Working Annotated Bibliography

Just this morning, I realized that there have been three special issues on communication in engineering curricula, published by three separate journals, over the last three decades. I couldn't pass up this framework for doing a longitudinal review of views on/approaches to/epistemologies associated with teaching engineering communication. So I scrapped my big ol' list and a few other annotations and started from scratch. The following bibliography lists all the contents of the three issues, as well as two other articles, which provide a starting point and midpoint view of the issue unassociated with the special issues themselves. The Miller article in particular, I believe, will inform the way that I survey these issues; I can trace the influence of her idea of TC as humanistic through these issues to see how it develops, changes, and/or is influenced by other views or fields.

IEEE Transactions on Education 27.3 (1984).
Special Issue on Developing the Ability to Communicate (Focus: Engineering Students)

Bostian, Frieda F. "Technical Writing-‘Very Useful Stuff.’" Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 120-4. Web.

Casari, Laura E. "Required: Three Hours in Technical Communications-Paradigm for a Paradox." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 115-19. Web.

Coney, Mary B., and Judith A. Ramey. "A Communication Curriculum in Engineering Education: An Alternative Model." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 137-42. Web.
Coney and Ramey claim that the traditional engineering education treats writing as a skill. As such, it can be learned and mastered early in the curriculum. Their program at the University of Washington models a different approach, in which students develop their knowledge of communication in concert with their changing, and increasingly sophisticated, engineering projects. While the authors do not specifically refer to rhetoric as a concern in their model curriculum, their focus on the ability to communicate with various audiences suggests rhetorical concerns. I can use this article to outline what, at the time, was a fairly innovative approach to engineering communication education, which feels very similar to the burgeoning WAC movement of the 80s.

Georgopoulos, Chris J., and Voula C. Georgopoulos. "From University Term Papers to Industry Technical Reports an Attempt to Bridge the Existing Gap." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 143-7. Web.

Gwiasda, Karl E. "Of Classrooms and Contexts: Teaching Engineers to Write Wrong." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 148-50. Web.

Joenk, R. J. and Jones, Edwin C. "Scanning the Issue." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 113-4. Web.
In their introduction to this special issue, Joenk and Jones (editors of IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication and IEEE Transactions on Education, respectively) describe the issue’s origin in the “frequency” of anecdotal commentary about engineers who can design and build, but not communicate. This “evidence” undercuts ABET’s accreditation standards, which required students to be competent communicators. They conclude that engineering education does not adequately prepare graduates for the communication tasks of the workplace, thus bringing the two publications’ interests into alignment. The editors also summarize the issue’s contents, dividing it into articles that deal with specific tech-comm courses and articles with applications to broader tech-comm training. This introduction allows me to establish what impetus pushed professional societies in the 1980s to turn their attention specifically to engineering communication. I can also use it to highlight the ubiquitous link between pedagogy and professionalization which appears throughout the tech-comm field.

Keyser, George F., and Eugene M. De Loatch. "Learning through Writing in an Engineering Course." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 125-8. Web.

Potvin, Janet H. "Using Team Reporting Projects to Teach Concepts of Audience and Written, Oral, and Interpersonal Communication Skills." Education, IEEE Transactions on 27.3 (1984): 129-36. Web.

Language and Learning Across the Disciplines3.2 (1999) Special Issue – Communication Across the Engineering Curriculum

Dowell, E.H. “Introduction: Four Carrots and A Stick.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 13-18. Web.
Fifteen years after the IEEE Transactions on Education’s special issue on engineering communication, Dowell bemoans the lack of communication training in engineering curricula. This training is vital, he argues, because of the proliferation of technology, the rise of globalism, and the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of most engineering projects. Moreover, Dowell predicts that upcoming changes to ABET criteria will force engineering programs to more narrowly define and demonstrate students’ effective communication skills. I can use Dowell’s introduction to provide an overview of why engineers valued communication skills in 1999, and what broader contexts they used to justify those skills. It also provides a comparison to the more professionally-oriented call for communication skills in 1984, by focusing more on non-engineering audiences and the role of technology in teaching and facilitating communication.

Youra, S. “Letter from the Guest Editor.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 1-12. Web.

Theory and Practice Section

Broadhead, G. J. “Addressing Multiple Goals for Engineering Writing: The Role of Course-Specific Websites.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 19-43. Web.

Irish, R. “Engineering Thinking: Using Benjamin Bloom and William Perry to Design Assignments.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 83-102. Web.

Norgaard, R. “Negotiating Expertise in Disciplinary ‘Contact Zones.’” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 44-63. Web.

