A PRINCIPAL'S LOOK INSIDE A STEM WRITING STUDIO

BY

JOHN BROCATO, COORDINATOR INSTRUCTOR

BAGLEY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

KAY BROCATO, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR & RESEARCH FELLOW

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP & FOUNDATIONS;

NATIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS RESEARCH CENTER (NSPARC)

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY

ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE

UNIVERSITY COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

2012

A PRINCIPAL'S LOOK INSIDE A STEM WRITING STUDIO

In 2008, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) embarked upon a state-directed mission to create a common set of curriculum standards for public schools in the United States. The resulting standards have become known as the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), referred to as the Common Core by public school professionals. The Common Core is structured in 2 large areas of curriculum content, Mathematics and Language Arts. The Language Arts standards for kindergarten through twelfth grades contain strands labeled 1) College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards; 2) Reading: Literature; 3) Reading: Informational Text; 4) Reading: Foundational Skills; 5) Writing; Speaking and Listening; 6) Language; and 7) Range, Quality, & Complexity. An additional set of strands for Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects are included for grades 6 through 12. The College and Career Readiness Anchor standards, high school standards in the other strands, and the Literacy in Science and Technical Subjects work in tandem to prepare US public school students for a literate life after their public school years. To be certain these standards are imparted, the best of traditional and progressive instructional models must accompany these standards into the chasm of public education reform. Once such pedagogy to examine closely is that of studio based learning (Common Core, 2010). This manuscript provides a description of a group of writing teachers and their respective groups of technical writing students who are majoring in various field of engineering at a land grant, research-high activity institution. The teachers and students herein have employed a studio based learning pedagogy in their endeavors to become high performing technical communicators for the real world of work. Following the description of this technical writing set of studios is an explanation of how a studio based learning model of instruction might better allow for the attainment of the Common Core State Standards.

TECHNICAL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM AND CLASS DESCRIPTION

The Shackouls Technical Communication Program (TCP) has been an integral part of the Bagley College of Engineering at Mississippi State University since 1999. This program exists to assist all engineering students and faculty with writing and speaking issues relevant to engineering in academic and industry contexts. Major thrusts of the program include a writing center that reviews engineering students’ writing (like a discipline-specific writing center); writing- and speaking-related workshops conducted in both undergraduate and graduate engineering courses; and provision of data relevant to the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) – particularly data related to ABET criteria (d), (f), (g), and (h) (Accreditation Board, 2012) – to each of the college’s eight engineering departments.

The Shackouls TCP’s main activity, however, is coordination and administration of GE 3513 Technical Writing. This junior/senior-level course is required of all engineering undergraduates (we see approximately 350-375 students per year) and marks one of the few times in any of these students’ curricula that they work interactively with students from potentially every other engineering department in the college. Thus, as described below, GE 3513 is fertile territory for interdisciplinary work on a number of levels, including the opportunity for students who are proficient in certain topics to introduce their fellow students to heretofore unfamiliar concepts.

One feature of GE 3513 especially relevant to this paper is the instructors’ backgrounds: commensurate with a growing national trend, all three instructors for GE 3513 have master’s degrees in English with little to no formal instruction in or sophisticated understanding of engineering. This lack of a common knowledge base with students presents a daunting challenge: how to devise meaningful, discipline-specific assignment materials for the course. Moreover, these instructors are not tenure-track faculty and, as such, have little in the way of a research agenda (and certainly no engineering research agenda) from which to draw potential subject matter for assignments. This is the problem at the root of our curriculum design studio: how do trained writing instructors with no engineering background provide meaningful engineering-related writing experiences for junior/senior-level engineering students? Collaboration with specialized engineering faculty is of course one option (and one we have successfully used), but the vagaries of individual work schedules mean that this option must be supplemented with other strategies.

THE ASSIGNMENT PROMPT: DISCOVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Harper’s Magazine’s “Weekly Review” for Tuesday, July 26, 2011 contains the following statement (Beha, 2011):

Korean scientists determined that the shaking of a Seoul skyscraper, which shut down the building for two days, was caused not by an earthquake but by a Tae Bo class in the building's gym.

Perhaps this story is intriguing even to a structural engineer, but to a layperson, it is literally difficult to fathom. How could what must be a relatively small number of people create an earthquake-like effect so distinct that it forced a building’s closure for two days? This seeming disparity – a small group of people creating a seismic phenomenon – along with the opportunity for communicating the science behind the disparity is what makes this one-sentence news story an excellent candidate for a useful writing assignment (Newell & Simon, 1972).

