Audeen W. Fentiman

Responding to Technical Writing in an Introductory Engineering Class: The Role of Genre and Discipline.

A case study of an experienced professors comments on a design report in a first‐year engineering class was conducted over the period of an academic year. When compared with the commenting styles of technical writing teachers, the engineering professors comments were found to be highly directive, and thus at odds with the preference for facilitative comments that prevails in composition studies. However, differences in genre conventions explain much of the discrepancy.

Incorporating writing in engineering classes and engineering in writing classes

For more than a quarter of a century, educators and employers have been concerned about the writing ability of young men and women graduating in engineering and engineering technology. Research over the years indicates that while writing skills are important for the successful engineer, these skills among most graduating engineers are inadequate. Many schools require discipline-specific writing courses in addition to the university required composition course. Writing ought to be a working part of all phases of an engineering students education. In this paper the authors suggest ways engineering and writing faculty can integrate communication skills into the educational programs of engineering and technology students in an effort to make those communication skills relevant to the students.

Fate of 60Co at a sludge land application site

Vertical distributions of 60Co are determined in soil cores obtained from a 10-ha grassland, where anaerobically digested sludge was applied by surface spraying from 1986 to 1995 on the U.S. Department of Energys Oak Ridge Reservation. These results, along with historical application records, are used to estimate vertical-migration rates and perform a mass balance. The presence of 60Co results solely from the sludge-application process. Soil, vegetation, and surface-water samples were collected. Eleven soil cores were sectioned into 3-cm increments and analyzed by gamma-ray spectrometry. No 60Co was detected in the vegetation or water samples. The downward migration rate of 60Co in the upper 15 cm of soil ranged from 0.50 to 0.73 cm/yr. About 98%, 0.020+/-0.011 Bq/cm2, of 60Co remained in the upper 15 cm of soil, which compared favorably with the expected 60Co activity based on historical records of 0.019+/-0.010 Bq/cm2.

An honors program for freshman engineering students: development and long term evaluation

Summary form only given. In 1993, under funding provided by the NSF Gateway Engineering Education program, The Ohio State University College of Engineering (Department of Engineering Graphics) initiated an innovative freshman program with an emphasis on hands-on labs, teamwork, and concentrated design-build projects. This program was adapted from the Drexel E4 program that was developed under an earlier NSF curriculum grant and from other Gateway schools. The program is now a permanent part of the College, and is serving as a recruiting tool for highly talented students. Since its inception, the program has maintained an ongoing database of student characteristics and academic performance. Each participating group has been matched to a nonparticipating control group. Now in its sixth academic year, the program has a solid track record of positive results in retention, reducing time to major, grade point average, and co-op/internship participation. The College has the ability to analyze level of participation in the program, in co-op and internships, in industry and/or graduate school, as well as extra-curricular participation and graduation rates (i.e., time to graduate). Norm referenced data has also been collected to compare student performance with students at other major engineering institutions. This paper describes the program components developed by faculty and graduate students in Engineering, Physics, and Math, plus the results of assessment and longitudinal tracking.

What some thoughtful engineering students say about engineering education

Summary form only given, as follows. On the weekend of October 26 and 27, 1996, six students from four schools in the Gateway Engineering Education Coalition attended the first meeting of the Gateway Coalition Student Council. The purpose of the meeting was to get students��� reactions to and suggestions for projects conducted by the Gateway Coalition. All students attending were seniors in engineering, and all had participated in Gateway projects, often first as students and later as tutors or laboratory assistants. In eight hours of meetings, students discussed their observations and opinions on Gateway projects and engineering education in general. The faculty member facilitating the meeting had outlined topics to be addressed in an agenda sent to the students a week before the meeting. Topics included strengths and weaknesses of Gateway Programs, strengths and weaknesses of engineering education in general, observations on teaching and course content, and observations on climate and retention. The students had obviously given the topics a great deal of though and were quite articulate. The faculty member ma& no attempt to guide or constrain the conversations, and the students��� enthusiastic, but surprisingly focused, discussions often ran beyond the allotted time. While the meeting was originally designed to gather information about Gateway projects, the conversations quickly broadened to engineering education in general. Detailed notes from the meeting contain dozens of observations that engineering educators may want to keep in mind when planning curriculum revisions or simply preparing to teach a well-established course. Students offered carefully considered, constructive, and specific comments on effective teaching techniques, course and lab content (and integration of the two), skills students need to learn but often are not taught, why students enroll in engineering, and why they leave. The paper is an organized presentation of the students comments.