Scaling and Sustaining of a Liberal Arts Speaking Course That Targets Engineering Students
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Many studies have pointed to the importance of oral communication as a skill for engineers [1-5]. In contrast, many other studies have pointed to a gap in the preparation of engineers to present. For instance, at Ohio State University, a survey of 2,100 engineering alumni [6] ranked the importance of communicating orally as 4.30 (out of 5) in importance, but rated their preparation in the skills as only 3.26. Likewise, respondents in a survey of 243 electrical engineers [4] report that "engineering programs rarely required them to demonstrate skills in public speaking, presentation, or interpersonal communication" (pp. 38 – 39). While most engineering curricula do not require a course in public speaking, __________ has since the 1960s for all undergraduates, including engineers. However, our surveys of engineering students have found that they by and large do not see the connections between that required course and the presentations that engineers do. In 2007, to address this disconnect, the College of Engineering in collaboration with the Communication Arts & Sciences piloted a version of the course that targeted engineers. For the two sections of engineering students (about 50 students) who enrolled, the course was a success [6]. This paper presents the scaling of that Communication Arts & Sciences course that targets engineering students from 2 sections in 2007 to 14 sections in 2020. In particular, the paper focuses on the collaboration of the College of Engineering with the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences to scale the engineering version of the course to 14 sections per semester (about 350 students). During this scaling, much emphasis was placed on maintaining the quality across all sections. Our collaboration with this department in the College of Liberal Arts could serve as a model for other engineering colleges seeking similar targeted courses. References 1. Reave, L. (2004). Technical communication instruction in engineering schools: A survey of top-ranked U.S. and Canadian programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18 (4), 452 – 490. 2. Sageev, P., & Romanowski, C. J. (2001). A message from recent engineering graduates in the marketplace: Results of a survey on technical communication skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 685-697. 3. Pinelli, T. E., Barclay, R. O., Keene, M. L., Kennedy, J. M.,&Hecht, L. F. (1995). From student to entry-level professional: Examining the role of language and written communications in the reacculturation of aerospace engineering students. Technical Communication, 42, 492 – 507. 4. Vest, D., Long, M., & Anderson, T. (1996). Electrical engineers' perceptions of communication training and their recommendation for curricular change: Results of a national survey. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 39, 38 – 42. 5. Darling, A. L., & Dannels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education, 52, 1 – 13. 6. Core Curriculum and Undergraduate Services Committee. (2003, June). Proposal for revising the general education component of engineering undergraduate curricula. Retrieved November 12, 2003, from www.eng.ohio-state.edu/faculty/forms/Eng_GEC_Proposal.pdf. 7. _________________ (2011). __________________________________________________ __________________________________. 2011 ASEE Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».