1

Proposed Direction
James Toliver
AET/ 525
University of Phoenix
Deborah Hatfield
May 24, 2014







2

Proposed Direction
Life proves that there is never one way of doing things. This includes driving, cooking,
tying a knot, and even teaching a class. There are many attempts in creating an instructional
modules for teaching written, oral, and graphical communication skills to engineering students.
Numerous of modifications could be made to alter and improve this instructional module. No
two students learn the same at the same time and rate. Their experiences, abilities and overall
needs will be different in some shape form or fashion. Along with that comes into play their
leaning style and ability, language proficiency or barrier and their eagerness or readiness to learn
said content. Regardless of the different factors presented, the overall goal is to put all of those
aside and find the best possible solution to educate those differences into one cohesive
environment. Best practices are that theories have been created so that educators may build a
classroom that addresses the majority of learning styles. Results are maximized when students
make a distinctive connection between the diversity presented to them from other classmates and
the curriculum itself.
EC 2000 requires that engineering students learn and demonstrate an ability to communicate
effectively, implying that they develop oral, written, and graphical communication skills in an
engineering context. Russell Pimmel came up with an insightful instructional strategies. He
decided to use three separate module for the classes: oral, written, and graphical. Each of the
three modules uses three 50-minute classes and relies heavily on active-cooperative learning
strategies and Internet-based resources. The written communications module requires no specific
prerequisite knowledge. However, it is best if students have successfully completed a
fundamental English composition course. (Rimmel, 2000). I agree to his method and think that it
is a very effect way to teach the required content. However, I have to suggestive modifications
3

that I would do differently. Instead of three strategies used to teach the material, I would alter
and eliminate the written communication strategy. The required content for written
communication for Rimmels strategy is, We focus the written communications module on
executive summaries as a representative form of technical writing. We design the material so
that, after completing the module, the students should be able to: distinguish between well-
written and poorly-written executive summaries, identify the attributes of a well-written
executive summary, and write an effective executive summary on a topic in the course where the
module is offered. Most people refuse to go to community colleges because they do not want to
take classes that they didnt need. The same outlook can be applied here. Why teach students
materials that is not required. It will waste the instructors time as well as the students. Rimmel
clearly states that the written communications module requires no specific prerequisite
knowledge (Rimmel, 2014). Why try to force it upon them with the fundamental English
background. I would alter the written communication module and incorporate it into teaching it
with the presentation. The students would still be able to learn the material listed above, just in a
less formal manner. Instead of teaching it separate, I would introduce it with the presentation
process. That extra fifty minutes of time and effort would be used on something else; which
brings me to my second modification.
I would create a peer to peer strategy to incorporate in the instructional module. Peer to
peer strategy will give students an opportunity to teach themselves rather than sit behind the desk
and listen to a facilitator for almost an hour. The created lesson plan for the class, such as
learning objectives, would be given to the students. Instead of the professor telling them what
each objective is, the student will have to research the information for themselves. Just like the
old saying goes give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for
4

eternity. The peer to peer strategy is created to teach students to use their resources that would
last them a lifetime. A professor telling them will carry their knowledge for that class. If a
student has to teach it back to the professor, they retain the information for a long time.
The instructional model states, A review of the written comments in the written communication
module survey indicated that the in-class activities should be expanded. For instance, it would be
desirable to have students present their critiques of each others work on a screen using
projection equipment. Then, it would be desirable to have the professor critique the critique.
This was actually the plan for the exercise, but limitations on classroom equipment prevented
this when the module was taught. As I stated before, my peer to peer strategy would ensure that
students understand the material.
One modification I would make it the instructional strategys Monday, Wednesday, and
Friday schedule. On Monday I would have the required oral communication which includes
presentations. This will give students the weekend to master their written and presentation skills.
On Wednesday, I would teach the required graphical materials to the students. On Friday, I
would incorporate my peer to peer learning style.
The second modification would be how to grade students to ensure that the materials
were covered. The instructional module states that an assessment should be given. The peer to
peer learning styles is an assessment within itself, without any paper or pen included. For the
first couple of weeks, students would teaching the facilitator as a group the lesson to ensure that
they understand. Giving them a test or homework would only prove that they know the material
by either cheating or retained enough information just for that moment. It is fairly easy to look
up information, write it. on a piece of paper, and turn it in. What has a student learned, how to
5

research? However, if a student must explain to the facilator how an engine runs, a student will
fully understand because the research that was done must be taught back and not written down.
At the end of the term, each student would teach the facilitator the lesson as an individual. Every
student should produce the same result in a different manner, this gives students an opportunity
to explore their full potential. The answer will no longer be of the multiple choice variety A, B,
C, or D but be Aprils specific answer or Codys way to fix an engine. As I stated in the
beginning, there are more than one way of doing things, why try to limit students to one possible
answer? Looking at scores from written test will not ensure the full potential of your student.
Instructional material includes PowerPoint slides for each class along with in-class team
activities and homework assignments. One modification to this environment would be to conduct
the class in multiple locations. I would have the class in different environments to bring a
realistic situation at hand. For instance, I would try to arrange a field trip once that semester to
introduce the students to the real world. A student must see what they are learning from time to
time and not be stuck inside a book. Students like to be hands on and in the field, I would like to
provide that to them.
Another modification I would suggest is conducting the internet based styles in a library
or computer lab setting. Personal computers tend to distract students from the actually project.
Students will be able to focus on assignments and use the time available to them. Most learning
styles will give the students an opportunity to be distracted and not care if they are paying
attention or not. I would modify that situation and make sure my students are learning up to their
full potential.
In a perfect world theories would not be necessary, but in a not so perfect world theories
are what help reach answers that have been pondered for some time. In the above propositions
6

theories have presented themselves thru past experiences and data has been collected to make a
design be better for learning. Overall the original design is very good, but based on further
analyzed evidence, I have made some very reasonable recommendations for a change.




















7

References
Instructional model attached separately.
http://fc.eng.ua.edu/modules/Paper-Communication.pdf