Professional Writing Seminar For Engineering Students: A Pilot Project And Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".