Engineering Communication

Paretti, Marie C.; McNair, Lisa D.; Leydens, Jon A.

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139013451.038

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most important for this article, studies in the framework of rhetorical genre theory have argued that genres (such as engineering reports or technical memoranda) should not be treated as formulaic templates; rather, they are better understood as responses to the audience, purpose, discipline, and other social factors (Artemeva & Freedman, 2006;Miller, 1984). For example, as Paretti, McNair, and Leydens (2014) explained, the wellknown introduction-methods-results-discussion structure of engineering laboratory reports is not just a convention but rather a sequence that reflects the nature of engineering research and facilitates comprehension, evaluation, and expansion of the research; writing in other fields does not use the same format because the methods for inquiry and development of disciplinary knowledge are not the same.…”

Section: Context and Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering

Conrad

2017

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Numerous studies have identified a gap between the writing skills of engineering program graduates and the demands of writing in the workplace; however, few studies have analyzed the writing of practitioners and students to better understand that gap and inform teaching materials.Purpose This study sought to compare word-level, sentence-level, and organizational differences in writing by practitioners and students and to identify differences that are important for engineering practice. I also sought to demonstrate the untapped potential for linguistic analyses to contribute to understanding engineering writing.Design/Method I used techniques from applied linguistics -corpus linguistics and rhetorical move analysis -supplemented with interviews of practitioners and students. The analysis investigated the interaction of language features, their functions, and writers' motivations.Results Student writing had more complicated sentence structures, less accurate word choice, more errors in grammar and punctuation, and less linear organization. These characteristics decreased effectiveness in areas that practitioners considered important: accurate and unambiguous content; fast, predicable reading; liability management; and attention to detail. Underlying the student writing problems were misconceptions about effective writing, ignorance of genre expectations, weak language skills, and a failure to appreciate that written words, not just calculations, express engineering content. ConclusionsThe findings better define the gap between student and practitioner writing, and are a basis for instructional materials that target important student writing weaknesses. Journal of Engineering EducationV C 2017 ASEE.

show abstract

Section: Context and Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering

Conrad

2017

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Graduate engineering programs continue to focus on developing technical skills and knowledge rather than writing skills although academic currency is based on the ability to write and communicate technical ideas, not just succeed in research or coursework. While a few researchers consistently publish rigorous engineering communication and writing research (Leydens, ; Leydens, ; Leydens & Olds, ; McNair & Venters, ; Moskal & Leydens, ; Paretti, McNair, Belanger, & George, ) in technical communication venues, there has been a recent increase in publications addressing engineering writing in engineering education research venues such as the Journal of Engineering Education , the International Journal of Engineering Education , and the European Journal of Engineering Education (Baba, Cin, & Ordukaya, ; Conrad, ; Goldsmith, Willey, & Boud, ) and in the Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research (Paretti, McNair, & Leydens, ). At the graduate level, engineering writing literature is scarce and usually focuses on proposed interventions (Simpson, Clemens, Killingsworth, & Ford, ; Yalvac, Smith, Troy, & Hirsch, ; Zemliansky & Berry, ), such as Adams' Dissertation Institute that seeks to increase persistence and completion for underrepresented PhD students through writing bootcamps (Artiles, Matusovich, Adams, & Bey, ; Hasbún, Matusovich, & Adams, ).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Genre maps as a method to visualize engineering writing and argumentation patterns

Berdanier

2019

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Graduate engineering students are required to write for academic audiences; however, very few engineering programs teach engineering academic writing, and similarly, little research has been conducted on graduate engineering student writing. Purpose/Hypothesis The purposes of this study were to investigate the argumentation patterns employed in the research statements of graduate engineering students who won NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) awards as an example of authentic graduate engineering student academic writing and to introduce visual genre maps as a method of analyzing argument structure. Design/Method This study employed genre analysis methods to investigate the argumentation patterns of a corpus of 50 winning engineering NSF GRFP research proposals, using a rhetorical move‐step coding framework modified from prior genre work in English research. Results The genre analysis resulted in nine rhetorical moves and subcategorical steps. The argumentation codes were graphed as a function of progress through the document to create maps of argumentation that can be compared across the corpus. Four resulting categories of genre maps emerged from the findings, indicating major patterns in argumentation structure. Conclusions The study of rhetorical moves of engineering graduate student research proposals offers students and instructors a way to present engineering writing from a genre lens. Genre maps may be an effective way for writers to envision the shape of written arguments and craft stronger technical messages.

show abstract

“…Again, the Pearson chi-square test did not indicate that the differences were statistically significant. engineering instructors in a fashion consistent with prior work on development of communication assignments in engineering courses [11].…”

Section: Figure 1: Perceptions Of Peer Vs Instructor Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In other words, writing feedback to students is often summative rather than formative [9], [10, p. 1]. Nevertheless, research shows that providing meaningful feedback and opportunity for revision is a particularly important component of writing pedagogy [11]. [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Peer Review of Writing in a Large First-year Electrical and Computer Engineering Class: A Comparison of Two Methods

Ekoniak¹,

Scanlon²,

Mohammadi-Aragh³

2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite recognition of the importance of communication skills in electrical and computer engineering curricula, instructors are often reluctant or unwilling to include writing assignments in their courses. Furthermore, when these assignments are included they often do not allow for formative assessment through feedback and revision, key components of contemporary writing pedagogies. Engineering instructors often feel they lack adequate expertise to provide feedback; in large classes there simply may not be enough time due to the faculty to student ratio. One way to address these constraints while providing meaningful writing assignments to students is to use peer review in place of instructor review. Still, the question of how to teach effective peer review to students remains. This study uses an experimental approach to compare use of a handout based on the assignment developed collaboratively by course instructors and an expert writing teacher with the addition of an in-class workshop conducted by the writing teacher. Both methods allow for inclusion of formative assessment in the writing process in a large class where instructor feedback would not be possible. The handout-only method benefits from less required class time and institutional support. Student peer review comments were qualitatively categorized using characteristics identified from the composition literature and the mean numbers of comments in each category were compared between groups. Drafts in the in-class instruction group averaged slightly more comments in categories identified from the literature as higher quality comments and fewer in the less important categories. However, in all but one category, the differences between groups were not statistically significant. A follow-up survey was used to gauge student perceptions on various dimensions related to the peer review process.Perceptions were generally more positive in the in-class instruction group, but again the differences were not statistically significant. These results indicate that the handout-only method may be adequate for teaching peer review to first-year electrical and computer engineering students and indicate the need for further research in this area.

show abstract

Engineering Communication

Cited by 35 publications

References 98 publications

A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering

A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering

Genre maps as a method to visualize engineering writing and argumentation patterns

Teaching Peer Review of Writing in a Large First-year Electrical and Computer Engineering Class: A Comparison of Two Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About