The present article describes and evaluates collaborative interdisciplinary group projects initiated by content lecturers and an English-as-a-Foreign-Language (EFL) instructor for the purpose of teaching technical writing skills in an aeronautical engineering degree program. The proposed technical writing model is assessed against the results of a learner survey and refined accordingly. The survey showed that learners appreciated the cross-disciplinary collaboration in projects, and it delivered important insights into learning effects and student progress in both language and content matters. The article concludes with a list of recommendations for the implementation of project-based collaborative technical writing instruction, which may support or complement academic writing courses in similar contexts. The proposed model considers the circumstances of students in workload-intensive tertiary settings and synthesizes approaches such as problem-based learning, content-based instruction, task-based language teaching, a guided product approach to collaborative writing, and learner autonomy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnsT. F. and Dudley-EvansA., An Experiment in Team-Teaching of Overseas Postgraduate Students of Transportation and Plant Biology, in Team Teaching in ESP, ELT Documents 106, The British Council, English Teaching Information Centre, London, United Kingdom, pp. 6–23, 1980.
2.
Adams-SmithD. E., Co-Operative Teaching: Bridging the Gap between E and SP, in Team Teaching in ESP, ELT Documents 106, The British Council, English Teaching Information Centre, London, United Kingdom, pp. 76–85, 1980.
3.
SnowM. A. and BrintonD. M., The Adjunct Model of Language Instruction: An Ideal EAP Framework, in Ending Remediation: Linking ESL and Content in Higher Education, BeneschS. (ed.), Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Washington, DC, pp. 33–52, 1988.
4.
BrintonD. M.SnowM. A., and WescheM., Content-Based Second Language Instruction (Michigan Classics Edition), The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1989/2003.
5.
NunanD. (ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1992.
6.
FlowerdewJ., Content-Based Language Instruction in a Tertiary Setting, English for Specific Purposes, 12, pp. 121–138, 1993.
7.
JenkinsS.JordanM. K., and WeilandP. O., The Role of Writing in Graduate Engineering Education: A Survey of Faculty Beliefs and Practices, English for Specific Purposes, 12, pp. 51–67, 1993.
8.
KolS., English for Students of Mathematics and Computer Science: A Content-Based Instruction Course, in Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings, CrandallJ. and KaufmanD. (eds.), Case Studies in TESOL Practice Series, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Alexandria, Virginia, pp. 63–77, 2002.
9.
ZhuW., Faculty Views on the Importance of Writing, the Nature of Academic Writing, and Teaching and Responding to Writing in the Disciplines, Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 1, pp. 29–48, 2004. Retrieved on November 12, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10603743, doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.004
10.
CooperA. and BikowskiD., Writing at the Graduate Level: What Tasks Do Professors Actually Require?, Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6: 3, pp. 206–221, 2007. Retrieved on November 12, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14751585, doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2007.09.008
11.
WestG. K. and ByrdP., Technical Writing Required of Graduate Engineering Students, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12: 1, pp. 1–6, 1982.
12.
WilkinsonR., Locating the ESP Space in Problem-Based Learning: English-Medium Degree Programmes from a Post-Bologna Perspective, in ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating Language and Content, Fortanet-GómezI. and RäisänenC. (eds.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series 4, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 55–73, 2008.
13.
WilkinsonR., Integrating Content in Language and Language in Content: Conclusions from Two Experiences, in Content and Language: Meeting the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education, WilkinsonR. (ed.), Universitaire Pers Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands, pp. 453–465, 2004.
14.
ReidJ. and KrollB., Designing and Assessing Effective Classroom Writing Assignments for NES and ESL Students, Journal of Second Language Writing, 4: 1, pp. 17–41, 1995. Retrieved on November 12, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10603743
15.
RäsänenA., Tuning ESP/EAP for Mobility, Employability and Expertise: A Pedagogical Process of Change in Focus, Insight, and Practice, in ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating Language and Content, Fortanet-GómezI. and RäisänenC. (eds.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series 4, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 247–266, 2008.
16.
WolfJ., C++ von A bis Z: Das umfassende Handbuch (2nd Revised Edition), Galileo Press, Bonn, Germany, 2009.
17.
HubbardJ. R., Theory and Problems of Programming with C++ (2nd Edition), Schaum's Outlines, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000.
18.
wxDev-C++, Open-Source Compiler, Version 6.10.2 and later versions. Retrieved on January 19, 2011 from http://wxdsgn.sourceforge.net/
19.
MATLAB®, Software Package, Version 7.10.0.499 (R2009a), The MathWorks™, March 2010. Retrieved from http://www.mathworks.com/
20.
BarrowsH. S. and TamblynR. M., Problem-Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education, Springer Series on Medical Education 1, Springer, New York, 1980.
21.
WillemsJ., Problem-Based (Group) Teaching: A Cognitive Science Approach to Using Available Knowledge, Instructional Science, 10, pp. 5–21, 1981.
22.
SchmidtH. G., Problem-Based Learning: Rationale and Description, Medical Education, 17, pp. 11–16, 1983.
23.
CawleyP., A Problem-Based Module in Mechanical Engineering, in The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, BoudD. and FelettiG. (eds.), Kogan Page, London, United Kingdom, pp. 177–185, 1991.
24.
MorrisonP., The Role of an Integrative Assignment in Informatics, in The Challenge of Problem Based Learning, BoudD. and FelettiG. (eds.), Kogan Page, London, United Kingdom, pp. 211–216, 1991.
25.
