Responding to technical writing in an introductory engineering class: The role of genre and discipline - Ron Choi ENG 574

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?

Using alumni networking to teach technical communication - Ron Choi ENG 574

Sharp, Julie E. "Using alumni networking to teach technical communication." American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Salt Lake City: American Society for Engineering Education, 2004. 1-8.

In this conference paper, Sharp, a teacher of technical communication courses for engineering students at Vanderbilt University, reports on a pilot mentoring project with a technical communication course.  Working in small groups, each student was required to survey two engineering alumnae regarding the types of communication they used in the workplace, the percentage of time spent in communication, and their perceived importance of communication skills in their work.  The students were also given the opportunity to review and analyze real workplace documents.  Students reported their results individually, and as a group, with an opportunity to re-write the report based on instructor feedback.  The students’ results were generally as expected – technical communication is a significant part of technical and managerial engineering positions, and can affect job success.  These results surprised many of the students.  At the end of the mentoring project, students were asked to rate the project, and the results showed that they found the project to be helpful in learning about technical communication and its significance.

I really liked the concept of this project, because it not only helped teach engineering students how to communicate by looking at real-world examples and writing their own reports, but also to illustrate the importance and prevalence of technical communication within the engineering workplace.  There was also an added side benefit of networking and mentoring, as some students maintained contact with their alumni participants.  If this had been done as a research study instead of as a pilot project, I would have preferred to see a more in depth assessment of the improvement in the technical communication skills of the students, compared to those who had not taken the course with the mentoring project.  The student feedback tells us that they liked the project, and that they thought it was useful and enlightening, but that does not actually mean that they became better communicators for it, or focused any more of their energy into improving their communication skills.

Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools: A Survey of Top-Ranked U.S. and Canadian Programs - Ron Choi ENG 574

Reave, Laura. "Technical Communication Instruction in Engineering Schools: A Survey of Top-Ranked U.S. and Canadian Programs." Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18, no. 4, 2004: 452-490.

In this peer reviewed journal article, Reave analyzes the results of a survey conducted of 73 top rated U.S. and Canadian engineering schools, which examines how these schools teach communication to engineering students.  Reave begins by establishing that there is a gap between the communication skills of engineering graduates versus what is expected of them in the workplace.  Both engineers and their employers place high importance on communication skills, and agree that they are not adequately prepared by curricula of their engineering schools. 

Reave’s surveyed 50 U.S. and 23 Canadian engineering schools, and categorizes their technical communication initiatives by their:

• Department home. The department (e.g. Engineering, English) home, location, and faculty affiliation can affect the diversity of the student body, the situated learning environment, the availability of instructors, as well as their moral.   
• Required courses. Many schools require their engineering students to take some form of written and/or oral technical, business and/or academic communication course.
• Integrated Instruction.  Communication instruction that is combined or integrated within engineering programs.  This could take the form of a partnership or team teaching with an English or Communication expert; the addition of communication modules to engineering classes; through expert feedback; and communication instruction across the entire engineering curriculum.
• Elective courses.  School can go beyond their minimum requirements and offer elective courses to keep communication in the foreground for engineering students.
• Engineering Communication Centers.  Schools can also enhance communication education by providing a site for individual instruction and assistance in written and oral communication.

Before concluding, Reave also examines how communication skills are assessed, and establishes that communication instruction does indeed improve the communication skills of the learner.  Reave states that a well-designed communication program would begin with a strong base, but continue throughout the curriculum, and is best taught by communication experts that integrate their instruction with the situated engineering environment.  The survey results indicate that the schools with the most extensive communication programs are amongst the highest rated.

I found this article to be a very useful summary of the current communication instruction within engineering schools.  It also validates some of my initial assumptions, e.g. that there really is a engineering communication gap.  It is also a newer article compared to the others I have read up to this point, and therefore offers a bit more relevance, although I’m sure that many of the schools surveyed have since modified or upgraded their communication programs.  I did find the final conclusions to be a bit weak though.  It is clear in reading the article that Reave favors the “integrated instruction” model, but really only describes how different schools apply it, without proving that these techniques are actually better.  Reave also correlates extensive communication programs with the ranking of top engineering schools, but I believe that there are too many potential extraneous variables in order to draw this conclusion.    

How to teach engineering students to become better writers - Ron Choi ENG 574

Beer, David F. "How to teach engineering students to become better writers." Professional Communication Conference. Garden City, 1989. 106-107.

In this conference paper, Beer asserts that despite the conventional wisdom, engineers can be taught to be effective written communicators.  He goes on to provide a list of specific recommendations for teaching engineering students to write, including:

•  Engineering departments should take responsibility for educating engineering students , not English departments, to provide real-world context and ensure that engineers are taught to write as required by their professions.
• Do not accept the convention wisdom that engineers cannot write.  Engineering students are intelligent, and therefore can be taught.  Beer also recommends using “technical communication” instead of “English”.
• Treat technical communication as a series of tasks for problem solving.  This aligns the teaching style of technical communication to match other engineering classes.
• Use the metaphors of signal noise and control systems (common engineering concepts) to help engineering students relate to issues with syntax, grammar and other undesirable communication traits. 
• Provide relevant assignments.  Tailor the writing tasks to be appropriate for what the engineering students will actually need to do in the future.
• Provide a grading checklist, such that the students can breakdown the task into smaller components, and provide a semblance of objectivity.
• Use visual aids, under the assumption that many engineers are visual learners.
• Motivate learners with a real application, e.g. a class newspaper.

Beer’s paper does not contain any references or bibliography, however, at the time he was a senior lecturer in the department of ECE at the University of Texas, Austin, and taught technical communication to numerous engineering students. 

As a former engineering student myself, I found this source to have a lot of phenomenological validity.  It would also appear to validate some of my own theories on the matter – that engineers are intelligent enough to communicate effectively, however they may not have the motivation or the proper education to learn how to do so.  I would like to find more research data to back up this single qualitative account of what has worked in one professor’s classroom.