Writing as a teaching and learning tool in engineering ... - CiteSeerX

Writing as a teaching and learning tool in engineering courses E.D. Wheeler and G.G. Balazs Department of Electrical Engineering, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA 24450 Robert L. McDonald Department of English and Fine Arts, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA 24450 Abstract: Writing should play a central role in engineering education and can be used effectively as a pedagogic tool in most engineering courses. We argue the increased use of writing in engineering courses can help in achieving both technical depth and educational breadth in engineering programs. Toward this end, we often ask our students to use words in describing concepts so they are encouraged to develop a linear, logical, and connected set of ideas they may use in understanding them. Each student is thus forced to think carefully and in detail. The writing assignments are integrated with course material where they often complement analysis and design work. Also, through these assignments, we are able to probe each student’s thinking processes and level of understanding. We feel this probe is particularly important as an assessment tool in an educational environment where computer tools are widely employed since these tools can mask a student’s lack of understanding.

Introduction In its Engineering Criteria 2000, the Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (ABET) calls for engineering graduates to demonstrate specific skills. These skills are demanded by leaders from industry, education, and government.[1,2] While agreement may exist as to what the goals of engineering education should be, such agreement does not exist as to the means of meeting them. Some feel the four-year degree is fundamentally inadequate and that a longer program should be required for engineering graduates, where the extra one or two years could be used for a broader array of disciplines or a deeper mathematical, scientific, and engineering education.[3] Others advocate replacing several engineering courses with electives, including ones from the liberal arts, that would ensure a broader educational experience. The debate is not a new one. We can look back over eighty years and find a Harvard professor of civil engineering supporting, for most engineering programs, a broadening of the four-year degree[4] and the president of Stevens Institute of Technology supporting an extension of engineering programs.[5] Over fifty years ago, we find university professors[6]and industry leaders[7] calling for the broadest possible education of engineers, especially

since, as these authors point out, engineers are often called upon to make decisions on issues having social and ethical dimensions. In the United States, many elements of these arguments can be traced to the proliferation of engineering programs that occurred after the passage of the Morrill Act in 1862; many can be traced back still further.[8] In this paper we propose modest change for most engineering courses. Our thesis is that the increased use of writing in engineering courses can help in achieving both technical depth and educational breadth in four years without reducing the number of engineering courses. We will argue that writing should be seen as a widely useful learning tool in most engineering courses, that it is unique in helping the individual writer to think carefully, and that it strongly encourages the development of a logical argument. Further, we feel that writing is a particularly valuable assessment tool in an educational environment where computer tools are widely employed because these tools can mask a student’s lack of understanding. When we also require students to explain exactly, in words, the concepts and processes they use in solving engineering problems, their level of understanding rises, and the teacher is assured that learning is taking place. We will try to demonstrate the integration of writing into engineering courses allows a richer, more substantive educational experience for each student. With the use of writing assignments, each engineering course can become broader, more interdisciplinary in nature. The choice is not one between technical proficiency and effective communication skills; both can be improved. Our position is that the integration of writing into engineering courses, while not a panacea to cure all ills, can only result in an improvement of engineering education.

Classroom Observations We regularly give writing assignments in the courses we teach. Two classes—electric circuits and optoelectronics— are discussed here. Students were required to purchase a copy of William Zinsser’s Writing to Learn.[9] This book presents writing as an effective learning tool for any discipline, from art and music to mathematics and physics. Zinsser tries to persuade the reader that good writing is a worthwhile goal that engineers, mathematicians, and

