Miller, Paul, J. Bausser and A. Fentiman. "Responding to technical writing in an introductory engineering class: The role of genre and discipline." Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, no. 4, 1998: 443-461.
In this journal article, the authors report on a case study which examined an experienced engineering professor’s feedback on a design report in first year engineering class. The professor’s comments are compared against those used in composition studies by teachers of technical writing, and against those of a technical editor. The researchers found that the engineering professor’s comments were highly directive, even when written as a question or a comment. This is contrasted against composition-style feedback from technical writing teachers, which was typically more facilitative. The professor’s feedback was closer in nature that that of a technical editor. The researchers concluded that the differences in feedback were based partially on the introductory level of the course, combined with differences in genre convention for an engineering design report.
One of the important genre differences pointed out by the authors was the compartmentalized nature of the design report, not only for the authors, but for the readers as well. The design report is highly structured, such that once the topic has been selected, each section is well defined and can be written as separate objects, often by different group members. On the flip-side, the audience is also not expected to read the report front-to-back. Rather, it is expected that the audience would jump immediately to the sections of interest.
This article interested me because it highlights some of the specific genre-based differences that exist in engineering communication, and in engineering communication education. It also made me wonder – does the way in which engineers are taught communication actually have a negative effect on how they communicate with on-engineers?
No comments:
Post a Comment