Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T20:05:50.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 30 - Engineering Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Marie C. Paretti ,
Lisa D. McNair  and
Jon A. Leydens
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
Marie C. Paretti
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech
Lisa D. McNair
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech
Jon A. Leydens
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Communication has long been considered a core professional skill and one clearly central to global engineering practice. In Sales’ (2006) survey of U.K. engineers, more than 50% of her respondents spent more than 40% of their time on writing. In Australia, surveys by Male, Bush, and Chapman consistently identify communication as a critical (and deficient) quality in engineering graduates (Male, Bush, & Chapman, 2010, 2011). Surveys by Tenopir and King (2004) and Covington, Barksdale, Egan-Warren, Larsen, and Trunzo (2007) found that U.S. engineers spent upwards of 30% of their time writing and speaking, while Kreth's (2000) survey of U.S. graduates indicated that new engineers spent, on average, 38% of their time writing. In non–English-speaking regions and countries, the prevalence of English for Special Purposes (ESP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP), and second language (L2, sometimes referred to as English as a Foreign Language, or EFL) instruction for engineers attests to the ongoing need for communication competency in English as well as in engineers’ native languages (e.g., Cismas, 2010; Orr et al., 1995).

Beyond its ubiquity in practice, engineering communication can profoundly affect both the development and the impact of technology. Most dramatically, as studies of the U.S. space shuttle Challenger explosion and the near-meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear facility demonstrate, failures in engineering communication are often central factors in engineering disasters (e.g., Dombrowski, 1992; Herndl, Fennell, & Miller, 1991; Winsor, 1988). Even a failure to appropriately identify units of measure can cost millions, as in the case of the NASA orbiter developed by Lockheed Martin (Isbell, Hardin, & Underwood, 1999). Effective communication in engineering environments, such cases remind us, can have exceptionally high stakes.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 601 - 632
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission (2007). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.Google Scholar
Airey, J. (2011). The disciplinary literacy discussion matrix: A heuristic tool for initiating collaboration in higher education. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Artemeva, N. (2005). A time to speak, a time to act: A rhetorical genre analysis of a novice engineer's calculated risk taking. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19(4), 389–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artemeva, N. (2007, August). Becoming an engineering communicator: Novices learning engineering genres. In Bonini, A., de Carvalho Figueiredo, D., & Rauen, F. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Genre Studies, Tubarão, Brazil (pp. 253–265).Google Scholar
Artemeva, N. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 160–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artemeva, N., Logie, S., & St-Martin, J. (1999). From page to stage: How theories of genre and situated learning help introduce engineering students to discipline-specific communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballentine, B. D. (2008). Professional communication and a ‘whole new mind’: Engaging with ethics, intellectual property design, and globalization. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 328–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.
Bazerman, C., Krut, R., Lunsford, K., McLeod, S., Rogers, P., & Stansell, A. (Eds.). (2010). Traditions of writing research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. R. (Eds.). (1994). Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum. Davis, CA: Hemagoras Press.
Bean, J. (1996). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bean, J. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor's guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T., & Ackerman, J. (1994). Social context and socially constructed texts: The initiation of a graduate student into a writing research community. In Bazerman, C. & Russell, D. R. (Eds.), Landmark essays: Writing across the curriculum (Vol. 6, pp. 211–232). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Björk, L., Bräuer, G., Rienecker, L., & Stray Jörgensen, P. (Eds.). (2003). Teaching academic writing in European higher education (Vol. 12). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef
Bøhn, J. H., & Anderl, R. (2005). Transatlantic curse on 24/7 collaborative engineering and product data management. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Southeast Section Conference. Retrieved from
Boiarsky, C. (2004). Teaching engineering students to communicate effectively: A metacognitive approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(2), 251–260.Google Scholar
Borrego, M. (2007). Conceptual difficulties experienced by trained engineers learning educational research methods. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2), 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borrego, M., Douglas, E., & Amelink, C. T. (2009). Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Brinkman, G. W., & van der Geest, T. M. (2003). Assessment of communication competencies in engineering design projects. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, R. (2008, September). Refiguring technologies in multimodal communication: Ways to improve engagement and learning. Paper presented at the Bedford/St. Martin's Composition Symposium, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
Burrows, V. A., McNeill, B., Hubele, N. F., & Bellamy, L. (2001). Statistical evidence for enhanced learning of content through reflective journal writing. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, P. A., & Berry, F. C. (2003). CPR: A tool for addressing EC2000, Item ‘g’ – Ability to Communicate Effectively (WIP). In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from
Carlson, P. A., & Berry, F. C. (2008). Using computer-mediated peer review in an engineering design course. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 264–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, M., Ferzli, M., & Wiebe, E. (2007). Writing to learn by learning to write in the disciplines. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(3), 278–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cismas, S. C. (2010, July). Foreign language technical writing abilities for power engineering students in the polytechnic university of Bucharest. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 7th WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education, Corfu Island, Greece.
