Various interfaces exist for annotations. Little is known, however, about how such interface variations affect communication. We designed an annotation interface intended to facilitate annotation and undertook a study to compare this interface to two commonly used alternatives. Results support the hypothesis that annotation interfaces affect the number and types of problems about which collaborators communicate. Results also suggest the need for more research on interface effects within other communicative contexts.

No abstract

Previous research indicates that voice annotation helps reviewers to express the more complex and social aspects of a collaborative writing task. Little direct evidence exists, however, about the effect of voice annotations on the writers who must use such annotations.To test the effect, we designed an interface intended to alleviate some of the problems associated with the voice modality and undertook a study with two goals: to compare the nature and quantity of voice and written comments, and to evaluate how writers responded to comments produced in each mode. Writers were paired with reviewers who made either written or spoken annotations from which the writers revised.The study provides direct evidence that the greater expressivity of the voice modality, which previous research suggested benefits reviewers, produces annotations that writers also find usable.Interactions of modality with the type of annotation suggest specific advantages of each mode for enhancing the processes of review and revision.

To understand the ways that teachers adapt writing instruction to a microcomputer classroom, the researchers observed and recorded activities minute-by-minute in four classes for a full semester of introductory composition. Two experienced teachers each taught two classes: one traditional class and one class that met for half of its time in a microcomputer classroom. This report contrasts their classes, calling attention to (a) the time pressures created by teaching with computers, (b) issues in training students to be proficient at word processing and revising, (c) ways a microcomputer classroom can foster workshop approaches to teaching writing, (d) the need for carefully structured classroom activities, and (e) the importance of teachers sharing with students common values for learning with computers in a group setting.

In this article, we discuss what we identified as the perils and promises of matching our technical communication students with teams of engineers in a capstone, client-based engineering course. Specrfically, we identifi the key issues that su$aced, focusing the discussion around three themes we saw as contributing to multidisciplinary success: participation level, role definition, and connections between interim processes/products and final deliverables. We conclude by sharing a series of initial recommendations and modrfications established as we continue to improve this multidisciplinary endeavor and reconfigure models for working in multidisciplinary teams.Since Jack Selzer's landmark essay, "The Composing Processes of an Engineer," the technical communication field has spent more than a decade researching communication in the engineering discipline. The increased attention paid to communication within engineering stems in part from trends in industry and in part from the interests of rhetoricians in what Ackerman and Oates (1996) refer to as "highly specialized professional discourses7' @. 81). For instance, Herrington's (1985) "Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Whting in Two College Chemical Engineering Courses" examines writing skills among engineering students, paving the way for fiuther studies devoted to specific curricula and pedagogical methods incorporating writing into engineering programs.