 |
 |
300-Level Civil Engineering (Writing-Intensive)
PEER EDITING AND REVISION IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
[Students] don't know that a lot of
civil engineers and not managers are involved in the operation and
management of airlines, railroads and other transportation industries.
So the first paper had to do with airlines. . . . Actually if you live
in Hawai‘i, there's very little you can do without airlines. You can't
go anywhere else. That was also another reason why I focused on
airlines. --Professor Panos Prevedouros.
One thing I learned is that writing for
an engineering professor is different than writing for an English
professor. An engineering professor simply wants the facts. There is
no need to be fancy. Just use a clear, easy to understand writing
style and get to the point. --Student
COURSE GOALS
The goals of the course are revealed by
the title, "Fundamentals of Transportation
Engineering." Dr. Prevedouros believes he has the
"responsibility to cover almost everything that there is in
transportation and make it understandable." Though his
students are not expected to become experts on transportation
after taking this course, he does hold the expectation that
writing "can help me achieve with my students a better
understanding of a specific part of the material."
Writing is a way to learn about issues in
civil engineering that are familiar to the students, such as
tsunami evacuation or the proposed O‘ahu rail transit system. To
help students learn the conventions of engineering writing, a
writing guide is provided. Because most of these students will
become practicing engineers after graduating, learning to write
as an engineer while still an undergraduate is an important
component of their education. |
|
WRITING ACTIVITIES
1. READING-BASED REPORT WITHOUT PEER /
INSTRUCTOR COMMENTARY
In the first week of class, students
receive a writing assignment on a transportation topic (see Assignment).
To enable them to complete the first 7-8-page paper in about
three weeks, the instructor provides them readings on which to
base their report. Though the instructor provides abundant
commentary on the first paper, he encourages informal discussion
but does not mandate conferencing or revision.
PURPOSE:
The instructor wants to accomplish several objectives with this
first paper:
- introduce a potential civil engineering
career
- introduce students to the format of the
engineering report
- link classroom learning to real-world
applications
- relate students' life experiences to
civil engineering.
|
The professor was helpful in
giving us a handout which contained the format of a paper. It
showed examples and clearly stated what should and should not be
on the paper. He also helped us focus on the topics. The paper
corrections (done by myself, a classmate, and the instructor)
helped my paper, my correcting ability, and gave me ideas for my
paper. --Student |
| 2. REVIEW OF TECHNICAL
ISSUES WITH PEER / INSTRUCTOR COMMENTARY
The second 10-12-page paper, due just
before final exams, is treated very differently. In the six
weeks from assignment to due date, students have to carry out
research and gather data for a report such as one weighing the
potential costs and benefits of Honolulu's proposed fixed
guideway mass transit system. Two weeks from the assignment
date, a full draft is due to the instructor.
The draft is assigned to another student
who anonymously provides suggestions for revision and editing.
Students look over another student's paper in the role (framed
by the instructor) of "devil's advocates." The
peer-edited paper is returned to the instructor who adds his
comments. On the second paper, students are expected to be able
to take over many of the editing functions the instructor
carried out in the first paper. Where student editors are able
to do this, the instructor is able to focus more on substantive
suggestions for revision.
Though the draft is not graded, students
who do the editing receive extra points based on the
thoroughness of their work. After the doubly critiqued draft is
returned, students have two weeks to complete their final paper. |
The paper on
mass transit helped to tie everything learned in this course
together. I had to be able to join the skills learned and also
the facts that were taught to us together. We also had to edit
other students' papers and that was very helpful. I became more
aware as to what readers want and look for in papers. --Student |
PURPOSE:
The second paper gives students more practice with engineering
writing. Professor Prevedouros says the most important thing he
wants students to learn from their writing is how to organize
and prioritize ideas in a meaningful way and then present them
in a structured, technical document (see Guidelines).