Cole, M., Engeström, Y., & Vasquez, O. (Eds.). (1997). Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Connors, R. J. (1982). The rise of technical writing instruction in America. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 12(4), 329–352.Google Scholar
Conrad, S., Dusicka, P., Pfeiffer, T., & Evans, R. (2009). Work in progress – A new approach for understanding student and workplace writing in engineering. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from CrossRef
Conrad, S., & Pfeiffer, T. J. (2011). Preliminary analysis of student and workplace writing in civil engineering. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covington, D., Barksdale, E., Egan-Warren, S., Larsen, J., & Trunzo, S. (2007). Communication in the workplace: What can NC State students expect?Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from Google Scholar
Craig, J. L., Lerner, N., & Poe, M. (2008). Innovation across the curriculum: Three case studies in teaching science and engineering communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannels, D. P. (2002). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: Speaking in engineering. Communication Education, 51(3), 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannels, D. P. (2003). Teaching and learning design presentations in engineering: Contradictions between academic and workplace activity systems. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(2), 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannels, D. P., Berardinelle, P., Anson, C. M., Bullard, L., Kleid, N., Kmeic, D., & Peretti, S. (2003). Integrating teaming, writing, and speaking in CHE Unit Operations Lab. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Critiquing critiques: A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D., Beyerlein, S., Harrison, O., Thompson, P., & Trevisan, M. (2007). Assessments for three performance areas in capstone engineering design. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Pare, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dombrowski, P. (1992). Challenger and the social contingency of meaning: Two lesson for the technical communication classroom. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1(1), 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, G. L., Lucena, J. C., Moskal, B., Parkhurst, R., Bigley, T., Hays, C.,… Nichols-Belo, A. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driskill, L. (2000). Linking industry best practices and EC3(g) Assessment in Engineering Communication. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Elliot, N., & Perelman, L. (Eds.). (2012). Writing assessment in the 21st Century: Essays in honor of Edward M. White. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (Eds.). (1998). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punämaki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Engineering Council. (2011). The accreditation of higher education programmes: UK standard for professional engineering competence. London: Engineering Council.Google Scholar
Engineers Australia. (2011). Stage 1 competency standard for the professional engineer. Barton ACT: Engineers Australia.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farrell, L., & Holkner, B. A. M. U. A. (2004). Points of vulnerability and presence: Knowing and learning in globally networked communities. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(2), 133–144.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2011). ESP and corpus studies. In Belcher, D., Johns, A. M. & Paltridge, B. (Eds.), New directions for ESP research (pp. 222–251). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ford, J. D. (2004). Knowledge transfer across disciplines: Tracking rhetorical strategies from a technical communication classroom to an engineering classroom. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, A., & Adam, C. (2000). Write where you are: Situating learning to write in university and workplace settings. In Dias, P. & Pare, A. (Eds.), Transitions: Writing in academic and workplace settings (pp. 31–60). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Fruchter, R., & Lewis, S. (2001). Mentoring models in an A/E/C global teamwork e-learning environment. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geisler, C. (1993). The relationship between language and design in mechanical engineering: Some preliminary observations. Technical Communication, 40(1), 173–175.Google Scholar
Geisler, C., & Lewis, B. (2007). Remaking the world through talk and text: What we should learn from how engineers use language to design. In Horowitz, R. (Ed.), Talking texts: How speech and writing interact in school learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Geisler, C., Rogers, E., & Haller, C. R. (1998). Disciplining discourse: Discourse practices in the affiliated professions of software engineering design. Written Communication, 15(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianniny, O. A. (2004). A century of ASEE and liberal education (or how did we get here from there, and where does it all lead?). In Ollis, D. F., Neeley, K. A., & Luegenbiehl, H. C. (Eds.), Liberal education in twenty-first century engineering: Responses to ABET/EC 2000 criteria (pp. 320–346). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, A., Weiser, E., & Fehler, B. (Eds.). (2009). Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. Urbana, IL: NCTE Press.