Perelman, L. C. “The Two Rhetorics: Design and Interpretation in Engineering and Humanistic Discourse.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 64-82. Web.
Following in the footsteps of Carolyn Millers’ 1979 “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing,” Perelman traces two different rhetorical traditions which give rise to the differences between writing for the humanities and writing for engineering, illustrated by contrasting undergraduate humanities and engineering writing assignments. She traces both traditions to classical rhetoric and posits that WAC programs provide a way to reintegrate these two traditions and their epistemological bases. This article provides a theoretical framework with which I can compare views about what role writing should play in engineering—or other technical—curricula. I can also use it to show the increasing use of theory, as opposed to appeals for professionalization, to justify attention to engineering communication.

Programs and Projects Section

Donnell, Jeffrey A., Joseph Petraglia-Babri, and Amanda C. Gable. “Writing vs. Content, Skills vs. Rhetoric: More and Less False Dichotomies.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 113-117. Web.

McQueeney, Pat. “Cementing Writing: A Writing Partnership with Civil Engineering.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 118-122. Web.

Olds, Barbara M., Jon A. Leydens, and Ronald L. Miller. “A Flexible Model for Assessing WAC Programs.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 123-129. Web.

Shwom, B., Penny Hirsch, Charles Yarnoff, and John Anderson. “Engineering Design and Communication: A Foundational Course for Freshmen.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 107-112. Web.

Williamson, W. J. and Philip H. Sweany. “Linking Communication and Software Design Courses for Professional Development in Computer Science.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 3.2 (1999): 103-106. Web.

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication51.3 (2008).
Special Issue on Communication in Engineering Curricula

Ballentine, B. D. "Professional Communication and a 'Whole New Mind': Engaging with Ethics, Intellectual Property, Design, and Globalization." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 328-40. Web.

Carlson, P. A., and F. C. Berry. "Using Computer-Mediated Peer Review in an Engineering Design Course." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 264-79. Web.

Craig, J. L., N. Lerner, and M. Poe. "Innovation Across the Curriculum: Three Case Studies in Teaching Science and Engineering Communication." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 280-301. Web.

Leydens, J. A. "Novice and Insider Perspectives on Academic and Workplace Writing: Toward a Continuum of Rhetorical Awareness." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 242-63. Web.

Paretti, M. C., and L. D. McNair. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Communication in Engineering Curricula: Mapping the Landscape." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 238-41. Web.
Paretti and McNair describe an engineering field which undisputedly values communication and which has worked for several decades to integrate development of communication skills into curricula. They note two major challenges—one persisting, one new—which justify a special issue on the topic: how to bring together expertise in disparate fields (engineering and writing pedagogy); and how to account for changing definitions of effective communication in an increasingly digital world. The introduction also includes a description of common themes taken up by researchers in the field of engineering communication. In mapping the development of the conversation about engineering communication, I can use this introduction to bring us up to date (or almost). The challenges and themes addressed in the issue give the best indication of where we can go from here, as they bring up contemporary concerns that the previous special issues literally couldn’t.

Patton, M. D. "Beyond WI: Building an Integrated Communication." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 313-27. Web.

Rutkowski, A. -F, et al. "Communication in Virtual Teams: Ten Years of Experience in Education." Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on 51.3 (2008): 302-12. Web.

Other

Miller, Carolyn R. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English. 40 (1979), 610-17. Web.

Williams, Julia M. "Technical Communication, Engineering, and ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000: What Lies Ahead?" Technical Communication 49.1 (2002): 89. Web.
Williams calls on the technical communication field to actively participate in changes to engineering curricula designed to meet ABET’s revised accreditation standards. In 2000, ABET revised its Engineering Criteria to focus on student learning outcomes, rather than number of courses offered; six out of eleven learning outcomes focus on non-technical skills. In particular, Williams points out, the learning outcome of “an ability to communicate effectively” presents an opportunity for technical communicators, both academic and professional, to reevaluate and shape engineering education. Using the case of Rose-Hulman’s preparation for ABET accreditation, Williams argues that communication can and should play a greater role in traditional engineering courses, and that technical communications faculty have a responsibility to help prepare students for the non-technical demands of 21^st century engineering by partnering with engineering faculty, in-house projects, and industry. Following on the heels of Across the Disciplines’ special issues on engineering communication, which preceded ABET’s call for communication as a student learning outcome, this article provides a snapshot of the response to that call. As Williams notes, ABET does not define precisely the methods by which these skills should be assessed, which implies a certain amount of latitude in how they should be defined. The case of Rose-Hulman gives specific curricular description that I can examine for evidence of how they as a program have chosen to define “effective communication.”