The Mechanics of Writing and Communication
Summary Essay
Everyday we speak,
we write, we talk with others about our past, present, and future.
Communication is an imperative part to the structure of our daily lives. It
keeps us safe, tells others our intentions, and explains our reasons for what
we do. However, communication in college courses has been undergoing an
extensive change over the last two decades, with more emphasis on specializing
communication skills to one’s own major. Mechanical Engineers have increasingly
relied on oral and verbal communication skills to explain their designs and
projects to customers as products have become more and more complicated to
engineer and design. In the article titled, “The Relationship between Language
and Design in Mechanical Engineering: Some Preliminary Observations”, Cheryl
Geisler discusses how communication skills relevant to engineering are being
incorporated in the college curriculum, along with new findings from Edwin H.
Rogers, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science, and Research Associate
Barbara Lewis about literacy practice in engineering design. The article goes
on to describe the role of language throughout the engineering design process,
the amount of time devoted to writing in mechanical engineering courses, and
the communication differences in individual and group settings. These main
points not only describe the communication skills necessary for productive work
in mechanical engineering, but they also point to how communication in college
courses is unrealistic when compared to the communication needed in real-life
job applications. With this in mind, college communication curriculum in
engineering classes has been undergoing an extensive change to better prepare
mechanical engineers for the real world.
One of the major
challenges educators face is how to incorporate pertinent communication skills
into the engineering curriculum that is applicable to real life situations. Classically,
engineering courses have stressed communication by having students write a
midterm and final report or by having students give a presentation one or two
times during a semester of class. This kind of communication skill development
has been seen as unrealistic in comparison to communication of engineering
designs in real life occupations. Instead, communication must be included in
every step of the design process, and not just saved for the final touches of
an engineering design. For example, when a mechanical engineer is designing an
engine for a new car, he or she must first determine customer demands in
relation to fuel economy and horsepower, cylinder size, and driving style. Next,
the mechanical engineer must find an appropriate assembly line with the proper
tools and worker skills to build the engine through collaboration with other
types of engineers. Lastly, the mechanical engineer must present the design of
the engine to the press, customers, and other companies through written and
oral communication, as well as through meetings with his or her own company’s
advertising division. This is just one example of many real-life scenarios in
which communication is needed throughout the engineering design process. Not
only does this ensure that the right product is developed for the right customers,
but that the product itself is well-designed and that all specifications are
set within their tolerances. In addition, this attention to communication
throughout the engineering design process is being applied to class work across
the country, due in part to recent findings in the amount of time spent on
writing in engineering courses.
Writing is a
crucial communication skill that every engineering student needs to be
proficient at to properly explain his or her design intents. Unfortunately,
current curriculum doesn’t line up with recent discoveries in the amount of
time spent on various activities in mechanical engineering classes. Although
engineering students typically only spend time writing at the end of the design
process, when the design is “written up”, writing has been found to be the
activity that engineering students spend the most time performing, according to
a study done by the Society for Technical Communication. In the study, eight
students formed two design teams, and they enrolled in the Design of Mechanical
Systems course during the spring of 1991. Using process logs and design
notebooks, which include the time spent on different activities for the two
design teams, researchers determined that literacy-related activities, like
writing and research, took up about 35 percent of the students’ time; oral
communication took up more than 46 percent of the students’ time, and the usual
activities pertaining to engineering design – model building, sketching, and
analysis – took up only 17 percent of the students’ time for the class. These
findings indicate large discrepancies in the teaching objectives and outcomes of
college course work, showing how writing plays a larger-than-expected role in
the engineering design process. This discrepancy between the amount of
communication curriculum in engineering courses and the actual amount of time
students spend on communication-related activities may not be as pronounced as
the findings in the article suggested, as differences have also been found in
communication between individual and group settings.
Group settings
always pose different social and intellectual dynamics than in an individual
setting, and those conducting research on the eight students in the Design of
Mechanical Systems course were surprised by how the engineering students
communicated when collaborating on class projects. Instead of the students
talking about drafting a report and analyzing a report for the class, they
found the students communicating without text-driven conversation. The students
were discussing plans and ideas for the project as if their class textbook,
class notes, and project report didn’t exist. This reflects the thinking
methodology that engineers implement in their practice, and how they formulate
ideas. Engineers communicate by utilizing ideas and taking their own
experiences and information to discuss plans for projects without using
material objects as sources for their discussions. Interestingly, this
contrasts with how engineers spend their individual time, where they’re
occupied with writing and research activities. These differences in
communication activities between individual and group settings show how
engineers can use the information obtained through research in an individual
setting to create a basis for ideas and discussions in group settings. This is
a more complex form of language and literary practice, and while this allows
engineers to create unique ideas for solutions to difficult problems, it poses
a major challenge for educators trying to prepare mechanical engineering
students for the real world.
This ongoing
dilemma about teaching engineering students relevant communication skills is
what continues to challenge universities and professors across the country. It’s
a challenge that Cheryl Geisler has identified by describing the role of
language throughout the engineering design process, the amount of time devoted
to writing in mechanical engineering courses, and the communication differences
in individual and group settings. These facets of the engineering program and
the curriculum give just a glimpse into the intricate algorithms that engineers
review in order to formulate ideas. This method of complex language and
communication is confounding to those outside of engineering, and so it remains
a question as to whether or not college courses will ever be able to fully
prepare engineering students for communicating effectively with employers and
customers after post secondary school. Geisler also leaves the reader pondering
with the thought that, despite all the efforts of educators and university
faculty, engineers may never discover the importance of writing and working
with literature, due to their lack of book and material object utilization when
discussing class projects with groups in their ongoing engineering courses.
Geisler, Cheryl. "The relationship between language and design in mechanical
engineering: some preliminary observations." Technical Communication Feb.
1993: 173+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
<http://mars.lib.iastate.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?f
rbrVersion=2&tabs=viewOnlineTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=TN_gale_of
a13885216&indx=6&recIds=TN_gale_ofa13885216&recIdxs=5&elementId=
5&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=2&dscnt=0&fct
N=facet_rtype&vl(192264181UI1)=all_items&rfnGrp=1&frbg=&scp.scps=sco
pe%3A%28ISU%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&fctV=articles&tab=defau
lt_tab&dstmp=1390242273038&vl(203425888UI0)=any&srt=rank&mode=
Basic&dum=true&tb=t&fromLogin=true&vl(1UIStartWith0)=contains&rfnGr
pCounter=1&vl(freeText0)=mechanical%20engineering%20communication
&vid=ISU0>
