scholarly journals UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS IN ENGINEERING: TRACKING ATTRIBUTE 7 IN TWO ACCREDITATION CYCLES

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Marcynuk ◽  
Anne Parker
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
National Study ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
The Social ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
The University ◽  
Written Assignments

This paper reports on two iterations of our study of course syllabi in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba. The first iteration was part of a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in a variety of disciplines, including those in the Social Sciences and the Humanities as well as Engineering. This first iteration followed an accreditation visit and the Faculty’s introduction of the C.E.A.B. graduate attributes and outcome-based assessment. Although one would expect Engineering to have far fewer written assignments than these other disciplines, such was not always the case. For example, the national study captured results for Political.  Science that closely matched those for Mechanical Engineering; Political Science students typically wrote, on average, 2.3 written assignments in year 2 of their program, 2.4 written assignments in year 3, and 4.2 written assignments in year 4, while Mechanical Engineering students wrote 4, 3 and 4.2 written assignments in those same years. Such a finding suggested that more writing was happening in the Faculty of Engineering than we might realize – and quite apart from that done in the mandatory communication class. So, our second iteration of the study followed another accreditation cycle, but this time we focused solely on the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  In this second iteration, our goal was to refresh the data so that we could clarify how Attribute 7, “communication skills,” is being met in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  

scholarly journals UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS IN ENGINEERING: TRACKING ATTRIBUTE 7 IN TWO ACCREDITATION CYCLES

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Marcynuk ◽  
Anne Parker
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
National Study ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
The Social ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
The University ◽  
Written Assignments

This paper reports on two iterations of our study of course syllabi in the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba. The first iteration was part of a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in a variety of disciplines, including those in the Social Sciences and the Humanities as well as Engineering. This first iteration followed an accreditation visit and the Faculty’s introduction of the C.E.A.B. graduate attributes and outcome-based assessment. Although one would expect Engineering to have far fewer written assignments than these other disciplines, such was not always the case. For example, the national study captured results for Political Science that closely matched those for Mechanical Engineering; Political Science students typically wrote, on average, 2.3 written assignments in year 2 of their program, 2.4 written assignments in year 3, and 4.2 written assignments in year 4, while Mechanical Engineering students wrote 4, 3 and 4.2 written assignments in those same years. Such a finding suggested that more writing was happening in the Faculty of Engineering than we might realize – and quiteapart from that done in the mandatory communication class. So, our second iteration of the study followed another accreditation cycle, but this time we focused solely on the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba. In this second iteration, our goal was to refresh the data so that we could clarify how Attribute 7, “communication skills,” is being met in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.  

scholarly journals WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS, UNDERGRADUATE LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE AND THE ENGINEERING PORTFOLIO

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Parker ◽  
Kathryn Marcynuk
Keyword(s):  
Academic Programs ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Engineering School ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
Second Year ◽  
The University ◽  
Written Assignments ◽  
Professional Context

Abstract – In this paper, we will summarize some of the results, first, from our course syllabi project that we conducted at the University of Manitoba and, secondly, from our study of second-year students’ levels of confidence in a communication class. In the course syllabi project, we discovered that course outlines in our Engineering school gave little information on the assignments expected of students, so much so that students may have found completing them to be difficult. In the second study, we found that students generally lacked confidence in writing tasks, especially at the beginning of term.  These two studies suggest that we need to find a way to guide students in the writing of the assignments that we expect of them if they are to develop the necessary confidence in their ability to write well within a professional context. One way to do that may be the introduction of a portfolio requirement within the Engineering curriculum, A portfolio will serve as a record of students’ ongoing achievements in written assignments throughout their academic programs and, as they compile their portfolios, they can reflect on that achievement and move forward – more communicatively competent and more confident.  

scholarly journals UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS IN ENGINEERING: TARGETING COMMUNICATION SKILLS (Attribute 7)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Parker ◽  
Kathryn Marcynuk
Keyword(s):  
Communication Skills ◽  
National Study ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Engineering School ◽  
Quality Feedback ◽  
Course Syllabi ◽  
Writing Genres ◽  
Solid Foundation ◽  
Course Outcomes ◽  
Written Assignments