scientists should strive towards, just as liberal artists should. The book serves as a motivational tool, a source of information, and, not least, an example of effective writing itself. Starting in the first week, occasional writing assignments—usually every two weeks—are made in each class. The topics are often chosen to complement and reinforce the topics covered in class. For example, in one semester, students in the electrical circuits class were asked to describe—in words, no equations—nodal analysis in one paper and sinusoidal steady-state analysis in another. For the optoelectronics class, assignments have included one discussing the boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field vectors and another one on the sources of attenuation and dispersion in optical fiber communication systems. This last assignment is an example of how students can be exposed to subject matter that may not be typical in an undergraduate engineering course not having a writing component. In this assignment, students investigated the history of manufacturing methods and impurity control on attenuation in optical fibers. Through this assignment, students could see the impact these areas have for fiber optics as well as come to appreciate the enormous amount of effort that has been required to improve fiber performance. Over the course of the semester, students completed six writing assignments, each of which was graded for logical content, clarity, and style. Since students are often uncertain about drafting technical papers without models, the first three assignments were accompanied by an example of the professor’s own “real world” writing which showed them an appropriate format. To help the students understand what the professor would expect in their written work, they were allowed to revise the first paper in light of comments and marks provided on a polished first draft. To make them responsible for submitting their best work from the start, however, subsequent papers were graded without guided revision. A few students displayed resistance, especially those in the circuits class, which was populated by sophomores. As the semester progressed, however, resistance decreased and, for many of these sophomores, the quality of their papers did improve. Perhaps many were convinced by the instructor’s arguments; perhaps some relented in the face of the instructor’s obvious determination. The result was that several did improve during the semester. In contrast to the resistance displayed by some in the sophomore-level class, the majority of the senior-year students in the optolectronics class embraced the writing assignments from the start and performed them with commitment and enthusiasm. Their work consistently improved and their papers displayed an enhanced level of critical analysis as the semester progressed. These students took the important step of investing the writing assignments with importance. Perhaps, being more mature, they could more readily recognize the force of the instructor’s arguments. Perhaps, being nearer

graduation, they recognized their writing would be important in their immediate future. Whatever their reasons, they did seem to believe their writing important. This is crucial to the successful use of writing in any course; the students must be convinced that writing is important and that writing papers is an effective learning tool. During the semester, several students stated the writing assignments allowed them to understand the subject material at a deeper level than they otherwise would have. They said the act of writing forced them to think and to understand exactly what they wished to say and that, as a result, their understanding of the material was enhanced. Several students in the circuits class and a few in the optoelectronics course did not perform well on the writing assignments. The majority of these students were unconvinced of writing’s importance and, consequently, did not put sufficient effort into their writing. We thought, from the quality of their papers, that they were likely first drafts— this is significant since, as White points out, revision is usually vital for good writing.[10] In these papers, little evidence could be found for thinking on the part of the students, to say nothing of their poor writing. We feel engineering faculty have a central role to play in correcting this misapprehension. Being professors in their major field, students look to us as professional models, and, as such, we should be those most able to convince them of writing’s importance. If these students were repeatedly exposed to engineering faculty who emphasized the importance of writing in their future careers, they might well begin to try. We feel, if they did begin to write with commitment, their writing would improve and writing’s utility would become clear to them.

Discussion The fact that writing is a uniquely valuable learning process is the central reason writing is vital in any educational setting. Janet Emig has argued writing is unique mode of learning, that, in her opinion, “writing is not merely valuable, not merely special, but unique.”[11] Her arguments provide a valuable basis for using writing as a learning tool in any discipline. Writing is a process of discovery. The act of writing is not a simple one, several steps can be identified.[12] The learning, organizing, and clarifying experienced by the writer when preparing to write is very valuable and unavailable elsewhere. As stated concisely by James Britton, one of the steps the writers must do in preparing to write is to explain to themselves what they intend to write.[13] Understanding is further reinforced during writing, rewriting, and editing. When finished, the serious writer has a much firmer grasp and command of the material than would have been possible without writing. This process of discovery is important to students because they experience and understand the material in a direct and

