Professional Writing Seminar For Engineering Students: A Pilot Project And Evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract Session 3561 Professional Writing Seminar for Engineering Students: A Pilot Project and Evaluation Rebecca Pinkus, Craig Simmons University of Toronto 1. Background and Introduction The ABET EC 2000 goals and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board both identify the ability to communicate effectively as an essential skill required of graduates of engineering programs. Apparently, a large number of engineering students agree. In response to numerous student requests for additional writing courses, we have designed a pilot program for a non-credit writing seminar that we hope may be used as a foundation for a mandatory (or at least credited) course for senior-level undergraduates. While many American universities have at least two writing requirements in their engineering curricula, such as freshman composition and technical writing, Canadian universities typically require only one technical writing course, often given in the first year of the engineering curriculum1. The Canadian engineering curriculum tends to be based on the more traditional, technical-based style of teaching. This is partly due to the traditional emphasis on science and engineering in this field, and partly due to the fact that few English Departments in Canadian universities include Rhetoric and Composition in their curriculum.2 As a result, writing is not widely recognized as a discipline, so few courses are available. Canadian universities such as the University of Toronto (U of T), tend to graduate highly skilled technical students who may not be as well prepared for written and oral communication in the professional world as some of their American counterparts. In light of this issue, we explored one option for providing additional writing instruction in a technology-heavy curriculum. In an attempt to help improve the writing skills in the Faculty of Engineering, the University of Toronto’s Language Across the Curriculum (LAC) program provides the Engineering Writing Centre (EWC) and numerous short workshops aimed at targeting specific concerns. (E.g., lab report workshops, oral presentation skills, etc.). These workshops are often what one might call “triage” or SWAT team style: they aim at immediate “fixes” for student writing, but do not provide students with much in the way of learning to help themselves. While the one-to-one conferences offer more possibility of changing writing behavior, we typically see only 15-20% of students in the EWC. As an alternative to the one-on-one writing centre work, and to the one or two-session workshops, we proposed a several-week intensive writing seminar aimed specifically at the needs of 3rd and 4th year engineering students. Our seminar was inspired by a short Science Writing course offered at U of T the previous spring, but we designed our seminar to meet the specific needs of engineering students. 2. Seminar design and objectives
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».