Several weeks later, in the next semester, the GE 3513 instructors used this sentence as the basis for an in-class assignment. These in-class assignments typically involve interactive team activities that require students to read a brief prompt and share their response with the rest of the class, in writing or in a group discussion or both. These activities are designed to be open-ended vehicles for in-class participation; as such, student responses to them are not graded as rigorously as, for example, major out-of-class writing assignments and formal presentations. Thus, this paper does not discuss a grading rubric or quantitative measures of student performance on the assignment because the assignment is not graded in this manner.

For this assignment’s initial use, students were given the Harper’s sentence above along with the following instructions:

Assignment: Verify the accuracy of this story, and then write a detailed description of the science behind it, suitable for a non-expert audience. This description should primarily be in your own words; if you use references, use them sparingly.

These instructions showcase three critical skills central to GE 3513: (1) verifying the accuracy/credibility of sources; (2) writing descriptions of technical concepts, especially for non-technical audiences; and (3) using source material appropriately/sparingly. Incidentally, the issue of verifying source accuracy is particularly important in this situation because the style of the

Harper’s “Weekly Review” can lend itself to distortion: put another way, the “Weekly Review” is designed to be a summary of global news events for the preceding week, typically devoting no more than two sentences (and often only one) to any given story, and this stylized brevity can obviously leave out details that significantly affect the way a reader perceives that story. Hence, an important part of the assignment would be determining that this one-sentence treatment is, in fact, accurate.

Examining the use of this news story as the basis for an assignment requires answering five questions:

1. How would the students verify the story’s accuracy? Would any of them be unable to verify the story’s accuracy?

2. What sort of techniques would students use to describe the science underlying the phenomenon?

3. Would the students’ descriptions differ from one another, and, if so, how much? 4. How would non-technical instructors know whether the students’ scientific descriptions

were accurate? 5. How much would the students from “non-structural” majors – biological, chemical,

computer science, and so on – be able to contribute to their teams’ solutions? Would they learn anything from their more structurally inclined peers?

STUDENT RESPONSES AND DISCUSSION

Below are answers to the five questions posed above along with samples of relevant student responses; all errors have remained intact and, where possible, marked with the editorial mark [sic]. The formatting of some responses differs because students can choose whether they type their responses or write them by hand.

How would the students verify the story’s accuracy? Would any of them be unable to verify the story’s accuracy? In general, few teams specifically sought to verify the accuracy of the news story as it was presented to them; that is, how did they know the brief statement in Harper’s Weekly was accurate? In fact, over two semesters using this assignment, out of 32 teams, only two teams specifically verified the accuracy of the Harper’s sentence. These are shown in Responses A and B below.

Response A – Description Verifying the Story and Using the Swing Analogy

Response B – Excerpt Showing Verification by Multiple Sources

The accuracy of this story is verified by several of the nation’s leading news providers, including Harper’s Magazine, CNN, and the San Francisco Chronicle, all reporting the same result.

Some students said they assumed the story to be true not because they themselves were familiar with Harper’s but simply because their instructor had provided it to them. Others did not interpret the assignment directions to mean that they should verify the accuracy of the Harper’s statement, only that they needed to verify the event, which they did via reports from Korean scientists (specifically Professor Lee Dong-guen of Sungkyunkwan University) and architects who had recreated the shaking. This latter development clearly shows the need to clarify the assignment directions, since most students interpreted the directions differently than the instructors intended.

Is there, though, a difference in looking for reports from scientists/architects that verify the science and looking more generally for additional news reports that confirm the Harper’s story? Even though most students did attempt to verify the science involved in this incident, it seems

important to emphasize to students that they should also focus on verifying the incident as a news story, since a news-based forum is likely how most readers would encounter the incident (rather than from a structural-mechanics journal). As one instructor told students during discussions…

What if I had given you this assignment and you could find no mention of the story anywhere except in Harper’s Weekly? What if you found several mentions of the story, but they were all divergent?

