In courses within technical disciplines, students are often asked to give oral presentations that simulate a professional context. Yet learning to speak like a professional in this academic context is a process often laden with complications. Using activity theory and situated learning as theoretical frameworks, this article explores the teaching and learning of one of the most common oral genres in technical fields—the design presentation. A study of the teaching and learning of this oral genre in three sequential engineering design courses reveals critical academic and workplace contradictions regarding audience, identity, and structure. Results of this study show that in the teaching and learning of design presentations, audience and identity contradictions were managed by a primary deference to the academic context whereas structural contradictions were addressed by invoking both workplace and academic activity systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-Rowland, Mary, Maria A. Reyes, and Mary McCartney. “Engineering Recruitment and Retention: A Successful Bridge.” Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA1 (1997): 526-30.
2.
Anson, Chris M., and Lee L. Forsberg. “Moving beyond the Academic Community: Transitional Stages in Professional Writing.” Written Communication7 (1990): 200-31.
3.
Bazerman, Charles. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.
4.
Bazerman, Charles, and James Paradis. Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
5.
Beaufait, Fred W. “An Engineering Curriculum for the Year 2000.” Engineering Education80 (1991): 425-28.
6.
Berkenkotter, Carol, Thomas N. Huckin, and John Ackerman. “Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program.” Research in the Teaching of English22 (1988): 9-44.
7.
Blakeslee, Ann M. “Activity, Context, