Category Archives: Forum

Engineering education

I’m always trying to think of ways to improve undergraduate education, and particularly undergraduate engineering education. This desire comes out of my own experiences entering UCLA as an undergraduate electrical engineering major. I took a bunch of random, disconnected classes. (I think my first quarter was the third class in a calculus sequence, introductory chemistry, and a cultural anthropology class.) After a year, I hadn’t learned much about what engineers did, I’d discovered chemistry was surprisingly difficult for me, and I had fallen in love with programming (in Pascal; this was 1984). For some reason, this random set of data encouraged me to switch to the Computer Science and Engineering major. After a bunch more physics and math, and a bit of computer architecture, I still had no idea what engineers did besides think about resistors. I got a part-time job at Hughes Aircraft as an Assistant Engineer, and I discovered that testing hardware was scary but that it was fun to follow engineers around and ask them questions so I could write down what they were doing and why. That experience, however, convinced me that I did not want to be an engineer–largely because I didn’t like working at a big defense corporation. But what if I’d had a different introduction to engineering, one that focused on what I could do with that knowledge, on imagining what I valued and how I could further those values with engineering skills, and one that centered on solving problems, not memorizing formulas for problem sets? I had actually entered engineering school with ambitious ideals for what I would accomplish, but nobody asked me about those, and none of my classes seemed related to them.

So when I read about a curriculum that immediately reveals to students how engineers think, and not only that, but also motivates socially conscious students to work hard in their engineering classes to bring about the changes they envision in the world, I am interested.

The book is  A Whole New Engineer: The Coming Revolution in Engineering Education by David E Goldberg and Mark Somerville (with Catherine Whitney, who I assume did much of the writing!). They tell the story of the founding of Olin College of Engineering (started in 2000), the thinking behind the curriculum, and the ways that these ideas have been (and can be) borrowed by and adapted to much larger institutions. It’s a fascinating story in itself, and I’ll probably offer several posts on some of the key ideas. Here I’ll just add its general ideas about  how to get students personally, intrinsically motivated:

  1. “Autonomy: making meaningful choices is a cornerstone of intrinsic motivation” (159). This means letting students make some choices; it means trusting them. “Autonomy-supportive instructors . . . spend more time listening, give fewer directives, ask more questions about what students want, verbalize fewer solutions to problems, make more emphatic statements, and offer greater support for students’ internalization of the learning goals” (159).
  2. “Purpose/Relatedness: Doing things that matter to your peers and to the world at large, increases intrinsic motivation” (163). This means both that students need to have  sense of connection with a community for which they are designing their products, and they also need a sense of responsibility to the very people with whom they are working. Discussing the global influences of engineering, encouraging them to see how engineering has improved people’s lives (and when it has failed to do so), and having them work in teams are ways to accomplish this goal.
  3. “Mastery: Being effective increases intrinsic motivation”(164). This means that students need to be given opportunities to get better. They need to do something, get feedback, and improve that thing. They need to be encouraged to reflect on their accomplishments, asking “What was done well?” and “What can be improved?” (165)

The book offers many stories, and both general and specific ideas about education, curriculum, and classroom practices. I recommend that every teacher read it. I’d love to know what you think.

Advice welcome!

I’m hoping to get advice on three points, all intersecting with EE and engineering writing and pedagogy.

First, the EE TAs are going to be trained next year (by me), and while I have a good idea of my plans, I’d like some input. What did you wish you knew when you started teaching? Now that some of you are faculty, you might have an even more urgent message about that, but anyone who was a struggling, hard-working, responsible TA probably wishes they’d been given a few ideas to work with. What are they??

Second, the School of Engineering has asked Writing Programs to teach first-year composition courses directed specifically at students who have entered as engineering majors. The one and only section (so far) of English 3E is this Fall, and we have some constraints on what we achieve in there, but I’d be interested to hear what you’d include in that class. The two new areas to be emphasized, in addition to what we already teach about college composition, are “the visual display of information” and “exposition/description” (contrast that with “argument” and you might get a sense of what it means and why it’s useful for engineers). I don’t want to focus just on engineering-related topics (engineering majors get enough engineering classes!), but I want to make sure that the course offers a helpful bridge between other disciplines, writing, and engineering. Any thoughts?

And third, I need to write on this website more often, so I’d be interested in hearing what topics you have questions about (or what stories or ideas you’d be interested in sharing here!). I will try to write a few posts in advance, so that there will be a more regular posting during the busy Fall quarter.

Thanks, in advance, for your help.

