The Role of Technical Expertise in Engineering and Writing Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’ Writing

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which a teacher's level of expertise in the subject of a technical paper affects the teacher's reading and evaluation of it. Four engineering teachers and four writing teachers were asked to read aloud the same three student papers and to say aloud their thoughts as they read. The engineering teachers read papers on familiar and unfamiliar subjects. This method allowed direct comparison of the responses of (a) engineering teachers with relevant expertise in a paper's subject, (b) engineering teachers without such expertise, and (c) writing teachers. The comparison indicates that technical expertise helps teachers evaluate validity and engage with the text but has a more ambiguous effect on evaluations of rhetorical appropriateness. The article also examines the teachers' differing attitudes toward the importance of having technical expertise when evaluating and recommends approaches for teacher-training programs (in engineering and composition) based on the results.

“I Really Don't Know What He Meant by That”: How Well Do Engineering Students Understand Teachers' Comments on Their Writing?

“…Studies that compare engineering teachers' comments to established best practices in the field of composition have typically found that engineering faculty members fall short (Patton, 2003;Taylor, 2007;Taylor & Patton, 2006). Notably, evaluations of the quality of writing faculty members' comments have often returned a similarly negative result (Cohen, 1991;Maylath, 1998), although some studies have shown that writing faculty focus more on substance and provide more explanations than faculty in other disciplines (Patchan, Charney, & Schunn, 2009;Smith, 2003aSmith, , 2003b.…”

“…), using a slightly modified version of the categories established in Smith (2003a). (See the appendix for definitions of the focus categories.)…”

“…Studies on instructor commenting have generally focused on the response practices of writing faculty members, but some work has been done to characterize the commenting of engineering faculty members as well (Brinkman & van der Geest, 2003;Miller, Bausser, & Fentiman, 1998;Smith, 2003aSmith, , 2003b. Studies that compare engineering teachers' comments to established best practices in the field of composition have typically found that engineering faculty members fall short (Patton, 2003;Taylor, 2007;Taylor & Patton, 2006).…”

Commenting on Writing

“…Subject-matter experts may be more capable of commenting on the content than on the writing. Summer Smith (2003) compared think-aloud comments on a set of four engineering proposals from six technical writing instructors and six engineering faculty members. She found that the instructors produced identical rankings of the proposals but differed in the topic of the comments and their content.…”

A Qualitative Analysis of Sub-degree Students Commentary Styles and Patterns in the Context of Gender and Peer e-Feedback

“…It is noteworthy that few attempts have been made by English-speaking researchers to investigate the differences between teachers and students [6] [25], as well as between single peer and multiple peers [23] in their written responses to student/peer writings. However, the questions whether males and females would perform differently in the peerreviewed writing activities, and to what extent students' gender influence their feedback types, areas and scopes remain unanswered.…”