Course Self-Assessment
Coming into this course, we were only introduced to the basic concepts behind literature by previous introductory courses. This time we worked to provide written pieces that normally correlate with the engineering field. This enabled us to get a glimpse of what the field mainly consists of, rather than following the misconception behind the roles of engineers. Throughout this course we worked on three major assignments, such as a lab report, a technical description, and an engineering proposal for a solution to a problem. These are common tasks and projects that are seen today in the field. The approach I have all taken in completing these tasks, resulted in the accomplishment of 3 goals I’ve set at the beginning of this course. These goals included, adjusting my drafting process, developing the necessary strategies for revising, and understanding the goal behind my writing.
Each assignment had to be tailored based on its background and their audience, therefore for each assignment a rough draft was the first part. Given our lack of experience with literature in the field of engineering, a rough draft was beneficial in creating a well formatted final draft. Let me start off with the first assignment, the lab report. During my time in science courses such as physics and chemistry, lab reports were essential in providing information on what was done through the span of the experiment. This time a report was done based on observing someone else’s experiment. Throughout the draft, I began by carefully reading as I wrote in order to avoid words such as “we” or “I”, given that the experiment was not done by me. Looking out for these possible language mistakes ultimately aided in avoiding them in the final draft. I used this time to treat the rough draft as a blueprint, where I simply gathered my ideas and wrote them down in the appropriate sub section. Sections that I was not normally used to, but ended up understanding given the role they each played in a lab report. Most importantly, when receiving feedback, I used that to my advantage to alter any miscommunication. This is something that I’ve lacked in the past, therefore making it an accomplishment this time. Taking into consideration each piece of feedback, allowed me to approach the final draft in a well organized way, with detailed information on the experiment.
As for the second and last assignment, the technical description and engineering proposal, the same approach was used in each rough draft. There have been previous drafts where I spent too much time on making it perfect, yet the goal was to get the ideas down on paper. As for the technical description, there were various sections leading up to the main description of the technical object chosen. Before beginning the rough draft, I was able to create an outline and include a brief summary of information each section needed based on the object. As soon as the outline was complete I researched additional information on what the object is and how it works. As a result of the research done and the outline made, the rough draft did not come across various issues, making it an easy transition into the final draft. In regards to the engineering proposal before my group I began drafting our proposal, we created a list of sources that corresponded to the issue addressed. Every group member was obligated to find two possible sources. The two sources I included were thoroughly examined for the benefit of the solution being proposed. I would have to say, listing a variety of sources has majorly improved my overall drafting process. The reason behind this conclusion is the idea of choosing specific points in each source that can benefit each section, rather than making up ideas and including false information. Overall, each rough draft was well organized, with certain gaps that needed to be filled. However, the point wasn’t to make it perfect. Instead, approach the draft with the knowledge of the prompt.
In addition to the improvement of my drafting process, each final draft that was created demonstrated well revision by collaborating with fellow classmates and well known knowledge on who the audience was for each assignment. Through this course we’ve put an immense amount of emphasis on the different types of audiences that are likely to read a lab report, a technical description and an engineering proposal. Knowing the audience allows the writer to alter the type of language being used. The lab report and technical description had more of a public audience, therefore I avoided using too many technical terms and focused on getting my point across to them without escalating any confusion. As for the engineering proposal, my group and I had to put ourselves in the shoes of professional engineers proposing a solution to the city of New York. The audience we took into consideration were investors, the public and other professional engineers needed for the design of the solution. Given the experience of each audience, there was a mix of technical and basic terms, while also informing the public as to why our solution will benefit the city. As for investors, their main focus was the budget, therefore putting an emphasis on the economic factor behind the proposal to grab the investors attention. Valuing the audience led to well written lab reports, descriptions, and proposals. In regards to collaborative work, I not only viewed the instructors feedback, but my classmates as well. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, therefore listening to each and everyone of my fellow peers’ feedback, allowed me to turn those weaknesses into strengths, as well as allowing me to ask questions on comments made.
This course has introduced me to various concepts in literature and how everyday writing is crucial in the field of engineering. Most importantly, I was able to achieve my three main goals in completing written assignments.
