1 / 19

Assessment of Teaming, Writing, and Speaking Instruction in Chemical Engineering Courses

North Carolina State University http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/actionagenda. Assessment of Teaming, Writing, and Speaking Instruction in Chemical Engineering Courses. Steven W. Peretti, Paula Berardinelli, Lisa Bullard, Deanna P. Dannels, Dave Kmiec, Chris Anson, Chris Daubert.

fran
Download Presentation

Assessment of Teaming, Writing, and Speaking Instruction in Chemical Engineering Courses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. North Carolina State University http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/project/actionagenda Assessment of Teaming, Writing, and Speaking Instruction in Chemical Engineering Courses Steven W. Peretti, Paula Berardinelli, Lisa Bullard, Deanna P. Dannels, Dave Kmiec, Chris Anson, Chris Daubert

  2. Background • NSF Grant on teaming, writing, and speaking (TWS)--1999-2003 • Concentrate on two courses: junior lab and senior capstone • Specific focus on multidisciplinary (MD) teams • Central question: To what extent will students who receive TWS instruction out-perform their counterparts who do not receive instruction on communication assignments?

  3. Project Overview • Phase I: Spring 2001 • Outcome: Refine instruction format and content to address MD issues • Phase II: Spring 2002 • Outcome: Tailor instruction to specific needs of MD teams (project management, receiving multiple sources of feedback) • Phase III: Spring 2003 • Outcome: Assessment of TWS instruction in junior and senior course

  4. TWS Instruction • Junior Level Unit Operations Course • Four 2-hour TWS modules during allotted lab time on weeks without experiments • Four 1-hour appointments with consultant • Senior Level Capstone Design Course • Four consultations prior to deadlines for phase reports

  5. Junior Level TWS Instruction • Proficiencies: collaborative technical writing and speaking, general teaming skills • Module 1: Introduction to teaming • Module 2: Collaborative Writing and Editing • Module 3: Interpersonal Aspects of Teaming • Module 4: Preparing and Delivering Collaborative Presentations

  6. Senior Design TWS Instruction • Proficiencies: MD collaborative technical writing and speaking, MD teaming • Students encouraged to view sessions as contracted consultations • Focus on writing, speaking and MD issues specific to each team • Support in revising and rehearsing

  7. Data Collection: Junior Course • Teams selected based on weekly assigned labs • TWS taught on M, T, W– not TH and F • No significant different in average GPAs among groups

  8. Data Collection: Senior Course • Placement into TWS/nTWS cohorts done through analysis of average GTA--effort to equally distribute • Divide groups further into MD/nMD for analysis (based on Phase II results that suggest MD is an influence)

  9. Assessment Protocol • Pre/Post Surveys • Student Grades on W/S Assignments • Lab: x teams • Design: X teams • External Evaluations of W/S Products • Lab: • Peer Evaluations

  10. Summary Results: Junior Lab • Performances on W/S assignments improved across the board • TWS student teams more effectively used the feedback and out-performed non-TWS teams • No significant different in external evaluations of TWS/nTWS teams

  11. Results: Junior Lab Course Grades

  12. Results: Junior Lab EE

  13. Summary Results: Senior Design • TWS teams out-performed nTWS teams on oral presentations • MD teams out-performed nMD teams on writing, speaking, and final course grades • No significant different in external evaluations of oral reports among groups • nTWS/MD teams out-performed both TWS/SD and nTWS/SD teams in external evaluations of writing

  14. Senior Design Grades: TWS/nTWS

  15. Senior Design Grades: MD/nMD

  16. Senior Design: Comparative Results

  17. Senior Design EE

  18. Discussion • In cases without confounding variables (MD), TWS instruction significantly improved writing and speaking • Confounding variables in senior design seemed to over-run influence of TWS instruction (prior TWS instruction, personality conflicts between students and consultant, challenges of managing MD teams, etc.) • In senior design, MD teams out-performed nMD teams– regardless of TWS– perhaps indicating that the challenges associated with MD teams may have lead to greater attention to communication issues—resulting in improved performance

  19. Conclusion • Cautiously hopeful that TWS has potential, but future research is necessary to explore: • Specific issues surrounding multidisciplinary collaborations • Unique differences between collaborative writing and speaking, specifically in multidisciplinary settings • Genre norms for each discipline involved in MD settings

More Related