Students quickly answered that the story would then seem suspicious to them, which opened a discussion on the general principle of repeatability: just as scientific researchers hope to repeat the same experimental results to prove a hypothesis, researchers sifting through print materials should attempt to verify a news story’s accuracy by finding that same story reported in the same fashion in at least three different, reputable publications. The extremely broad term “reputable publications” then led to a discussion of the most effective way to determine a source’s reputability, perhaps using, for example, a logical set of criteria modified from Markel (2010):

1. Accuracy – Is the information correct? 2. Repeatability – Can you find the same information in more than one reputable place? 3. Bias – What are the chances that the source has a financial interest in the topic/project? 4. Reputation – What are the author’s /organization’s background and credentials? 5. Comprehensiveness – How diverse or selective is the information? 6. Appropriate complexity – How detailed is the information? 7. Currency – How old / new is the information? 8. Clarity – Is the information easy to understand?

What sort of techniques would students use to describe the science behind the phenomenon? Some teams described the science behind this event using mainly technical terms: mechanical resonance, vertical vibration cycle, elasticity, natural frequency, constructive interference, and so on. Responses C and D below show descriptions using primarily technical language, one with a suitable amount of detail and one without.

Response C – Description Using Primarily Technical Language

According to the Korean Times, a Seoul skyscraper was shut down for two days because of vibrations [1]. Rather than an earthquake, the shaking was actually caused by a Tae Bo class in the gym [1]. The rhythm of the choreographed movements happened to coeincide [sic] with the resonance frequency of the building and caused the upper floors to shake. Resonance frequency is a reoccuring [sic] beat specific to an individual object that causes exponential growth of vibrations as the beat continues. The motion of the twenty-three class attendees moving in synchronization with the resonance frequency on the twelfth floor of the building sent shock waves upwards that increased as the rigidity of the building decreased with every floor. This lack of rigidity in the upper floors is designed into every building to counteract strong wind gusts and allow the building to flex without structural damage. As a result, the top floor violently shook as if from an earthquake while the twelfth floor and down felt no movement.

Response D – Description Using Primarily Technical Language and Lacking Adequate Specifics

On July 5, 2011, 17 individuals doing a tai [sic] bo workout caused the Seoul Building in Korea to be evacuated because employees believed an unknown shaking was an earthquake. Scientist investigated the incident and concluded the excessive shaking was due to mechanical resonance. The investigation concluded the building’s structure is sound. There have been numerous instances where human activity gas induced resonance to occur. A study on building resonance in 1987 stated the increased heights and floor spans increases the chances of building resonance due to human activity. [1]

[1] National Research Canada – “Building Vibrations Due to Human Activities” By DE Allen, JH Rainer, GaPernica

While the technical terms were usually correct, even in a relatively small class of engineering students not everyone clearly understood the descriptions that used these terms. In fact, after a question-laden discussion of his team’s written response, one particular student neatly crystallized the technical-communication conundrum:

Wow. You know, we thought we did a pretty good job explaining this [the skyscraper’s shaking], but after what everyone said…well, I think we have some things to fix.

Most teams, however, resorted to analogies in addition to relevant technical terms, perhaps in keeping with the assignment’s charge that they write a description suitable for a non-technical audience. Below are the most common analogies and their associated examples.

1. Child on a swing: Response A above shows this analogy as does the following excerpt: “A

simpler example of mechanical resonance could be explained using a child’s swing. As the child’s swing moves from a starting position through a complete cycle back to its original position, the skyscraper completes similar vibration cycles on an unnoticeable scale. Resonant frequency is similar to a child swinging on their own power but when that frequency is matched by an outside force such as a parent pushing the swing, the swing moves at a greater rate. Similarly, when the Tae Bo class moved in unison at the resonant frequency of the building, the vibrations felt in the upper levels were much greater than normal.”

2. Guitar string: Response E below shows an example of this analogy.

Response E – Description Using Technical Language and the Guitar String Analogy

In the July issue of Harper’s Weekly, they reported that scientists claimed a Tae Bo class, not an earthquake, was the reason for evacuation of a Seoul skyscraper. While this would seem unrealistic, the claim has some solid scientific relevance. According to the Korean Times, mechanical resonance of the skyscraper was amplified by the Tae Bo class on the 12th floor. Mechanical resonance is the natural tendency of a body that can vibrate to oscillate. When a rod is supported at one end and is struck, it will amplify the oscillation. [1] The skyscraper, like the rod, is a free-ended body. Since the class took place on the 12th floor which is closer to the center, it was able to amplify the mechanical resonance of the structure. It is significant that the Tae Bo class was near the middle because it would cause the most movement. An example of this is plucking a guitar string in the middle rather than the end will cause the maximum amount of noise because it has the most movement. Since the building is supported at the base, most of the displacement was experienced on higher floors.