Gosavi, A. (2010). Building communication skills through virtual teaming. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Gustafsson, M. (Ed.). (2011). Collaborating for content and language integrated learning [Special Issue]. Across the Disciplines 8(3). Retrieved from
Gustafsson, M., Eriksson, A., Räisänen, C., Stenberg, A.-C., Jacobs, C., Wright, J.,… Winberg, C. (2011). Collaborating for content and language integrated learning: The situated character of faculty collaboration and student learning. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Hanson, J. H., & Williams, J. M. (2008). Using writing assignments to improve self-assessment and communication skills in an engineering statics course. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harran, M. (2011). Engineering and language discourse collaboration: Practice realities. Across the Disciplines, 8(3). Retrieved from Google Scholar
Hendricks, R. W., & Pappas, E. C. (1996). Advanced engineering communication: An integrated writing and communication program for materials engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(4), 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herndl, C. G., Fennell, B., & Miller, C. (1991). Understanding failures in organizational discourse: The accident at Three Mile Island and the shuttle Challenger disaster. In Bazerman, C. & Paradis, J. (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions (pp. 279–305). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. In Bazerman, C. & Russell, D. R. (Eds.), Landmark essays on writing across the curriculum (Vol. 6, pp. 97–124). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, P., Shwom, B., Yarnoff, C., Anderson, J. C., Kelso, D. M., Olson, G. B., & Colgate, J. E. (2001). Engineering design and communication: The case for interdisciplinary collaboration. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4–5), 342–348.Google Scholar
House, R., Livingston, J., Minster, M., Taylor, C., Watt, A., & Williams, J. (2009). Assessing engineering communication in the technical classroom: The case of Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. In Paretti, M. C. & Powell, K. (Eds.), Assessment of writing (pp. 127–158). Tallahassee, FL: Association of Institutional Research.Google Scholar
Howe, S. (2012). Capstone design hub: Building the capstone design community. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment for teaching and learning. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Huot, B., & O’Neill, P. (2008). Assessing writing: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.Google Scholar
Isbell, D., Hardin, M., & Underwood, J. (1999). Mars climate orbiter team finds likely cause of loss. Retrieved from mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html
Jacobs, C. (2010). Collaboration as pedagogy: Consequences and implications for partnerships between communication and disciplinary specialists. Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, 28(3), 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarratt, S. C., Mack, K., Sartor, A., & Watson, S. E. (2009).Pedagogical memory: Writing, mapping, translating. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 33(1–2), 46–73.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kock, N. (2005). Media richness or media naturalness? The evolution of our biological communication apparatus and its influence on our behavior toward E-communication tools. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kock, N., & Nosek, J. (2005). Expanding the boundaries of E-collaboration. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreth, M. L. (2000). A survey of the co-op writing experiences of recent engineering graduates. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R., & Kosem, I. (2007). Issues in creating a corpus for EAP pedagogy and research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 356–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kynell-Hunt, T., & Savage, G. J. (Eds.). (2003). Power and legitimacy in technical communication, Vol. 1: The historical and contemporary struggle for professional status. Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., & Volkwein, J. F. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC 2000. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wegner, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, M., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, K. J., Allard, S., & Tenopir, C. (2011). The changing communication patterns of engineers [Point of View]. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(7), 1155–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A. (2008). Novice and insider perspectives on academic and workplace writing: Toward a continuum of rhetorical awareness. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A. (2012a). Sociotechnical communication in engineering: An exploration and unveiling of common myths. Engineering Studies, 4(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A. (2012b). What does professional communication research have to do with social justice? Intersections and sources of resistance. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. Retrieved from
Leydens, J. A., & Lucena, J. C. (2009). Listening as a missing dimension in engineering education: Implications for sustainable community development efforts. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 52(4), 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A., Lucena, J. C., & Schneider, J. (2012). Are engineering and social justice (in)commensurable? A theoretical exploration of macro-sociological frameworks. International Journal of Engineering, Social Justice and Peace, 1(1), 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A., Moskal, B. M., & Pavelich, M. (2004). Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leydens, J. A., & Schneider, J. (2009). Innovations in composition programs that educate engineers: Drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucena, J. C., Schneider, J., & Leydens, J. A. (2010). Engineering and sustainable community development. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
Locke, D. M. (1992). Science as writing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Male, S., Bush, M., & Chapman, E. (2010). Perceptions of competency deficiencies of engineering graduates. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 16(1), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Male, S., Bush, M., & Chapman, E. (2011). Understanding generic engineering competencies. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 17(3), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathison, M. (2000). “I don't have to argue my design–the visual speaks for itself’: A case study of mediated activity in an introductory mechanical engineering course. In Michell, S. & Andrews, R. (Eds.), Learning to argue in higher education (pp. 74–84). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