personal way. This process is similar to the one experienced by the professor when preparing a lecture. Anyone who has taught has probably, on occasion, wondered if they had ever before fully understood the subject. This feeling of possessing a topic and thoroughly understanding it is a familiar one to teachers. In both cases, teaching and writing, what is to be related must first be made clear to oneself. Then, in determining the structure of the lecture or paper, we further learn, clarify, and organize. We are forced develop a comprehensive, logically constructed, and connected discussion. This may be the key. Writing, like teaching, forces one to think—hard! Much of this experience can be provided for students if they can be encouraged to believe their writing is important. By installing this mechanism, at least in part, into more of our classrooms, we gain a powerful pedagogic tool. It is vital that the student be shown that care is involved in reviewing, correcting, and grading their papers. Otherwise, students sense that writing assignments are not important to the instructor, and, consequently, their next effort at writing suffers. Also, the instructor must incorporate at least some discussion of actual student papers into his or her lectures. This invests the students’ papers with value, which is crucial if the work of writing is to be taken seriously by the class. Writing must be presented as an integral part of the course for the desirable effects to manifest themselves. If we are to harness the well-known pedagogic benefits of writing for our engineering students, they must be convinced that we believe in its importance and utility. As a by-product of this effort, incidentally, we will be providing strong support to the instructors of classes outside of engineering, with a double benefit for our students. In essence, they will benefit from writing in our courses, and, being convinced that writing assignments are valuable and worthwhile, we might expect that they will perform their writing assignments in outside courses with more enthusiasm and commitment. The entire educational experience for engineering students will be enhanced. As we know, both the assignment of writing and its grading is time consuming. In previous Frontiers of Education Conferences, others have presented efficient ways to minimize this burden while still obtaining the pedagogic benefits of writing.[14,15] These workers suggest that student conferences are an effective and efficient tool in the evaluation and grading of student papers. Writing can effectively supplement analytical work, as well as provide another dimension to the student’s understanding, allowing the material to be more fully possessed by the student. Only when a firm and flexible understanding is gained can we expect the student to transport knowledge gained in one discipline for application in another. This writing-to-learn argument is likely a familiar one; educators from many disciplines have used writing to deepen and enrich learning for many years.[16]

They know that, through the use of writing, technical proficiency is not lowered but rather raised. Through writing assignments, individual engineering courses can become more flexible, more topical, and more exciting for the student. Writing assignments might involve some important topic from the past or some interesting recent development. In an undergraduate controls course, a writing assignment tracing the history of feedback could be very beneficial. For example, an assignment on wavelets in a linear systems class would allow the student to investigate a relatively recent development. After having written about a subject many students will have, to some degree, made the topic their own and developed an outlook of their own. Writing assignments are an effective way to introduce informed discussions on current or historical topics into the classroom and are currently used by many engineering educators. For instance, in a civil engineering class, advances in LIDAR technology could provide a basis for a discussion of metrology. Whatever the form, these assignments serve to enhance class discussion because they ensure that the class has thought in detail about a topic before discussion. Alternately, writing assignments could be used to introduce the students to consideration of topics outside the formal course subject matter. As an example of this, a writing assignment on hydroelectric power generation could include aspects of the political difficulties that can result from such projects. If these tools were consistently and creatively employed throughout the curriculum, they would undoubtedly result in a significant broadening experience for the engineering student without necessitating the elimination of engineering courses in the major curriculum. As engineering educators, we need to have the goals of providing our students a rigorous technical education and providing them with the tools necessary for them to become leaders and decision makers in society. We should view our graduates in this light—in competition for leadership and decision-making roles in society. If our graduates are to be effective leaders and planners, our goal must be to produce graduates who can see the whole, who are not continually focused on some small part, and who can rapidly learn new topics. Society suffers, as does the engineering profession, from the relative lack of involvement of engineers in important decisions. As more problems contain, at least in part, a technical aspect, the need for the decision makers having technical competence rises. If engineers are to be allowed to participate in these decision-making groups, they must show they can grasp issues having economic, social, and historical components. In short, we need at least a minority of our engineering students to be able to think holistically, creatively, and in terms of systems. Writing encourages just this kind of thinking for all students regardless of learning style or innate ability. The status of engineering as a profession will be improved by the increased use of writing. Quite simply, those who write more are likely to write and communicate

better than those who write less. Being an effective communicator, each engineer can then persuasively point to, and articulate for others, the importance and utility of engineering in society. Finally, an added benefit of having engineering students write more is that it can be a powerful tool in educational assessment. Writing provides a comprehensive and uniquely penetrating probe into thinking processes. As such, it can provide strong evidence of the presence, or absence, or mature and creative thought. It can provide clear evidence of knowledge and the ability to communicate effectively. We feel that providing clear evidence of knowledge is particularly important in courses which extensively utilize computer tools since students can sometimes shield their lack of knowledge behind a software package. By utilizing writing in our courses, we can improve assessment. No one would argue that a few isolated assignments will automatically result in excellent, more thoughtful writers, or even better engineers, for that matter. As many composition scholars have illustrated, “the development of mature, effective writers [and the cognitive skills involved in writing] is a slow process” of concentrated emphasis and practice.[17] But a programmatic emphasis on writing would, over time, reveal clear evidence for how well an engineering program addresses several of the ABET criteria such as an awareness of ethical and professional issues, the ability to communicate effectively, the possession of a broad education, an ability to engage in life-long learning, and a knowledge of contemporary issues. For these areas, writing may indeed be the most powerful assessment tool available; the evidence provided by student writing is both clear and compelling.