[1] "Mechanical Resonance." Rutgers University, Jan. 2002. Web. Jan. 2012. <http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~jackph/2005s/PS02.pdf>.

3. Wine glass and opera singer: Response F below shows an example of this analogy.

Response F – Excerpt from a Description Showing Both the Swing and Wine Glass Analogies

This phenomenon is one that structural engineers have to grapple with constantly. A resonant frequency is one at which a structure or object (like a bell) naturally vibrates when perturbed. Even small excitations at these frequencies can result in very large amplitude vibrations. A common example of this kind of excitation is a child on a swing. The small force imbalance caused by the shifting of the child’s weight eventually results in a large amplitude swinging motion at the natural frequency of the pendulum.

The principle is the same for structures. If even a small force is applied to the structure at the same frequency it naturally vibrates, the amplitudes of the perturbations are amplified. If the excitation continues long enough, resonance can result in catastrophic failure of the structure. A relatively small example of this is the shattering of a wine class due to sonic excitation. When a vocalist sings the proper note that coincides with the frequency of the wine glass, the extremely small exciting force from the sound waves eventually results in larger amplitude vibrations thus shattering the glass.

Interestingly enough, the wine glass analogy prompted several students to mention that they had seen this particular phenomenon disproved on the television show Mythbusters, which further led to a discussion of whether Mythbusters, as a television show (and all that that entails), should be considered a reliable source (no consensus was reached on this point, though).

4. Tacoma Narrows: Response G below shows an example of this analogy.

Response G – Excerpt from a Description Using the Tacoma Narrows Analogy

The most famous example of a resonant frequency disaster was the 1940 Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse.Scientists determined that strong, consistent cross winds passing around the Tacoma Narrows Bridge caused thestructure to oscillate at resonant frequency. Over time, the amplitude of the oscillations increased to the point of structural failure, and the bridge collapsed into the river below. This disaster is one example of how destructiveresonant oscillations can be and explains how a workout group of 17 can shake an entire building.

Following discussions of documents that incorporated Tacoma Narrows as an analogy, students were shown brief video clips of the Tacoma Narrows incident on YouTube. Some students had never seen or heard of this event and stated that seeing the video truly helped them understand the phenomenon.

5. Tuning forks: Response H below shows an example of this analogy.

Response H – Excerpt Using the Tuning Forks Analogy

Would the students’ descriptions differ from one another, and, if so, how much?

Other than the obvious differences in the samples provided here – response length, amount of detail, straightforward technical language versus analogies, and so on – student responses did not generally differ in significant ways. Rarely, students added contextual information, often technical in nature as in Responses I and J below, but most maintained a narrow focus like the examples shown in this paper.

Response I – Excerpt Showing a Description at Molecular Level

This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that all molecules vibrate if they are above zero degrees Kelvin, just not [at] a level detectable by humans.

Response J – Excerpt Putting Resonance Frequency in a Design Context

Resonance frequency is an important design criterion in bridges and tall buildings. Preventative measures have been developed over time to prevent resonance disasters. These methods include designing shock absorbing mechanisms into the foundation, and some buildings even have huge pendulums that help to dampen vibration. Buildings today are also designed to have uncommon natural resonance frequencies.

How would non-technical instructors know whether the students’ scientific descriptions were accurate?

On the surface, verifying the students’ work turned out to be a simple matter of following the practices discussed in class: compare the students’ work with known and reputable sources. However, given the instructors’ lack of expertise in physics and structural mechanics, it would be more convincing in future uses to solicit the input of experts in these fields for verifying the accuracy of student work.

How much would the students from “non-structural” majors – biological, chemical, computer science, et al. – be able to contribute to their teams’ solutions? Would they learn anything from their more structurally inclined peers?

This question is the main area for future work. Simple observation of student interactions indicated that members of all teams contributed more or less equally while they were working in their teams. However, when it came time for each team to discuss their responses, the most verbal/outspoken students seemed to be the ones from fields with more of a structural component, especially civil, mechanical, and aerospace. Intriguing though these observations are, they are currently too vague to be of much use. Future work on this topic will involve a more specific investigation of students’ potential field-based differences.

