Ten Engineers Reading: Disjunctions between Preference and Practice in Civil Engineering Faculty Responses

Abstract

Previous research has indicated that engineering faculty do not follow best practices when commenting on students' technical writing. However, it is unclear whether the faculty prefer to comment in these ineffective ways, or whether they prefer more effective practices but simply do not enact them. This study adapts a well known study of response in composition to ask whether engineering faculty prefer authoritative, form-focused comments, or whether they may prefer to write different sorts of comments. We asked ten civil engineering faculty to comment on a sample paper and then rank their preferences for provided versions of comments on the same paper. One provided version emphasized comments on content, one emphasized comments on form, and one was balanced. Comparisons of the respondents' preferences and practices suggest that the engineering faculty recognize and value content-focused, non-authoritative responses, but generally do not write comments that conform to these values. We consider the implication of these findings for research on response to technical writing as well as for technical writing faculty in their own course. While recognizing the need for more research, we also discuss ways in which writing professionals, including WAC administrators and technical writing professors, can encourage engineering faculty to enact their preferences for response styles that reflect best practices.

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

“…Following the methods of Straub and Lunsford (1995) and Taylor and Patton (2006), I coded the comments as authoritative evaluations (further coded as positive or negative), readerly, or coaching. Authoritative comments are evaluative and usually directive.…”

“…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.…”

Comments on Lab Reports by Mechanical Engineering Teaching Assistants

“…As defined by Straub and Lunsford (1995), comments reflecting best practices are text specific, nonauthoritative, globally focused, and sensitive to the student writer and rhetorical situation. Engineering faculty tend to comment in the authoritative mode, issuing directives without much advice about how to carry them out (Miller, Bausser, & Fentiman, 1998;Taylor & Patton, 2006). They may not emphasize the importance of writing or evaluate it thoroughly (Gruber, Larson, Scott, & Neville, 1999).…”

“…They may not emphasize the importance of writing or evaluate it thoroughly (Gruber, Larson, Scott, & Neville, 1999). Rather, they are more inclined to make editorial corrections than comments that might help students substantively revise their writing and critically rethink the course content (Patton, 2003;Taylor & Patton, 2006). Moreover, when faculty do focus on content, they may overlook students' failures to accommodate their audiences, commenting instead on technical accuracy and concepts (Brinkman & Van der Geest, 2003).…”

Match or Mismatch: Engineering Faculty Beliefs about Communication and Teamwork versus Published Criteria

“…Despite the depth of research on both communication and teamwork, what remains unclear is the degree to which engineering faculty engage with and leverage this rich literature. With respect to communication, some researchers have explored differences in feedback patterns between engineering faculty and writing faculty 11,12 or explored beliefs about writing among disciplinary faculty more generally 13,14 , and the findings suggest both intersections and gaps between faculty with writing expertise and those with expertise in disciplinary content. But little research has considered the relationship between faculty beliefs about effective communication and broadly accepted criteria developed and published by scholars in writing and oral communication.…”