This paper will report on some of our findings from a national study investigating the writing demands placed on students in various disciplines,   including   Engineering.   This  is  a  timely study given that Reave notes that a “well-­‐designed program  [in  Engineering]  will  include  a  solid foundation  in  communication  skills,”  something  she says also requires high quality feedback. For our part of the study, we investigated which courses in our Engineering school target Attribute 7 (A7, Communication Skills) and then analyzed the course syllabi to determine whether they required written assignments. We then described these assignments according to 20 variables, such as the total number of assignments  written per year, feedback provided and genre.Ever   since   the   accreditation   board introduced them, the graduate attributes and their assessment  have  become  the  focus  of  most Engineering   schools,   so  much  so  that  Engineering course syllabi will necessarily include both a series of course outcomes and a complex chart of the expected competency levels. However, information on the assignments themselves can be far less detailed. Consequently,     our    findings    tend    to    be    more suggestive than definitive, though certain trends do stand out. For example, while many writing scholars, such as Paretti and Reave, would argue that students should   learn   the  various   discipline-­‐specific   writing genres  and  then  be  able  to  shape  their  material  to satisfy the specific rhetorical demands, many course syllabi in our study simply listed “assignments”  rather than  specifying  the  kind  of  assignment:  Civil Engineering listed 16 “assignments” of 33 (total) and Mechanical Engineering 47 of 105.Finally,  even  though  this  paucity  of  detail may  reflect  what  Broadhead  calls  the  general “paucity of requirements for writing instruction” in an Engineering  school,  one of the goals  of the national study   was   to   initiate   discussions   about   the   way writing     is    taught     and     supported     within     the departments   of   the   schools   involved.   Our   study’s findings,   suggestive   as   they   are,   may   be   able   to initiate that discussion.

scholarly journals UNDERGRADUATE WRITING ASSIGNMENTS IN ENGINEERING: SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger Graves ◽  
Anne Parker ◽  
Kathryn Marcynuk
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Civil Engineering ◽  
Computer Engineering ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Methods Of Evaluation ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
The University

Based on our compilation of the course outlines from the Departments of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, this paper will focus on our preliminary findings. This study – as part of a larger, multi- disciplinary project – analyzes how often students write in Engineering courses and, when they do, what genres of documents they are being asked to write. While each department includes writing components, their methods of evaluation are different. Consequently, each department emphasizes writing differently, as exemplified in their different evaluation weightings, and this emphasis has some important implications for the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Manitoba.

scholarly journals Development and delivery of a work experience week programme for mechanical engineering

2020 ◽  
pp. 030641902098104
Author(s):  
A Gonzalez-Buelga ◽  
I Renaud-Assemat ◽  
B Selwyn ◽  
J Ross ◽  
I Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Work Experience ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Stage 4 ◽  
Engineering Design Problem ◽  
Hands On ◽  
University Of Bristol ◽  
The University

This paper focuses on the development, delivery and preliminary impact analysis of an engineering Work Experience Week (WEW) programme for KS4 students in the School of Civil, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (CAME) at the University of Bristol, UK. Key stage 4, is the legal term for the two years of school education which incorporate GCSEs in England, age 15–16. The programme aims to promote the engineering profession among secondary school pupils. During the WEW, participants worked as engineering researchers: working in teams, they had to tackle a challenging engineering design problem. The experience included hands-on activities and the use of state-of-the-art rapid prototyping and advanced testing equipment. The students were supervised by a group of team leaders, a diverse group of undergraduate and postgraduate engineering students, technical staff, and academics at the School of CAME. The vision of the WEW programme is to transmit the message that everybody can be an engineer, that there are plenty of different routes into engineering that can be taken depending on pupils’ strengths and interests and that there are a vast amount of different engineering careers and challenges to be tackled by the engineers of the future. Feedback from the participants in the scheme has been overwhelmingly positive.

scholarly journals A Conversation with Theda Skocpol

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Theda Skocpol ◽  
Eric Schickler
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
American Political Science Association ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Arts And Sciences ◽  
Social Science History ◽  
The Social ◽  
The University ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
American Political Science