BischofG.BratschitschE.CaseyA.LechnerT.LengauerM.Millward-SadlerA., The Impact of the Formula Student Competition on Undergraduate Research Projects, in Proceedings of the 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas, 2009. Retrieved on December 9, 2010 from http://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1109.pdf
26.
NunanD., Task-Based Language Teaching, Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004.
27.
WillisD. and WillisJ., Doing Task-Based Teaching, Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2007.
28.
BensonP., Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning, Applied Linguistics in Action, Longman, Pearson Education, Harlow, United Kingdom, 2001.
29.
LambT. and ReindersH. (eds.), Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses, AILA Applied Linguistics Series 1, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008.
30.
HarveyD. F. and BrownD. R., An Experiential Approach to Organization Development (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982.
31.
KohonenV., Experiential Language Learning: Second Language Learning as Cooperative Learner Education, in Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, NunanD. (ed.), Cambridge Language Teaching Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp. 14–39, 1992.
32.
HerringtonA. J., Writing to Learn: Writing across the Disciplines, College English, 43: 4, pp. 379–387, 1981.
33.
WilhelmK. H., Collaborative Dos and Don'ts, TESOL Journal, 8: 2, pp. 14–19, 1999.
34.
McDevittB., Negotiating the Syllabus: A Win-Win Situation?, ELT Journal, 58: 1, pp. 3–9, 2004.
35.
ShokriN. M., Team Project Facilitates Language Learning, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7: C, pp. 555–564, 2010. Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18770428, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010. 10.074
36.
JohnsonD. W. and JohnsonR. T., The Internal Dynamics of Cooperative Learning Groups, in Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, SlavinR.SharanS.KaganS.Hertz-LazarowitzR.WebbC., and SchmuckR. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 103–124, 1985.
37.
WebbN. M., Student Interaction and Learning in Small Groups: A Research Summary, in Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, SlavinR.SharanS.KaganS.Hertz-LazarowitzR.WebbC., and SchmuckR. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 147–172, 1985.
38.
DiPardoA. and FreedmanS. W., Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions, Review of Educational Research, 58: 2, pp. 119–149, 1988.
39.
HigginsL.FlowerL., and PetragliaJ., Planning Text Together: The Role of Critical Reflection in Student Collaboration, Written Communication, 9: 1, pp. 48–84, 1992.
40.
ReitherJ. A. and VipondD., Writing as Collaboration, College English, 51: 8, pp. 855–867, 1989.
41.
BraineG., Writing in Science and Technology: An Analysis of Assignments from Ten Undergraduate Courses, English for Specific Purposes, 8, pp. 3–15, 1989.
42.
SaundersW. M., Collaborative Writing Tasks and Peer Interaction, International Journal of Educational Research, 13: 1, pp. 101–112, 1989.
43.
StorchN., Collaborative Writing: Product, Process, and Students' Reflections, Journal of Second Language Writing, 14: 3, pp. 153–173, 2005. Retrieved on November 12, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10603743, doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002
44.
NelsonG. L. and CarsonJ. G., ESL Students' Perceptions of Effectiveness in Peer Response Groups, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7: 2, pp. 113–131, 1998. Retrieved on November 25, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10603743
45.
ChoK. and SchunnC. D., Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A Web-Based Reciprocal Peer Review System, Computers and Education, 48: 3, pp. 409–426, 2007. Retrieved on November 25, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
46.
ZhuW., Effects of Training for Peer Response on Students' Comments and Interaction, Written Communication, 12: 4, pp. 492–528, 1995.
47.
ChoK. and MacArthurC., Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing, Learning and Instruction, 20: 4, pp. 328–338, 2010. Retrieved on November 12, 2010 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09594752, doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
48.
ChoK.SchunnC. D., and WilsonR. W., Validity and Reliability of Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from Instructor and Student Perspectives, Journal of Educational Psychology, 98: 4, pp. 891–901, 2006.
49.
CapaldiE. D., International Research Collaborations, in Higher Education in a Global Society, JohnstoneD. B.d'AmbrosioM. B., and YakoboskiP. J. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom; TIAA-CREF Institute, United States, pp. 70–82, 2010.
50.
LissoniF.LlerenaP.McKelveyM., and SanditovB., Academic Patenting in Europe: Evidence on France, Italy and Sweden from the KEINS Database, in Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business, McKelveyM. and HolménM. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, pp. 187–218, 2009.
51.
RizviG. and HornP. S., Reinventing Higher Education in a Global Society: A Perspective from Abroad, in Higher Education in a Global Society, JohnstoneD. B.d'AmbrosioM. B., and YakoboskiP. J. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom; TIAA-CREF Institute, United States, pp. 184–199, 2010.
52.
DeiacoE.GrenA. M., and MelinG., Exploring University Alliances and Comparable Academic Cooperation Structures, in Learning to Compete in European Universities: From Social Institution to Knowledge Business, McKelveyM. and HolménM. (eds.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom, pp. 19–47, 2009.
53.
RäisänenC. and Fortanet-GómezI., The State of ESP Teaching and Learning in Western European Higher Education after Bologna, in ESP in European Higher Education: Integrating Language and Content, Fortanet-GómezI. and RäisänenC. (eds.), AILA Applied Linguistics Series 4, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 11–51, 2008.
54.
TatzlD.A Comparison of Selected Aerospace Dictionaries, Encyclopaedias and Handbooks in English, Fachsprache: International Journal of LSP, 29: 3–4, pp. 107–125, 2007. ISSN 1017-3285