Learning about the issue is a lower priority since the research,
writing, and class discussions are expected to facilitate
subject-matter learning.
| One writing
activity was a small project where we incorporated drawings and
technical analysis into a 2-3 page paper (plus drawings). I felt
this was very helpful, as these are the types of things I may be
doing once I graduate. --Student |
| The peer editing process
provides students with opportunities to assess a classmate's
writing and to reflect on their own writing. Student editors are
expected to provide critical commentary to help the writer
improve the final paper. As they do this, they see how another
person writes, and gain ideas on content, style, and structure
that help them when they revise their own papers. When they
receive their peer-edited paper, they receive feedback on their
own writing from yet another peer.
Perhaps more importantly, the capable
student editor enables the instructor to focus on the content of
the paper. The sharing of responsibilities provides
opportunities for students and (instructor to do a thorough job. |
|
| 3. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND
PROBLEM-SOLVING
Specific civil engineering problems posed
by the instructor require that students employ mathematics,
computer, graphics, and writing skills. These are realistic
problems such as the periodic chaos at the Dole St.-University
Ave. intersection.
PURPOSE:
These short, problem-solving papers apply classroom learning to
real world civil-engineering situations in settings that are
familiar to students. |
Having us make suggestions
helped in putting the theoretical knowledge we gained into a
practical situation. It helped me to understand channelization
at the intersection more thoroughly. There should be more such
activities concerned with the coursework we do in
class.--Student |
In order to make the research and writing
as meaningful as possible, Professor Prevedouros selects topics that are
especially relevant to students in Hawai‘i:
I generally try to
give them a subject for which they have basic knowledge from their
lives--not even having to do with engineering. For example, airlines,
tsunami evacuation, public transit . . . because it is very hard if
you start from an extremely abstract and technical subject. If you
just focus on detailed issues, then they just don't get the whole
picture and that's very bad. Or they perceive transportation, for
example, as something very narrow.
So the first paper had to do with
airlines understanding the industry. I gave them some excerpts from
The Economist and Scientific American [that] assess new technologies,
[describe] how engineers can contribute to running an airline or
designing an aircraft, and also [relate] how airlines fit in the whole
global transportation environment. Perhaps if I had the same class in
Chicago, I would do something on high-speed rail, but it wouldn't
apply here.
In previous times when I taught this
class, we did a short paper on tsunami evacuation. That is another
interesting local subject. So then in that part they learned about
emergency evacuation and what particular traffic implications this
has.
Both instructor and students
value the peer editing process. Dr. Prevedouros evaluates the
experience:
This is something I
will definitely do again, because it seems that most of my students
were very happy, and the few that were not, they were not that upset
with it. Part of the reason is because they had a mediocre editor. So
for them, really, it didn't work out.
Some of the editors made my job much
easier because indeed they went into detail and checked everything,
word by word--sentence structure, paragraph structure, everything!
Probably they went beyond the point I would go. And most of them did a
decent job in that.
They were a little behind on the
substantive part, but that, of course, is explainable because our
students [are] getting educated, so it's hard to read somebody else's
paper and try to make very informed judgments on what is there and how
much else there should be, or that something should be expanded or
dropped, etc., because they are not very familiar with the subject.
Dr. Prevedouros believes that
the peer editors make his work more efficient and academic. He says
effectiveness of the top one-third of the peer editors allows him to
focus more on content-oriented suggestions: topic expansion, addition,
or deletion. If the peer's suggestions are good and he has relatively
few comments to make, he holistically evaluates both the peer editor and
the paper:
You are lucky. Your editor did a grand
job. Use the editor's comments selectively. Good substance and
structure.
If the peer's suggestions are a bit
harsh, he might write:
Editor a bit too rough and demanding.
Use comments to your advantage.
Dr. Prevedouros knows that not all his
students realize that writing is an important part of what an engineer
does nor do they all value it as a way of learning engineering in depth.
To overcome resistance to writing, he modified his major writing
assignment from one long term paper to two shorter ones. Some students,
he said, resented a single paper that forced them to write as experts
about an unfamiliar subject. This gives students another opportunity to
practice what they learned from the first paper and gives them a new
role as critical readers in the peer editing/revision step. |
