The process of identifying consistent performance criteria – from the Technical Communication Program Communication within the TC program Communication across the College of Engineering (CoE) Effective engineering communication in industry 1.Brief overview of what we did for ABET 2006 visit. 2.Current challenges We see inconsistency in grading rubrics, language confuses students. We need common ground in performance criteria, shared values. 3.Surveys of faculty and upcoming work in focus groups. Agenda:

For the ABET 2006 visit, we mapped ABET Criteria against key assignments in our required Comm-B course, EPD 397.

We then compiled data from direct assessment (grades across multiple sections) to show communication challenges for our EPD 397 students.

Now we want to work on a consistent approach to communication teaching across disciplines in the College of Engineering. Seniors take many different versions of Senior Design, requiring both written and oral design reports. Juniors take our Comm-B, EPD 397, Technical Communication Students enter UW and take Comm-A, our EPD 155, or InterEGR 160/102. College of Engineering Communication Pyramid Sophomores may take EPD 275; will write lab reports

A challenge: CoE faculty and Tech Comm instructors do not share a common approach to assessing communication skills. ME 349 Senior Design Final Project Grading Rubric

TC instructors break technical report assessment down into multiple performance criteria; one criterion is below: Macro- and Micro-organization/Structure (Does the report provide a clear purpose statement early enough to give the project momentum and unity? Is organization of the document logical?) – Clear transitions between paragraphs and sections? – Unified paragraphs with strong topic sentences? – Useful, meaningful section headings? – Section headings clearly distinguishable from sub-section headings? – Section breaks too frequent or too infrequent? Out of 15 pts._______

Goal: We want to identify shared values in communication and create a common language across the CoE curriculum.

We surveyed CoE faculty this spring (2009) to see what communication concepts they value in undergraduate writing.

In the same survey, we asked CoE faculty to rank typical student outcomes on those communication performance criteria.

Some preliminary conclusions CoE faculty value “organization,” but their performance criteria don’t typically employ that word. CoE faculty value communication with a diverse/ multi- disciplinary audience, but many of them don’t require students to practice those skills. Our instructors know both skills need further development and reinforcement across the college.

Next steps for our program: Draw some conclusions from our recent meeting with our Industrial Advisory Board. Organize small focus groups to meet with individual CoE faculty to discuss performance criteria in depth. Identify and create online communication modules to meet multiple needs, approaching a more consistent language about communication teaching.