Matusovich, H., Paretti, M. C., Motto, A., & Cross, K. J. (2012). Understanding faculty and student beliefs about teamwork & communication skills. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
McCarthy, L. P. (1994). A stranger in strange lands: A college student writing across the curriculum. In Bazerman, C. & Russell, D. R. (Eds.), Landmark essays: Writing across the curriculum (Vol. 6, pp. 125–155). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
McNair, L. D., & Garrison, W. (2012). Portfolios to professoriate: Helping students integrate professional identities through ePortfolios. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
McNair, L. D., & Paretti, M. C. (2010). Activity theory, speech acts, and the ‘‘doctrine of infelicity’’: Connecting language and technology in globally networked learning environments. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), 323–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, L. D., Paretti, M. C., & Davitt, M. (2010). Towards a pedagogy of relational space and trust: Analyzing distributed collaboration using discourse and speech act analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(3), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, L. D., Paretti, M. C., Knott, M., & Wolfe, M. L. (2006). Work in progress: Using e-Portfolio to define, teach, and assess ABET professional skills. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from CrossRef
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2004). The engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nystrand, M. (1982). What writers know: The language, process, and structure of written discourse. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Orr, T. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Insights from corpus linguistics for professional communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(3), 213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, T., Bowers, R., Busch, D., Kushner, S., Mueller, E., & de Prospero, A. (1995). Serving science and technology: Five programs around the globe (Tech. Rep. No. 95–5–001). Aizuwakamatsu, Japan: University of Aizu; reproduced by ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 173.Google Scholar
Ostheimer, M. W., & White, E. M. (2005). Reliable data verify that curriculum reform made in response to portfolio assessment findings improves student writing: Successful writing portfolio assessment at the University of Arizona's Electrical and Computer Engineering Department improves student writing. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Pappas, E. C., & Hendricks, R. W. (2000). Holistic grading in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pappas, E. C., Kampe, S. L., & Hendricks, R. W. (2004). An assessment methodology and its application to an advanced engineering communications program. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C. (2005, June 14). Using project portfolios to assess design in materials science and engineering. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Paretti, M. C. (2006). Audience awareness: Leveraging problem-based learning to teach workplace communication practice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(6), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C. (2008). Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C. (2009). When the teacher is the audience: Assignment design and assessment in the absence of “real” readers. In Gonzalez, A., Weiser, E., & Fehler, B. (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 165–185). Urbana, IL: NCTE Press.Google Scholar
Paretti, M. C. (2011, January). Theories of language and content together: The case for interdisciplinarity. Paper presented at the Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: theory, research, and reflections, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
Paretti, M. C., & Burgoyne, C. B. (2005a). Integrating engineering and communication: A study of capstone design courses. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from
Paretti, M. C., & Burgoyne, C. B. (2005b). Work-in-progress: An integrated engineering communications curriculum for the 21st century. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from
Paretti, M. C., & Burgoyne, C. B. (2009). Assessing excellence: Using activity theory to understand assessment practices in engineering communication. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from CrossRef
Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D. (2008a). Communicating in global virtual teams: Managing complex activity systems. In Zemliansky, P. & Amant, K. St. (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 24–38). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D. (2012). Analyzing the intersections of institutional and discourse identities in engineering work at the local level. Engineering Studies, 4(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D. (Eds.). (2008b). Communication in engineering curricula [Special issue]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3).CrossRef
Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., Belanger, K., & George, D. (2009). Reformist possibilities? Exploring cross-campus writing partnerships. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 33(1–2), 74–113.Google Scholar
Paretti, M. C., McNair, L. D., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16(3), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paretti, M. C., & Powell, K. (2009a). Introduction: Bringing voices together: Partnerships for assessing writing across contexts. In Paretti, M. C. & Powell, K. (Eds.), Assessment of writing (pp. 1–10). Tallahassee, FL: Association of Institutional Research.Google Scholar
Paretti, M. C., & Powell, K. M. (Eds.). (2009b). Assessment of writing. Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
Patton, M. D. (2008). Beyond WI: Building an integrated communication curriculum in one department of civil engineering. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelman, L. C. (1999). The two rhetorics: Design and interpretation in engineering and humanistic discourse. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 3(2), 64–82.Google Scholar
