A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education

ABSTRACT The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Reading research quarterly 2022-10, Vol.57 (4), p.1129-1147
Hauptverfasser: Wilson‐Lopez, Amy, Minichiello, Angela, Green, Theresa, Hartman, Christina, Garlick, Jared
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1147
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1129
container_title Reading research quarterly
container_volume 57
creator Wilson‐Lopez, Amy
Minichiello, Angela
Green, Theresa
Hartman, Christina
Garlick, Jared
description ABSTRACT The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices. The research team used descriptive coding to analyze field notes from twelve two‐hour observations per engineer; they also used categorical thematic analysis to analyze transcripts from six interviews and retrospective protocols per engineer. The analyses indicated that, to some extent, engineers read and wrote distinct written genres that varied according to their role (e.g., quality assurance manager versus test designer) and the traditions of their discipline (e.g., electrical versus mechanical). However, across sites, roles, and disciplines, they used common evaluative frameworks when they evaluated texts’ accuracy, consistency, adherence to standards, currency, executability, reproducibility, concision, and clarity. In conjunction with these evaluative frameworks, engineers also enacted common literacy practices, such as cross‐checking, peer review, using templates when composing, and verifying with the physical world. The study concludes with implications for transformative, rather than reproductive, disciplinary literacy pedagogies in which students can use expansive disciplinary literacies in engineering to address issues that are important to them. As part of these pedagogies, students can articulate why common evaluative frameworks and literacy practices are important to producing safe outcomes in engineering, while they simultaneously expand these frameworks and practices to reflect values and cultures that are important to them. The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/rrq.476
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2727568547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1352719</ericid><sourcerecordid>2727568547</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3066-5643332e2ef5d064a34f5f6bc3703d682e5a57a2aa3fcb9d4c76fa123c0f0f3a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kdFKwzAUhoMoOKf4BELACy-kM02adLscs-pkoM55HbI0KRlr2iWt0ifxdc2oDG_MRXIgX77D-QPAZYxGMUL4zrndKEnZERjEE8IinGJ8DAYIkSRClJJTcOb9BoVFMRmA7ymcVWUtnGjMp4Iz4RV8b9q8g5WGmS2MVcr5G7gwjXJCdvA17I2RykNhczgv662R4W1lPdSVgysnrA9F2fvujZcmIFa47o9D5aKoChMkxh66GFvALG972zk40WLr1cXvOQQfD9lq9hQtXh7ns-kikgQxFlGWEEKwwkrTHLFEkERTzdaSpIjkbIwVFTQVWAii5XqSJzJlWsSYSKSRJoIMwXXvrV21a5Vv-KZqnQ0teUgupWxMkzRQNz0lXeW9U5rXzpRhJh4jvk-dh9R5SD2QVz0Z5pEHKnuOCcVp-JAhuO3vv8xWdf9p-HL5trf9ABHtjxM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2727568547</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education</title><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy ; Minichiello, Angela ; Green, Theresa ; Hartman, Christina ; Garlick, Jared</creator><creatorcontrib>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy ; Minichiello, Angela ; Green, Theresa ; Hartman, Christina ; Garlick, Jared</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices. The research team used descriptive coding to analyze field notes from twelve two‐hour observations per engineer; they also used categorical thematic analysis to analyze transcripts from six interviews and retrospective protocols per engineer. The analyses indicated that, to some extent, engineers read and wrote distinct written genres that varied according to their role (e.g., quality assurance manager versus test designer) and the traditions of their discipline (e.g., electrical versus mechanical). However, across sites, roles, and disciplines, they used common evaluative frameworks when they evaluated texts’ accuracy, consistency, adherence to standards, currency, executability, reproducibility, concision, and clarity. In conjunction with these evaluative frameworks, engineers also enacted common literacy practices, such as cross‐checking, peer review, using templates when composing, and verifying with the physical world. The study concludes with implications for transformative, rather than reproductive, disciplinary literacy pedagogies in which students can use expansive disciplinary literacies in engineering to address issues that are important to them. As part of these pedagogies, students can articulate why common evaluative frameworks and literacy practices are important to producing safe outcomes in engineering, while they simultaneously expand these frameworks and practices to reflect values and cultures that are important to them. The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-0553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-2722</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/rrq.476</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Newark: Wiley</publisher><subject>Case studies ; Coding ; Educational Practices ; Engineering ; Engineering Education ; Engineers ; Intellectual Disciplines ; Literacy ; Pedagogy ; Quality Assurance ; Quality Control ; Reading instruction ; Role ; Technical Occupations</subject><ispartof>Reading research quarterly, 2022-10, Vol.57 (4), p.1129-1147</ispartof><rights>2022 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Literacy Association.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3066-5643332e2ef5d064a34f5f6bc3703d682e5a57a2aa3fcb9d4c76fa123c0f0f3a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Frrq.476$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Frrq.476$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1352719$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minichiello, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartman, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garlick, Jared</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education</title><title>Reading research quarterly</title><description>ABSTRACT The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices. The research team used descriptive coding to analyze field notes from twelve two‐hour observations per engineer; they also used categorical thematic analysis to analyze transcripts from six interviews and retrospective protocols per engineer. The analyses indicated that, to some extent, engineers read and wrote distinct written genres that varied according to their role (e.g., quality assurance manager versus test designer) and the traditions of their discipline (e.g., electrical versus mechanical). However, across sites, roles, and disciplines, they used common evaluative frameworks when they evaluated texts’ accuracy, consistency, adherence to standards, currency, executability, reproducibility, concision, and clarity. In conjunction with these evaluative frameworks, engineers also enacted common literacy practices, such as cross‐checking, peer review, using templates when composing, and verifying with the physical world. The study concludes with implications for transformative, rather than reproductive, disciplinary literacy pedagogies in which students can use expansive disciplinary literacies in engineering to address issues that are important to them. As part of these pedagogies, students can articulate why common evaluative frameworks and literacy practices are important to producing safe outcomes in engineering, while they simultaneously expand these frameworks and practices to reflect values and cultures that are important to them. The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices.