2024 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Teaching Undergraduate Engineers to Write: Standalone Course in English versus Embedded Course in Engineering

Presented at MECH - Technical Session 13: Technological Advancements and Applications

ABET requires that engineering students graduate with the ability to communicate effectively with a wide range of audiences. To meet this objective, many engineering curricula offer a standalone technical writing course and one or more engineering courses that are writing intensive. The standalone course consists of writing instruction throughout the term by a writing expert, while the writing intensive courses are taught by engineering faculty. In contrast, a few engineering curricula, including Georgia Tech and the University of Michigan, formally teach writing in a distributed approach across multiple engineering courses. In this distributed approach, a writing expert not only teaches formal class periods about writing in these courses but also helps design and evaluate writing assignments.

To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches, this paper compares the value assigned by students to a standalone technical writing course in an English Department versus the value assigned to a technical writing course interwoven with a junior-level design course in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Both writing courses are three-credit courses in a semester system. At our large public institution, all mechanical engineering students take the junior-level design course, with half the class (about 150 students each year) having taken or taking the English Department course, and the other half (also about 150) taking the interwoven writing course. While this comparison does not capture all of the differences between the standalone-course approach and the distributed approach discussed above, the comparison does provide insights into designing a curriculum to help students learn to write as an engineer.

To assess the two courses, we are surveying seniors on how well their respective technical writing courses prepared them to write in their summer internships and senior-level engineering courses. For these surveys, we are analyzing quantitatively a set of Likert ratings and analyzing qualitatively an open-ended question. Possible advantages of the standalone technical writing course arise from the course strictly following composition theory, providing more experience writing to a non-technical audience, and having small class sizes—no more than 20 students. Possible advantages of the interwoven writing course arise from students achieving more technical depth on assignments, receiving feedback on the technical precision of their writing, and having a more authentic audience, purpose, and occasion for assignments.

Authors

Prof. Michael Alley Penn State University [biography]

Michael Alley is a professor of teaching for engineering communications at Pennsylvania State University. He is the author of The Craft of Scientific Writing (Springer, 2018) and The Craft of Scientific Presentations (Springer-Verlag, 2013).
Dr. Robert J. Rabb P.E. Penn State University [biography]

Robert Rabb is the associate dean for education in the College of Engineering at Penn State. He previously served as a professor and the Mechanical Engineering Department Chair at The Citadel. He previously taught mechanical engineering at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the United Military Academy and his M.S. and PhD in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. His research and teaching interests are in mechatronics, regenerative power, and multidisciplinary engineering.
Dr. Alyson G. Eggleston Penn State University [biography]

Alyson Eggleston is an Associate Professor in the Penn State Hershey College of Medicine and Director of Evaluation for the Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute. Her research and teaching background focuses on program assessment, STEM technical communication, industry-informed curricula, and educational outcomes veteran and active duty students.
Dr. Ibukun Samuel Osunbunmi http://orcid.org/https://0000-0002-7821-9059 Penn State University [biography]

Ibukun Samuel Osunbunmi is an Assistant Research Professor, and Assessment and Instructional Specialist at Pennsylvania State University. He holds a Ph.D. degree in Engineering Education from Utah State University. Also, he has BSc and MSc degrees in mechanical engineering. His research interests include student engagement, design thinking, learning environment, evidence-based pedagogy, e-learning, broadening participation in STEM education, sustainable energy, and material characterization.
Dr. Siu Ling Leung Penn State University [biography]

Dr. Siu Ling Leung is an Associate Teaching Professor, the Associate Head for Undergraduate Programs, and the Director of Undergraduate Laboratories of the Mechanical Engineering Department at the Pennsylvania State University. She develops new engineering laboratory curriculum to empower students' cognition skills and equipped them to solve real-world challenges. Her past engineering education experience includes undergraduate curriculum management, student advising, and monitoring department-level ABET assessment. Her current research interest focus on creating new learning tools to enhance student engagement.
Dr. Stephanie Cutler Penn State University [biography]

Dr. Stephanie Cutler has degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Industrial and Systems Engineering, and a PhD in Engineering Education from Virginia Tech. She is an Associate Research Professor and the Director of Assessment and Instructional Support in the Leonhard Center at Penn State.

Download paper (2.51 MB)

Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.

» Download paper

« View session