An interview with Theda Skocpol took place at Harvard University in December 2017. Professor Skocpol is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. Skocpol is the author of numerous books and articles well known in political science and beyond, including States and Social Revolutions, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life, and The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism (the latter coauthored with Vanessa Williamson). Skocpol has served as President of the American Political Science Association and the Social Science History Association. Among her honors, she is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences, and she was awarded the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science. She was interviewed by Eric Schickler, the Jeffrey & Ashley McDermott Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. The following is an edited transcript; a video of the entire interview can be viewed at https://www.annualreviews.org/r/theda-skocpol .

scholarly journals THE ATTRIBUTE ASSESSMENT PROCESS IN THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA: YEAR THREE

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jillian Seniuk Cicek ◽  
Sandra Ingram ◽  
Nariman Sepehri
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Graduate Attributes ◽  
The Third ◽  
University Of Manitoba ◽  
The University ◽  
Academic Year

This paper describes the third year of a studyat the University of Manitoba aimed at exploring how theCanadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB)graduate attributes are manifested and measured in theFaculty of Engineering’s curriculum. Instructors from theDepartments of Biosystems, Civil, Electrical andComputer, and Mechanical Engineering were asked toconsider the presence of four attributes and theirsubsequent indicators in one engineering course taught inthe 2013-14 academic year. The attributes were: AKnowledge Base for Engineering, Individual and TeamWork, Impact of Engineering on Society and theEnvironment, and Economics and Project Management.Data were gathered using a self-administered checklist,which was introduced to instructors in a workshopsetting. The checklist has evolved over the three years inan effort to define student attribute competency levels andto create an assessment tool that meets the needs of boththe researchers and the instructors, as we work togetherto examine the graduate attributes in our courses andimplement an outcomes-based assessment protocol. Thedata from this third year give us the ability to report onhow the remaining four CEAB graduate attributes arepresently manifest and measured in our engineeringfaculty, to look for evidence of outcomes-basedassessment, to evaluate the checklist as an assessmenttool, and to reflect on the overall process.

scholarly journals Understanding The Text Content: Applying Asking – Question Technique in English Text for Mechanical Engineering Students

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-55
Author(s):  
Norita Prasetya Wardhani ◽  
Muhammad Mujtaba Mitra Zuana
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
English Text ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
Field Note ◽  
Reading Text ◽  
Field Notes ◽  
Text Content ◽  
The University

Purpose - The study aims to observe the students ' skills in reading text with the instrument asking and writing the summary results read the text. Design/methodology/approach - To explain the process and the result of students’ writing wrote everything they saw in the class in field notes. Natural design and the phenomenon (descriptive qualitative) were also noted in the field note helping to analyze the data easily. The participants of this study were from mechanical engineering students, 53 students. Findings - The result showed many students could answer the question given and write a summary of the text having been read. Originality/value - Although this research is conducted at the university, the teachers, tutors, and parents to familiarize students or children with questions from the beginning six questions using WH-question mark. This is to train you to ask critically later when you become older. Because actually, the basic question with the WH-question mark is, directing students to take philosophical views. Paper type – Research paper

Lessons in Teaching an Interdisciplinary Mechatronics Class

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Turner
Keyword(s):  
Autonomous System ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Electrical Engineering ◽  
Electromechanical Systems ◽  
Covering Material ◽  
The University ◽  
University Of Dayton

It is common for engineers but rare for engineering students to be asked to work on projects with people whose expertise is in other fields. In an effort to address this shortcoming at the University of Dayton, an interdisciplinary mechatronics class was developed. This lab based course with equal numbers of electrical engineering and mechanical engineering seniors focused on designing, building and controlling electromechanical systems. This paper covers the development of the course and the challenges posed in teaching such a course. The course is centered on the concept of building an autonomous system by integrating a well designed mechanism with a well designed electrical controller. Particular emphasis is placed on the challenge of covering material which is basic and familiar to one set of students while being novel and challenging to another set of students. Additional discussion is included on encouraging cross-disciplinary communication, preventing asymmetrical workloads and stimulating innovation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document