| Course | Subjects | Terms | Faculty | Approx.# Students per term |
Description
|
Evaluation |
| 2 | 2.672 | Fa 99 | J. Heywood | 30 |
Program in Writing and Humanistic
Studies
(PWHS) lecturer worked with groups of students on drafts of a
laboratory
report
|
Student questionnaires extremely positive. Instructor assessment also positive. |
| 3 | 3.931 Work Internship or Thesis | Sp 99 | D. Roylance, entire faculty | 15 |
Students met with dedicated PWHS
tutor
for help in revising reports.
|
Both tutor and departmental writing coordinator report uneven effect. Student procrastination in seeing tutor reduced instructional benefit. |
| 4 | 4.131, 4.132 | Fa 98
Sp 99 Fa 99 |
Rotating faculty | 30 |
Students in all senior design
seminars
participated in tutorials conducted by the PWHS. In these tutorials,
students practiced their design presentations, reviewed
videotapes of
the presentations with the tutor, and revised their written
design reports.
|
Department head and faculty teaching design studios enthusiastically support the oral presentation tutorials. They have repeatedly requested that similar tutorials be attached to graduate design subjects. |
| 5 | 5.21 | Sp 99 | R. Danheiser
B. Tidor |
12 |
Second-term seniors jointly prepare
a 30-page original research proposal by the end of the term. Each
student
is required to prepare several oral literature and progress reports.
The climax of the course is a site visit by a panel of distinguished
external scientists who evaluate the proposed project after reading
the proposal and listening to a 2 1/2 hour team oral
presentation.
|
Although enrollment was low, both faculty and students reported that the class of an extremely valuable experience. |
| 6 | 6.012 | Sp99 | J. del Alamo | 100 |
Three writing assignments were added
to the class: 1) Week 3: One-page letter associated with Problem
4 in
Homework 3. Students were asked to write a letter to fictitious CEO
on fictitious consulting job.
Assignment worth 25% of homework grade. 2) Week 8: One-page design review abstract associated with Design Problem 1.Worth 20% of design problem grade. 3) Week 12: One-page design review abstract associated with Design Problem 2. Worth 20% of design problem grade. All writing assignments were graded by writing tutor. In first two, students were given chance to improve grade by resubmitting assignment. Tutoring sessions were offered. Many students took advantage of them. A Graduate Writing Fellow evaluated drafts of design assignments and helped students revise them. |
Students reported
that they did not like the writing assignment
Lecturer observed significant hidden costs: -For the instructor, there is a need to conceive writing assignments that are attractive, are well connected with the technical material, and further the educational goals of the subject. Since we have no material developed and the pace of the subject is already rather frantic, this is a relatively high cost. Additionally, there is a very real cost of managing a whole new series of assignments. The writing exercises require scheduling of grading, tutoring sessions, and special deadlines. This extra cost of management of the writing exercises is significant. Finally, for each exercise, some time is required to review and correct sample write-ups prepared by TAs. -For the TAs, there is also a cost of management of deadlines, tutoring sessions, and extra material in need of proper routing -For the students, these are three new assignments that did not exist before. |
| . | 6.021J | Fa 99 | D. Freeman | 40 |
Optional writing clinics for the two
large required laboratory reports. Aided by Professor Freeman and
his
TAs and a lecturer from the PWHS Undergraduate Writing Cooperative,
students reviewed and revised their own team papers and reviewed
papers
by other students. In addition, Professor Freeman has integrated
short
writing assignments into each of the subject's weekly problem
sets.
|
Although optional, almost all students participated in the clinics. 6.021J staff reported significant improvement from past years in the quality of writing in student reports. |
| . | 6.033 | Sp 99 | F. Kaashoek | 300 |
Students wrote weekly one-page
papers,
one individually authored design report, and one group-authored
design
report. Approximately 60 students enrolled in an optional Writing
Practicum
attached to 6.033. In addition, writing tutors dedicated to 6.033
were
available during extended hours for the week before the first design
report was due.
|
Student evaluations indicate that the writing practicum sections are effective and helpful. Students made little use of dedicated writing tutors until 48 hours before the assignment was due. |
| 7 | 7.13, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17 | Sp 98
Fa 98 Sp 99 Fa 99 |
D. Housman
P. Matsudaira M.-L. Pardue T. Sinskey |
30 |
PWHS lecturers gave presentations on
various elements of scientific report writing and oral presentation.