NEXT STEPS FOR THE SKYSCRAPER ASSIGNMENT IN GE 3513

While the Korean skyscraper assignment has proven to be a useful tool in the classroom and appears to be a fertile area for study, more work is needed to verify its overall efficacy. As mentioned above, input from experts in physics and structural mechanics will be solicited to make sure that student descriptions of mechanical resonance are substantially correct. Also, in future uses of this assignment, GE 3513 instructors intend to focus more specifically on the

extent to which students’ majors affect their willingness to discuss the assignment content in class. Two additional possibilities for this work are higher-stakes assignments, such as larger research papers and presentations, and physical modeling, where students might team with physics, architecture, or art majors to design some sort of tactile, three-dimensional model to help show mechanical resonance in action.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL LEADERS

As the Common Core State Standards become those to which we hold ourselves accountable, our public school language arts teachers must be joined by a host of teachers from other content areas to prepare speakers, writers, and thinkers for the next generation of science and technical work (Bunce, 2009). The GE 3513 teachers represent a community of teachers engaged in designing curriculum and instruction for these speaking, writing, thinking kind of learners (Moon, 1999). The students in GE 3513 represent a community of technical communicators engaged in designing themselves into the speaking, writing, and thinking for the next generation of science and technical work. School leaders then must know what the standards look like in action, which means knowing what teachers and students meeting the standards look like in action – inside public school classrooms, kindergarten through twelfth grade. We hypothesize that school classrooms and teachers‘ professional development spaces will better impart the new rigorous standards by engaging in studio based learning models.

STUDIO BASED LEARNING PEDAGOGY Studio based learning originated in schools of art, architecture and design where the crucial element seemed to be the iterative nature of producing better and better work (Hetland, Winner, Veenama, & Sheridan, 2007). The central defining component of a studio school is the propose-critique-iterate process navigated by the members of the studio – both teacher and learner alike (Schon, 1983; Wilson, 1997; Rowe, 1987). Studio learning environments have evolved from their origins in art and architecture to encompass places where apprentices practice their design craft under the tutelage of a master in the field (Schön,1985; Boyer & Mitgang, 1996; Lackney, 1999; Monson, et al., 2003-2007).

To visualize a learning studio, think of a dance, recording or photographer’s studio. These are more mainstream studio-based learning places where learners hover around the teacher to observe and listen to his or her expertise. The studio teacher is historically referred to as the master and the learner as the apprentice. In the classic studio setting, teachers would say or show things about the design craft to the learners. The learners would cling to the teacher’s design craft ideas and move into their personal learning spaces, desks or drafting tables, to practice the craft and then return to seek more advice from the teacher (Rogoff, 1990). This process is cyclical in a studio based learning environment and includes consultations with expert literature, resources and significant others outside the primary studio space (Palinscar & Herrenkohl, 1999).

Noteworthy in the evolution of learning studios is the onslaught of various modern technologies that extend the studio (Kim, Hannafin, & Bryan, 2007). Use of digital video for demonstration sharing and virtual field trips (Skype, YouTube, etc.), person-to-person critique mechanisms (blogs, discussion boards, chat spaces), and public showcase places (webpages, Facebook, Twitter) can be “hovered around” as a surrogate master to the apprentice. However, these

technologies (or any other) never take the place of the studio proper in studio based learning. Nothing replaces the master-apprentice relationship in a studio setting (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999).

Another relative of studio based learning resides in sport pedagogy. The look and feel of good studio based learning pedagogy can be compared to the look and feel of good coaching pedagogy. Both studio based learning and coaching hinge on the existence of and quality in the master-apprentice, person-to-person interaction that produces the authentic propose-critique iterate dynamic. Good studio based learning and good coaching both ultimately yield winners. On a well-coached team, winning means better and better performance until each member of the team performs at peak levels. In a well-taught studio school, winning means concrete accolades about the specific aspects of a design product from the teacher to the learner until the product is widely accepted not only by the design master or teacher in the classroom but also by the wider public (Parks, 2010). In time, after this cyclical propose-critique-design process takes hold and becomes the pervasive method of operation, both winning coaching and winning studio teaching beget increasing qualities of performers and performances (Wankat, Felder, Smith, & Oreovicz, 2002).

Studio based learning, documented in focused studies, data collection, and teaching practice, requires the following characteristics:

• Creation of a deliberate, active propose-critique-iterate culture and climate.

