Writing Across Engineering: A Collaborative Approach to Support STEM Faculty’s Integration of Writing Instruction in their Classes

Ware, Ryan; Turnipseed, Nicole; Gallagher, John; Elliott, Celia Mathews; Popovics, John S.; Prior, Paul A; Zilles, Julie L.

doi:10.18260/1-2--33671

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The examples in this section are drawn from our work with STEM faculty in Writing Across Engineering, a faculty development program our team developed [29]. In the paragraphs below, we first offer generic examples that can be implemented across a wide variety of courses.…”

Section: Section Iii: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a previous paper, we briefly discussed overall changes to the assignment that emerged from a semester-long mentorship by project team members Ryan Ware, a PhD student in writing studies, and Dr. Julie Zilles, a research assistant professor in crop sciences [29]. In short, Dr.…”

Section: Example 1: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our second example comes from a multi-pronged, large-scale mentoring project in an undergraduate physics course on nuclear weapons and arms control that we have also described elsewhere [4], [29], [30]. The course, Physics 280: Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control, was led by Matthias Grosse Perdekamp and a group of graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants.…”

Section: Example 2: Writer's Memosmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Physics department technical research writer Kelly Searsmith also provided instructional support. Through an extended series of mentoring interactions centered on the weekly meetings of the instructors, the course enhanced and added several process elements related to assignment design, feedback and assessment mechanisms, and scaffolding of writing in TA discussion sections [4], [29], [30].…”

Section: Example 2: Writer's Memosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Implementing Writing-as-Process in Engineering Education

Kovanen

Ware

Mericle

et al.

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although professional boards and engineering employers have emphasized written communication as a key feature of engineering education and practice, a range of challengesfrom lack of pedagogical training in writing to large class sizes and heavy content requirements-often prevent science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) faculty from incorporating writing instruction into classes. This paper focuses on a key theoretical concept from the field of writing studies, writing-as-process, and explores how it has been included by STEM faculty in their teaching. We first review theoretical and empirical work that supports writing-as-process as an effective tool for facilitating student learning. We then illustrate how writing-as-process has been incorporated into varied types of courses, drawing on a multi-year intervention project designed to enhance writing in engineering and STEM. The examples describe reflective, writing-to-learn activities for first-year orientation courses; scaffolded approaches for laboratory and problem-based-learning classes; and directed peer review and response to reviewer comments in middle-and upper-level courses. The paper concludes by addressing the vital role STEM faculty play in socializing their students into ways of thinking, being, and writing in their disciplines and demonstrates how a process orientation to writing instruction can help faculty achieve that goal. Section I: IntroductionThe Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) has identified effective communication as a key criterion of engineering competency, and engineering schools across North America have noted the specific importance of writing instruction [1], [2]. However, STEM faculty have faced persistent obstacles in designing and delivering writing instruction.Common challenges include the time constraints of grading and responding to student writing, particularly for large enrollment classes, and lack of training in writing instruction, response, and

show abstract

Section: Section Iii: Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example 1: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example 2: Writer's Memosmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Example 2: Writer's Memosmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Implementing Writing-as-Process in Engineering Education

Kovanen

Ware

Mericle

et al.

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pilot run of WAE occurred over an academic year, with the weekly meetings occurring in the fall semester and the individual mentoring in the spring. A detailed description of the WAE program is available in Ware et al [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tale of Two Rubrics: Realigning Genre Instruction through Improved Response Rubrics in a Writing-intensive Physics Course

Yoritomo

Turnipseed

Villotti

et al.

2019 ASEE Annual Conference &Amp; Exposition Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Integrating reading and writing with STEAM/STEM: A systematic review on STREAM education

Sun,

Zhong

2023

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScience, technology, reading and writing, engineering, art, and mathematics (STREAM) education is an emerging form of STEM/STEAM education. STEM education research focuses on how students acquire knowledge and skills. The potential of reading and writing to effectively support students in STEM education has been the focus of research. Although researchers have noted the role of language, they have not explored it in depth.Purpose/HypothesisThis paper presents a systematic review of STREAM education to clarify how reading/writing is integrated with STEM/STEAM education and explores the level of cognitive goals in instruction.Design/MethodBy searching for articles related to STREAM education up to 2021, we coded some important features of STREAM education and highlighted the correlations between two or more features.Results(i) STREAM education has developed rapidly in the past 3 years; (ii) Writing appeared in STEM education before reading, and the trend of research is spreading from college to lower school levels; (iii) The combination of reading and writing is better in primary school and is underemphasized in middle school; (iv) The cognitive goals of STREAM education in higher education are slightly higher overall than those before college; (v) Current studies focus on the reflection process of the course, while the main process deserves more attention; and (vi) reading/writing activities in the reflection process achieved the highest levels of cognition than in the entry and main processes.ConclusionThe integration of language activities (reading and writing) into STREAM education is a trend toward disciplinary integration, which helps develop students' cognition and form knowledge constructs.

show abstract

Writing Across Engineering: A Collaborative Approach to Support STEM Faculty’s Integration of Writing Instruction in their Classes

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Implementing Writing-as-Process in Engineering Education

Implementing Writing-as-Process in Engineering Education

A Tale of Two Rubrics: Realigning Genre Instruction through Improved Response Rubrics in a Writing-intensive Physics Course

Integrating reading and writing with STEAM/STEM: A systematic review on STREAM education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About