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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Reading research quarterly 2022-10, Vol.57 (4), p.1129-1147 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 |