• A lead learner (teacher or master) who willingly engages in and models a deliberate, active propose-critique-iterate stance toward all behaviors and performances. This teacher must create individualized, ultra-high standards for each learner.

• Learners (students) who act as apprentices while both teacher and student engage in and model a deliberate, active propose-critique-iterate stance toward all behaviors and performances. These learners must eventually come to value ultra-high standards.

• A subject or area to serve as the focal point for learning, something about which both teachers and learners are deeply passionate. These things of passion must not automatically be required to be the same for all learners in a group (i.e., all learners frequently have choices in and make decisions about the topic of study). Choice is essential in a learning studio.

• A learning group size that can increase with the age of the learner but one that must be based on the developmental level of the learner. (The best-researched recommendations for group size can be found in the recommendations for teacher-to-child ratio of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Deborah Meier and the Coalition of Essential School have practiced, documented, and recommended a teacher-to-student ratio of no more than 1:70-80 per day, organized into smaller groups of no more than 20 per meeting session/class period.)

• Three kinds of spaces: 1) individual work space that each learner can make personal; 2) a well-resourced learning space, including the most current technologies, which can be left

full of clutter so learners can freely make and do; and 3) a clutter-free, cutting-edge, beautifully designed, purposefully lit showcase/presentation place

• A real, deep connection to the professionals from the world of work who can provide field study of the passion area and who can assist teachers in the critique of design products and performances. These knowledgeable others assist either literally or figuratively in the creation of the ultra-high standards.

To visualizing a studio learning space, visualize a great, great, great preschool or a team with an excellent set of coaches or a dance academy with dynamic master dancers as teachers. Another example of a studio experience most Americans have encountered occurred in the presence of a great, great teacher. The teacher also may have been a theater director, athletic coach, choir leader, mentor, boss, friend or some other older, more experienced person who was in the know about a passion area. While under this person’s leadership, learners produced something each remained proud of since the moment this great design was offered to the universe for consumption. Perhaps this design was simply a stunning essay, a fabulous model of a suspension bridge, a spectacular rendition of a recital song, a beautiful painting, or a stellar win on the scoreboard or judges’ card. No matter the arena, this teacher is one from a learning experience, likely occurring during the kindergarten through 12th grade time period who motivated each person in an entire classroom to work hard making and/or doing something still remembered years later (Scrimsher & Tudge, 2003). This was a learning studio, studio based learning experience – a studio school, if you will.

On the scene regularly in the current learning landscape, the early childhood education and research sector does the best work of creating, measuring, and perfecting learning studios since Montessori and Dewey documented the benefits of such spaces. Lev Vygotsky (1978) went on to describe these places as zones of proximal development.

THE PRINCIPAL AND THE GE 3513 STEM STUDIO The problem the GE 3513 teachers set out to examine in their design studio was how trained writing instructors with no engineering background provide meaningful engineering-related writing experiences for junior/senior-level engineering students. This is the same problem language arts teachers must acknowledge if they intend to meet the Common Core State Standards. The professional development of the GE 3513 teachers was led by the actual teachers of GE 3513. Together the team of teachers wrote low-stakes iterations of a technical writing experience for their students. The teachers were interactive and prepared interactive team activities that required students to read a brief prompt and share their response with the rest of the class, in writing or in a group discussion or both. The teacher designed these activities to be open-ended vehicles for in-class participation. Student responses to new prompts were not graded as rigorously as major high-stakes assignments. This was the iterative process for teachers and students as they design more and better designs for their respective worlds of work. Teachers did what they asked of students in the (1) verifying the accuracy/credibility of sources; (2) writing descriptions of technical concepts, especially for non-technical audiences; and (3) using source material appropriately/sparingly. These practices which are embedded in the Common Core became measurable using the following question set.

1. Accuracy – Is the information correct? 2. Repeatability – Can you find the same information in more than one reputable place? 3. Bias – What are the chances that the source has a financial interest in the topic/project? 4. Reputation – What are the author’s /organization’s background and credentials? 5. Comprehensiveness – How diverse or selective is the information? 6. Appropriate complexity – How detailed is the information? 7. Currency – How old / new is the information? 8. Clarity – Is the information easy to understand?

To prepare teachers for meeting the Common Core State Standards, school principals will need to seek ways to sustain and build the capacity within teachers to become designers of their new, more rigorous curriculum and instruction. Evidence in this examination suggests that teams of high-quality teacher leaders who are willing to be member leaders of curriculum and instruction design teams may be one solution to reformed schools and classrooms that surpass the new, tougher standards.

