Writing4practice in engineering courses

Implementation and assessment approaches

Sibylle Gruber, Debra Larson, David R Scott, Melvin Neville

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In this article, we analyze a two-semester effort to integrate writing instruction into a multi-disciplinary sophomore engineering design course in Northern Arizona University's College of Engineering and Technology. Specifically, we describe the programmatic implementation and assessment approach to evaluate whether student writing improved over the course of the semester. After discussing the reasons for taking a writing-intensive approach to engineering, we analyze the results of a pre-and post-test administered over the span of an academic semester. Although the outcome of our assessment did not show significant improvement, we argue that writing instruction is important for increasing students’ overall learning skills. We conclude by pointing out several benefits and disadvantages of trying to assess writing improvement over two one-semester periods.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)419-440
Number of pages22
JournalTechnical Communication Quarterly
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1999

Fingerprint

semester
engineering
writing instruction
Students
student
learning
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Communication

Cite this

Writing4practice in engineering courses : Implementation and assessment approaches. / Gruber, Sibylle; Larson, Debra; Scott, David R; Neville, Melvin.

In: Technical Communication Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 4, 01.01.1999, p. 419-440.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0002fcedd1eb4fb1abf2f7ebeabbfdb3,
title = "Writing4practice in engineering courses: Implementation and assessment approaches",
abstract = "In this article, we analyze a two-semester effort to integrate writing instruction into a multi-disciplinary sophomore engineering design course in Northern Arizona University's College of Engineering and Technology. Specifically, we describe the programmatic implementation and assessment approach to evaluate whether student writing improved over the course of the semester. After discussing the reasons for taking a writing-intensive approach to engineering, we analyze the results of a pre-and post-test administered over the span of an academic semester. Although the outcome of our assessment did not show significant improvement, we argue that writing instruction is important for increasing students’ overall learning skills. We conclude by pointing out several benefits and disadvantages of trying to assess writing improvement over two one-semester periods.",
author = "Sibylle Gruber and Debra Larson and Scott, {David R} and Melvin Neville",
year = "1999",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10572259909364678",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "419--440",
journal = "Technical Communication Quarterly",
issn = "1057-2252",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Writing4practice in engineering courses

T2 - Implementation and assessment approaches

AU - Gruber, Sibylle

AU - Larson, Debra

AU - Scott, David R

AU - Neville, Melvin

PY - 1999/1/1

Y1 - 1999/1/1

N2 - In this article, we analyze a two-semester effort to integrate writing instruction into a multi-disciplinary sophomore engineering design course in Northern Arizona University's College of Engineering and Technology. Specifically, we describe the programmatic implementation and assessment approach to evaluate whether student writing improved over the course of the semester. After discussing the reasons for taking a writing-intensive approach to engineering, we analyze the results of a pre-and post-test administered over the span of an academic semester. Although the outcome of our assessment did not show significant improvement, we argue that writing instruction is important for increasing students’ overall learning skills. We conclude by pointing out several benefits and disadvantages of trying to assess writing improvement over two one-semester periods.

AB - In this article, we analyze a two-semester effort to integrate writing instruction into a multi-disciplinary sophomore engineering design course in Northern Arizona University's College of Engineering and Technology. Specifically, we describe the programmatic implementation and assessment approach to evaluate whether student writing improved over the course of the semester. After discussing the reasons for taking a writing-intensive approach to engineering, we analyze the results of a pre-and post-test administered over the span of an academic semester. Although the outcome of our assessment did not show significant improvement, we argue that writing instruction is important for increasing students’ overall learning skills. We conclude by pointing out several benefits and disadvantages of trying to assess writing improvement over two one-semester periods.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0000411810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0000411810&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10572259909364678

DO - 10.1080/10572259909364678

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 419

EP - 440

JO - Technical Communication Quarterly

JF - Technical Communication Quarterly

SN - 1057-2252

IS - 4

ER -