Conclusions Although many aspects of the above arguments are not new and we who now advocate writing in engineering courses are not the first to do so,[18,19] our challenges are real and the need does exist for our pointing to writing’s utility in engineering. By a thorough integration of writing into engineering curricula, we can improve the technical proficiency of our graduates; provide them with a broader, more connected educational experience; improve their communication skills; and gain a powerful assessment tool. As engineering educators, we have control over how writing is perceived. The most helpful step we can take may be to show, by our actions, that we believe in the importance of writing well. This step of recognizing writing’s crucial importance, and making a point of it in our classes, is necessary if we wish our students to truly care about their writing and thus reap the benefits of that care. Since many engineering students will not remain engineers, perhaps the most compelling reason for

engineering educators to take this step is that writing is an effective tool for life-long learning. Some will choose another profession, perhaps law or medicine; others may choose to be entrepreneurs; and many others will be employed in industries which hire engineering graduates not because of their specific technical knowledge, but rather because they are seen as intelligent, motivated individuals willing and able to learn. Writing provides a uniquely valuable mode of learning, and if we ignore this tool, as is presently done in many engineering courses, our students are deprived of a central intellectual experience. For many of our students, this process of knowledge discovery during writing may be among the most important skills gained during their entire collegiate career.

References 1. “Educating tomorrow’s engineers,” ASEE Prism, May/June 1995, p.11. 2. Marshall M. Lih, “Educating future executives,” ASEE Prism, January 1997, p.30. 3. Norman R. Augustine, “Preparing for the socioengineering age, ASEE Prism, February 1994, p.24. 4. G.F. Swain, “Four versus five or more years of engineering education,” Engineering Education 21, 320 (1913). 5. Alexander C. Humpreys, “Four versus five or more years of collegiate education.” Engineering Education 21, 322 (1913). 6. Alfred C. Ames, “Should humanistic-social study be made engineering education?,” J. Engineering Education 36, 543 (1946). 7. L.K. Sillcox, “A great responsibility,” J. Engineering Education 36, 547 (1946). 8. Samual C. Florman, The Civilized Engineer, St. Martin’s Press (1987). 9. William Zinsser, Writing to Learn, Harper and Row (1988). 10. Edward M. White, Assigning, Responding, Evaluating: A Writing Teacher’s Guide, 3rd ed, St. Martin’s Press (1995). 11. Janet Emig, “Writing as a mode of learning,” College Composition and Communication, 28, 122 (1977). 12. Anne J. Herrington, “Writing to learn: writing across the disciplines,” College English 43, 379 (1981). 13. Lois Rosen, “An interview with James Britton, Tony Burgess, and Harold Rosen,” English Journal, 67, 55 (1970). 14. Barbara M. Olds, “Using draft revisions to improve writing and thinking in engineering courses,” Proceedings of the 1994 Frontiers in Education Conference, p.717.

15. Julie E. Sharp, “Grading technical papers during student conferences,” Proceedings of the 1994 Frontiers in Education Conference, p.724. 16. Barbara M. Olds, Marilyn A. Dyrud, Julie A. Held, and Julie E. Sharp, “Writing in engineering and technology courses,” Proceedings of the 1993 Frontiers in Education Conference, p.618. This paper includes a number of references on writing to learn. 17. Gary Tate, “The primary site of contention in teaching composition,” Teaching Composition in the 90s: Sites of Contention, Ed. Christina G. Russell and Robert L. McDonald, HarperCollins (1994). 18. Samual C. Earle, “English in the engineering school at Tufts College,” Engineering Education 19, 33 (1911). 19. F.N. Raymond, “The preparation of written papers in schools of engineering,” Engineering Education 19, 48 (1911). Readers may find the lengthy discussion on engineering education following this paper of interest.