceived by the students as they are confronted with various rhetorical scenarios and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS/SUMMARYThe findings of this project will inform pedagogical interventions aimed at developing students' engineering judgment and professional identity formation.

show abstract

‘Our striking results demonstrate …’: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype

Hyland

Jiang

2021

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Role of Rhetoric in Engineering Judgment

Cited by 12 publications

References 25 publications

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

Theorizing Engineering Judgment at the Intersection of Decision-Making and Identity

A thematic analysis of the intersection of engineering judgment and student writing practices

‘Our striking results demonstrate …’: Persuasion and the growth of academic hype

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About