Poe, M., Lerner, N., & Craig, J. (2010). Learning to communicate in science and engineering: Case studies from MIT. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reave, L. (2004). Technical communication instruction in engineering schools: A survey of top-ranked U.S. and Canadian programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 18(4), 452–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, T. L., Lowry, P. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2006). An evaluation of the impact of social presence through group size and the use of collaborative software on group member “voice” in face-to-face and computer-mediated task groups. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1), 28–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robey, D., Khoo, H. M., & Powers, C. (2004). Situated learning in cross-functional virtual teams. In Dubinksy, J. (Ed.), Teaching technical communication: Critical issues for the classroom (pp. 541–567). Boston: Bedford St. Martins.Google Scholar
Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, D. R. (2002). Writing in the academic disciplines: A curricular history (2nd ed.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Rutkowski, A. F., Vogel, D. R., van Genuchten, M., Bemelmans, T. M. A., & Favier, M. (2002). E-Collaboration: The reality of virtuality. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(4), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sageev, P., & Romanowski, C. J. (2001). A message from recent engineering graduates in the marketplace: Results of a survey on technical communication skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 685–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, H. E. (2006). Professional communication in engineering. Basingstoke, UK and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J., Leydens, J. A., Olds, B., & Miller, R. (2009). Guiding principles in engineering writing assessment: Context, collaboration, and ownership. In Paretti, M. C. & Powell, K. (Eds.), Assessment of writing (pp. 65–81). Tallahassee, FL: Association of Institutional Research.Google Scholar
Scott, C., & Plumb, C. (1999). Using portfolios to evaluate service courses as part of an engineering writing program. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(3), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selfe, C. L. (2007). Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, D. M., & Inman, J. A. (2010). Multiliteracy centers: Writing center work, new media, and multimodal rhetoric. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Shwom, B., Hirsch, P., Yarnoff, C., & Anderson, J. C. (1999). Engineering design and communication: A foundational course for freshmen. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 3(2), 107–112.Google Scholar
Slack, J. D., Miller, D. J., & Doak, J. (2003). The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. In Kynell-Hunt, T. & Savage, G. J. (Eds.), Power and legitimacy in technical communication, Vol. 1: The historical and contemporary struggle for professional status (pp. 169–192). Amityville, NY: Baywood.Google Scholar
Smith, S. (2003). What is ‘good’ technical communication? A comparison of the standards of writing and engineering instructors. Technical Communication Quarterly, 12(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith Taylor, S. (2011). “I really don't know what he meant by that”: How well do engineering students understand teachers’ comments on their writing?Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 139–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (1996). Pseudotransactionality, activity theory, and professional writing instruction. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinuzzi, C. (2003). Tracing genres through organizations: A sociocultural approach to information design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spurlin, J. E., Rajala, S. A., & Lavelle, J. P. (Eds.). (2008). Designing better engineering education through assessment: A practical resource for faculty and department chairs on using assessment and ABET criteria to improve student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Swarts, J., & Odell, L. (2001). Rethinking the evaluation of writing in engineering courses. In Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from CrossRef
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communications patterns of engineerings. Piscataway, NJ: Wiley-Interscience: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Thaiss, C. (2010). The international WAC/WID mapping project: Objectives, methods, and early results. In Bazerman, C., Krut, R., Lundsford, K., McLeod, S., Null, S., Rogers, P., & Stansell, A. (Eds.), Traditions of writing research (pp. 251–264). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thaiss, C., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Turns, J., & Lappenbusch, S. (2006). Tracing student development during construction of engineering professional portfolios. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Turns, J., Sattler, B., Eliot, M., Kilgore, D., & Mobrand, K. (2012). Preparedness portfolios and portfolio studios. International Journal of ePortfolio, 2(1). Retrieved from Google Scholar
The VALUE Project Overview. (2009). Peer Review, 11(1), 4–7.
Venters, C., McNair, L. D., & Paretti, M. C. (2012). Using writing assignments to improve conceptual understanding in statics: Results from a pilot study. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Retrieved from
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962/1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 828–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M. (2001). Transformations in technical communication pedagogy: Engineering, writing, and the ABET Engineering Criteria 2000. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(2), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M. (2002). The engineering portfolio: Communication, reflection, and student learning outcomes assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 199–207.Google Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: An example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31(3), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (2003). Writing power: Communication in an engineering center. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Winsor, D. A. (2006). Using writing to structure agency: An examination of engineers’ practice. Technical Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J. (2009). How technical communication textbooks fail engineering students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J., & Powell, E. (2009). Biases in interpersonal communication: How engineering students perceive gender typical speech acts in teamwork. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yancey, K. B., & Huot, B. (Eds.). (1997). Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Youra, S. (1999). Letter from the guest editor. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 3(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
Zamel, V., & Spack, R. (Eds.). (1998). Negotiating academic literacies: Teaching and learning across languages and cultures. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×