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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422.
2.
Blakeslee, A. (1997). Activity, context, interaction, and authority: Learning to write scientific papers in situ. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 11(2), 125-169.
3.
Charney, D. (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read “The Spandrels of San Marco.” In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Dannels, D. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5-37.
5.
Dragga, S. (1991). Responding to technical writing. Technical Writing Teacher, 18, 202-221.
6.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (Rev. ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
7.
Fife, J. M., & O’Neill, P. (2001). Moving beyond the written comment: Narrowing the gap between response practice and research. College Composition and Communication, 53(2), 300-321.
8.
Grant-Davie, K. (1992). Coding data: Issues of validity, reliability, and interpretation. In G. Kirsch & P. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
9.
Haas, C. (1994). Learning to read biology: One student’s rhetorical development in college. Written Communication, 11, 43-84.
10.
Hansen, J. (2000). Interactional conflicts among audience, purpose, and content knowledge in the acquisition of academic literacy in an EAP course. Written Communication, 17(1), 27-52.
11.
Haswell, R., Briggs, T. L., Fay, J. A., Gillen, N. K., Harrill, R., Shupala, A. M., et al. (1999). Context and rhetorical reading strategies: Hass and Flower (1988) revisited. Written Communication, 16(1), 3-27.
12.
Johns, A. (1991). Interpreting an English competency examination: The frustrations of an ESL science student. Written Communication, 8(3), 379-401.
13.
Kim, S., & van Dusen, L. M. (1998). The role of prior knowledge and elaboration in text comprehension and memory: Acomparison of self-generated elaboration and text-provided elaboration. American Journal of Psychology, 111(3), 353-378.
14.
Leki, I. (1995). Good writing: I know it when I see it. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 23-46). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
Miller, P., Bausser, J., & Fentiman, A. (1998). Responding to technical writing in an introductory engineering class: The role of genre and discipline. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 443-461.
16.
Nelson, J. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 362-396.
17.
Purves, A. (1984). The teacher as reader: An anatomy. College English, 46(3), 259-265.
18.
Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language: A cognitivist analysis of writer’s block. College Composition and Communication, 31, 389-400.
19.
Rude, C. (1995). The report for decision making: Genre and inquiry. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 9(2), 170-205.
20.
Schallert, D. L., Meyer, D. K., & Fowler, L. A. (1995). The nature of engagement when reading in and out of one’s discipline. In K. Hinchman, D. Leu, & C. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 119-125). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
21.
Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics in document design. New York: John Wiley.
22.
Silva, T., Reichelt, M., & Lax-Farr, J. (1994). Writing instruction for ESL graduate students: Examining issues and raising questions. ELT Journal, 48(3), 197-204.
23.
Smith, S. (1997). The genre of the end comment: Conventions in teacher responses to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 48(2), 249-268.
24.
Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: Alongitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62.
25.
Sperling, M. (1994). Constructing the perspective of teacher-as-reader: A framework for studying response to student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(2), 175-207.
26.
Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. (1995). Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
27.
Swarts, H., Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1984). Designing protocol studies of the writing process: An introduction. In R. Beach & L. Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford.
28.
Winsor, D. (1996). Writing like an engineer: A rhetorical education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