The same staff also regularly tutored students to help them
revise project
proposals and the final report. Biology Project Lab staff and
PWHS staff
jointly evaluated student oral presentations and written
reports.
|
In several of the Project Labs, there was close and extremely effective collaboration between Project Lab and PWHS staff. A comparison of project lab papers written in conjunction with these tutorials with papers written in previous years demonstrates a dramatic improvement in the quality of student writing. Instructors have also reported dramatic improvement in the quality of student oral presentations. |
| . | Biology Undergrad. Journal Tutoring | Sp 98
Fa 98 Sp 99 Fa 99 |
P. Matsudaira & entire department | 30 |
Students now normally complete Phase
Two in Biology by submitting and an article to The MIT Biology
Undergraduate
(BUG) Journal. The article is reviewed by a Biology faculty
member and
students then revise the paper for publication with the
assistance of
tutors from the PWHS. There were 24 student articles accepted for
publication
for the first issue of the journal in 1998 and 37 articles published
in 1999.
|
Biology undergraduates, biology faculty, and the MIT administration are all enthusiastic about the journal. There is a general consensus that this publication is a valuable addition to undergraduate education at MIT and has provided a new and significant motivation for students to improve their writing. There have been two presentations at national conferences that focused on the The BUG Journal, and there is considerable interest at other institutions in adapting the model. |
| 8 | 8.059 | Sp 98
Sp 99 |
R. Jaffe
J. Goldstone |
60 |
In Spring 1998, Professor Robert
Jaffe
began requiring all undergraduate students to write a theoretical
paper
in the advanced undergraduate Quantum Physics subject, 8.059.
Physics
graduate students were trained as tutors to help students revise
their
drafts and students were also trained to peer-review each other's
papers.
The practice was repeated in Spring 1999, and now has become a
regular
feature of the class. Twenty-two Spring 98 student papers were
published
in a volume, Studies in Modern Quantum Physics: Student Papers in
Physics
8.059.
|
Teaching staff involved in the class report that the overall quality of the student papers has been excellent. |
| 9 | 9.63 | FA 99 | B. Anderson | 20 |
PWHS lecturer gave presentations on
writing research proposals and laboratory reports.
| |
| 10 | 10.200 | Fa 99 | C. Colton | 8 |
Instruction in technical and
expository
writing, oral presentation, and team building skills was integrated
into a pilot section of the Course 10 Sophomore advising seminar,
10.200.
A Graduate Writing Fellow evaluated student writing and helped them
prepare and revise argumentative and expository
assignments.
|
Professor Colton reports significant improvement in student writing skills. |
| 16 | 16.684 | Fa 99
Sp 99 |
D. Miller
D. Newman |
12 |
Communication component attached to
16.684, three-term capstone Conceive, Design, Implement, &
Operate
(CDIO) subject. PWHS and the Sloan Communication staff provided
instruction
in oral presentation, report writing, and teamwork skills through a
new practicum and the Undergraduate Writing Cooperative.
|
Students indicated in questionnaires that they wanted more instruction in technical communication basics and less instruction in teamwork and negotiation skills. The students, however, did appreciate the instruction in oral presentation and help in designing overheads. |
| 18 | 18.100A
18.701 |
Fa 99 | A. Mattuck
M. Artin |
13 |
Communication-intensive "sidecar
seminars"
were attached to Analysis I and Algebra I. Students gave
presentations
and worked on a formal paper with faculty member.
|
Only 10 math majors participated in the seminars. Faculty assessment is mixed. |
| . | Phase Two paper Seminars | Fa 98
Fa 99 |
S. Kleiman | 14 |
Professor Kleiman and one or two TAs
worked one-on-one with students revising their Math Phase Two
papers.
|
These tutorials are extremely rigorous and have been highly successful. |
| . | Undergraduate Math Journal | Fa 99 | S. Kleiman | 22 |
Students published their Phase
Two papers
in an annual journal.
|
. |
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
