Search for: All records

The growing capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) word processing models have demonstrated exceptional potential to impact language related tasks and functions. Their fast pace of adoption and probable effect has also given rise to controversy within certain fields. Models, such as GPT-3, are a particular concern for professionals engaged in writing, particularly as their engagement with these technologies is limited due to lack of ability to control their output. Most efforts to maximize and control output rely on a process known as prompt engineering, the construction and modification of the inputted prompt with expectation for certain outputted or desired text. Consequently, prompt engineering has emerged as an important consideration for research and practice. Previous conceptions of prompt engineering have largely focused on technical and logistic modifications to the back-end processing, remaining inaccessible and, still, limited for most users. In this paper, we look to the technical communication field and its methods of text generation—the rhetorical situation—to conceptualize prompt engineering in a more comprehensible way for its users by considering the context and rhetoric. We introduce a framework, consisting of a formula, to prompt engineering, which demands all components of the rhetorical situation be present in the inputted prompt. We present discussions on the future of AI writing models and their use in both professional and educational settings. Ultimately, this discussion and its findings aim to provide a means of integrating agency and writer-centric methods to AI writing tools to advance a more human-in-the-loop approach. As the use of generative AI and especially NLP-based technologies become common across societal functions, the use of prompt engineering will play a crucial role not just in adoption of the technology, but also its productive and responsible use.

 

In order to diversify and increase the engineering workforce, there is a documented need to better support nontraditional students (NTS) pursuing engineering degrees. Yet, most models of student support are currently based on the traditional model of engineering education that takes place in a place-based, residential, research driven institutions. In this paper, we analyze semi-structured interviews to understand the needs of NTS in engineering and outline ways in which they can be better supported towards their degree. We use theoretical work on Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance which focuses on dialogue, structure, and learner autonomy. We found that NTS in our sample were dedicated to completing their degrees for practical, and specific reasons and were looking for a work-life-education balance. Participants almost never used any resources other than their instructors and cared most about flexibility of scheduling their classes around their other commitments. This contrasts with current work within the literature that argues for increasing engagement and offering a range of services to engineering students. Our research discusses findings from interviews of five nontraditional students in engineering. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed then open-coding and thematic analysis were performed by the research team. Results showcase major themes from the interviews such as Financial Security, Home Commitments, Motivation, Personal Well-Being, Academic Support, Social Support, and Other Concerns. We discuss these findings in the context of determining ways to support nontraditional students on campuses where these students are most prevalent and often overlooked within the research community. 

This panel will discuss the role of different knowledge artifacts in creating, maintaining, and circulating knowledge within the engineering education community. The past decade has seen a significant increase in the venues available for sharing engineering education research and as the field grows and builds more knowledge, it is equally important to also take stock of prior work and of strategies to create novelty. Within this context, what is the role of different knowledge encapsulating artifacts and why do those who engage with creating these artifacts do so? In this panel we touch upon these issues while taking stock of the knowledge base in the field. We will also discuss what the future of knowledge creation in the field might look like given the move towards open access online publications as the primary form of knowledge circulation. Finally, in the post-COVID context, what will and should be the role of in-person events in this process. In terms of equity of participation, what potential avenues are available?