Mixed Messages on Plagiarism

By Dr. Sarah Gibson

I don’t want to be a downer…but the thing that has been on my mind lately regarding academic writing is plagiarism. I found a paper back in 2012 that plagiarized one of my papers. I guess it was not particularly egregious–they didn’t steal my data and try to pass it off as their own, but they did paraphrase (very poorly, like replacing a few words with synonyms while keeping the sentence structure) several sentences and paragraphs of mine without citing me. In doing so they essentially stole my ideas. I followed the IEEE guidelines for reporting plagiarism, but to my disappointment the editor of the journal that published the offending paper “disagreed” with me that this case constituted plagiarism, and went so far as to say that, if anything, I should be happy that the authors agreed with my arguments! I thought, am I taking crazy pills? So I showed it to the director of the UCLA Graduate Writing Center who also showed it to the director of UCLA Writing Programs,  both of whom agreed that this was textbook plagiarism. At the time, I was wrapping up my PhD, getting ready for my defense, and looking for a job, so I didn’t have time to pursue it further. But it has always been in the back of my mind, so last November I decided to bring up the issue again with the new editor of the same journal. He sent the case to the journal’s Plagiarism Committee, but they refused to hear my case because they said that my complaint had not changed and had already been addressed by the previous editor.

Needless to say, I’m furious. All my life (well, since middle school, probably), all my teachers have put the Fear of God in me about plagiarism, warning me that it is a crime so serious that it could get me kicked out of school, ruin my career, or worse. As such, I’ve taken great pains in my own writing to give proper credit where credit is due, and to be very careful when paraphrasing (even when I am giving proper credit!). So when I am wronged, at the very least I would expect IEEE to have my back. It is so unbelievable to me that they won’t stand up for me–won’t defend the very idea of intellectual property (wrong term?) at all.

One thing that both Directors did point out was how every country/culture (I know you hate slashes! but I used one anyway!) has a different idea about what constitutes plagiarism vs. “common knowledge”, and that this makes the issue much more complicated, since the papers are being written by authors from all across the world, and even the journal editors and IEEE committee members are from all different cultures.

The main purpose of this post is to express my shock and disappointment at this event. But if you have any suggestions for how to proceed, I would love to hear them. I do have a couple more ideas: (1) contact the editor of the plagiarized journal (rather than the plagiarizing journal). This is not IEEE protocol, but maybe they would have my back? (2) Find an IEEE fellow to write a letter on my behalf. (3) Go to the press with a scathing expose.

 

 

Your writing process

What is your writing process?

When and where do you like to write, and why?

What sort of on-going writing to do you, as you think and do research?

How do you know that it’s time to start writing a more formal article (a conference paper or journal article)?

How do you prepare to write?

What do you work on first?

As you’ve gotten more experience, what are the most important things you’ve learned about writing or your particular writing process?

You’ve arrived! To work!

Some of you have signed up, and now the fun (work?) can begin!

I’d love to have you write a short post that (re)introduces yourself to (me/) us.

Did you end up publishing the article you wrote in EE 295? What was the process like after your final version in that class? What have you worked on since then? What wisdom have you gleaned from your experiences? What has been you experience collaborating with others (outside of EE, in your lab, or with reviewers and journal editors). Choose one topic or touch on all them, and others.

You can write your post as if you are just writing me a personal email OR as you want it posted. (Let me know which it is!) I’d like to hear how you are doing, and knowing more about your experiences will help me fashion this site to your interests. It will also let me know what kinds of expertise we have here, in this virtual collaborative space. Your post can remain forever in the draft stage (that is, unpublished), as we communicate back and forth on it, or it (or some of it) can eventually become a short article on the site (only if you are for that, of course!)

In short, you can remain as private as you want. You can just communicate with me via drafts. You can communicate to our small group of UCLA EE PhD candidates and graduates with posts that have password protection. Or you can choose to communicate to the whole world (who is not really looking, to tell you the truth) via public posts. Since all your writing has to go through me to get posted, I’ll need to be told what how you want it treated when I read it.

Eager to hear from you,

Dana

Forums

Forums fail me.  I’m bothered by the messy trees of influence, or the linear scroll through ideas that are not linearly connected.

But I  want this to be a site that lets us interact.  Describing real experiences can both let the describer process and learn from them and also help others prepare for those experiences. Just as important is the fact that this site can become the very thing that you require, as you clarify what you need from it, as you contribute to it, demand from it, and challenge it.

So, at least for now, forum comments will look like posts, and they will be tagged with “Forum.” As we get more topics,  they will be named something more specific than that.   Other management options are, of course, always on the table. That is,  they are not impossible; we can continue to discuss them and make changes.

If you  want to pose a topic for discussion, please create a post and begin the conversation. (You will need to register and have me send you a password before you can do this.)

Where should you publish? Here!

Let the discussion begin!