REFERENCES

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), “Criterion 3. Student Outcomes,” Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, ABET Engineering

Accreditation Commission, Baltimore, MD, Oct. 2011, p3. Available at http://www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Process/Accreditation_Documents/Current/eac-criteria-2012-2013.pdf

Beha, Christopher R. “Weekly Review,” Harper’s Magazine, July 26, 2011. http:// harpers.org/archive/2011/07/WeeklyReview2011-07-26 Bunce, D. M. (2009). Teaching is More than Lecturing and Learning is More than Memorizing. Journal Chemical Education. 86(6) 674-680.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History. Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, 2. Markel, Mike, Technical Communication, 9th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston, 2010, pgs. 128-129. Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice. A special report. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 396659). Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenama, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2007). Technology-enhanced inquiry tools in science education: An emerging pedagogical framework for classroom practice. Science Education, 91(6), 1010-1030.

Lackney, J. (1999) A History of the studio-based learning model, Mississippi State University: Education Design Institute http://www.edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/ history_studio_based_learning.pdf.

Moon., J.A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development. London: Kogan Page. Monson, C., Poros, J., Brocato, K., Prince, D., & Brenner, D. (2003-2007). Studio School Pedagogy. Retrieved May 5, 2012 from http://www.studio-school.msstate.edu/pedagogy/ Newell, A. and Simon, H.A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Palinscar, A., & Herrenkohl, L. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Parks, K.A. (2010). Performance assessment: Lessons from performers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 22(1), 98-106.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rowe, P.G.. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press. Scrimsher, S., & Tudge, J. (2003). The teaching/learning relationship in the first years of school: Some revolutionary implications of Vygotsky’s theories. Early Education and Development,14(3), 293–312. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited. Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. In M. T. Huber & S. Morreale (Eds.), AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, DC. Wilson, J.A. (1997). Studio teaching: When the future becomes the present. UniServ Science News, 7, http://science.uniserve.edu.au/newsletter/vol7/wilson.html.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

NOTE Studio based learning models examined as a model for reformed American schools includes data from: 78 pre-kindergarten-12th grade public schools in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado, California and Hawaii. Especially noteworthy is evidence gathered from the classrooms in the Colleges of Education; Art, Architecture and Design; Veterinary Medicine; Engineering; Forest Resources; Agriculture and Life Sciences; Arts and Sciences; and Business at Mississippi State University. Additional higher education studio based learning settings examined include Memphis State University, Morehead State University, California State University at Dominguez Hills, Azusa Pacific University, Memphis College of Art, Watkins College of Art and Design and Montevallo University.

APPENDIX 1 Common Core State Standards for kindergarten through twelfth grade English Language Arts- Literacy from the College and Career Readiness Anchor Strand- Writing

Text Types and Purposes

1. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.College Career Ready Anchor .W.1 Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

2. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.2 Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.3. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details and well-structured event sequences.

Production and Distribution of Writing

4. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience.

5. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.5 Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.

6. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.6 Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others.

Research to Build and Present Knowledge

7. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.7 Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects based on focused questions, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.

8. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.8 Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.

9. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.9 Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.

Range of Writing

10. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.W.10 Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection, and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two) for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences.

APPENDIX 2 Common Core State Standards for 6th through twelfth grade English Language Arts- Literacy, Readiness in Science and Technical Subjects

Key Ideas and Details

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.Reading Science Technical .6-8.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.2 Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; provide an accurate summary of the text distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.3 Follow precisely a multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks.

Craft and Structure

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.4 Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words and phrases as they are used in a specific scientific or technical context relevant togrades 6–8 texts and topics.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.5 Analyze the structure an author uses to organize a text, including how the major sections contribute to the whole and to an understanding of the topic.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.6 Analyze the author’s purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text.

Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.7 Integrate quantitative or technical information expressed in words in a text with a version of that information expressed visually (e.g., in a flowchart, diagram, model, graph, or table).

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.8 Distinguish among facts, reasoned judgment based on research findings, and speculation in a text.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.9 Compare and contrast the information gained from experiments, simulations, video, or multimedia sources with that gained from reading a text on the same topic.

Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.6-8.3 By the end of grade 8, read and comprehend science/technical texts in the grades 6–8 text complexity band independently and proficiently.