</description><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering Education</subject><subject>Engineers</subject><subject>Intellectual Disciplines</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Pedagogy</subject><subject>Quality Assurance</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Reading instruction</subject><subject>Role</subject><subject>Technical Occupations</subject><issn>0034-0553</issn><issn>1936-2722</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kdFKwzAUhoMoOKf4BELACy-kM02adLscs-pkoM55HbI0KRlr2iWt0ifxdc2oDG_MRXIgX77D-QPAZYxGMUL4zrndKEnZERjEE8IinGJ8DAYIkSRClJJTcOb9BoVFMRmA7ymcVWUtnGjMp4Iz4RV8b9q8g5WGmS2MVcr5G7gwjXJCdvA17I2RykNhczgv662R4W1lPdSVgysnrA9F2fvujZcmIFa47o9D5aKoChMkxh66GFvALG972zk40WLr1cXvOQQfD9lq9hQtXh7ns-kikgQxFlGWEEKwwkrTHLFEkERTzdaSpIjkbIwVFTQVWAii5XqSJzJlWsSYSKSRJoIMwXXvrV21a5Vv-KZqnQ0teUgupWxMkzRQNz0lXeW9U5rXzpRhJh4jvk-dh9R5SD2QVz0Z5pEHKnuOCcVp-JAhuO3vv8xWdf9p-HL5trf9ABHtjxM</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy</creator><creator>Minichiello, Angela</creator><creator>Green, Theresa</creator><creator>Hartman, Christina</creator><creator>Garlick, Jared</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education</title><author>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy ; Minichiello, Angela ; Green, Theresa ; Hartman, Christina ; Garlick, Jared</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3066-5643332e2ef5d064a34f5f6bc3703d682e5a57a2aa3fcb9d4c76fa123c0f0f3a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering Education</topic><topic>Engineers</topic><topic>Intellectual Disciplines</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Pedagogy</topic><topic>Quality Assurance</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Reading instruction</topic><topic>Role</topic><topic>Technical Occupations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minichiello, Angela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, Theresa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartman, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garlick, Jared</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilson‐Lopez, Amy</au><au>Minichiello, Angela</au><au>Green, Theresa</au><au>Hartman, Christina</au><au>Garlick, Jared</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1352719</ericid><atitle>A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education</atitle><jtitle>Reading research quarterly</jtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>57</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1129</spage><epage>1147</epage><pages>1129-1147</pages><issn>0034-0553</issn><eissn>1936-2722</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices. The research team used descriptive coding to analyze field notes from twelve two‐hour observations per engineer; they also used categorical thematic analysis to analyze transcripts from six interviews and retrospective protocols per engineer. The analyses indicated that, to some extent, engineers read and wrote distinct written genres that varied according to their role (e.g., quality assurance manager versus test designer) and the traditions of their discipline (e.g., electrical versus mechanical). However, across sites, roles, and disciplines, they used common evaluative frameworks when they evaluated texts’ accuracy, consistency, adherence to standards, currency, executability, reproducibility, concision, and clarity. In conjunction with these evaluative frameworks, engineers also enacted common literacy practices, such as cross‐checking, peer review, using templates when composing, and verifying with the physical world. The study concludes with implications for transformative, rather than reproductive, disciplinary literacy pedagogies in which students can use expansive disciplinary literacies in engineering to address issues that are important to them. As part of these pedagogies, students can articulate why common evaluative frameworks and literacy practices are important to producing safe outcomes in engineering, while they simultaneously expand these frameworks and practices to reflect values and cultures that are important to them. The purpose of this comparative case study, conducted with eight engineers in different firms who specialized in different disciplines of engineering, was to identify and describe the patterned ways in which they used written genres in the context of object‐oriented activity, as well as to describe their evaluative frameworks and literacy practices.</abstract><cop>Newark</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1002/rrq.476</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0034-0553
ispartof Reading research quarterly, 2022-10, Vol.57 (4), p.1129-1147
issn 0034-0553
1936-2722
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2727568547
source Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Case studies
Coding
Educational Practices
Engineering
Engineering Education
Engineers
Intellectual Disciplines
Literacy
Pedagogy
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Reading instruction
Role
Technical Occupations
title A Comparative Case Study of Engineers' Literacy Practices and Implications for Transformative Disciplinary Literacy Pedagogies in Engineering Education
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T15%3A35%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparative%20Case%20Study%20of%20Engineers'%20Literacy%20Practices%20and%20Implications%20for%20Transformative%20Disciplinary%20Literacy%20Pedagogies%20in%20Engineering%20Education&rft.jtitle=Reading%20research%20quarterly&rft.au=Wilson%E2%80%90Lopez,%20Amy&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1129&rft.epage=1147&rft.pages=1129-1147&rft.issn=0034-0553&rft.eissn=1936-2722&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/rrq.476&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2727568547%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2727568547&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1352719&rfr_iscdi=true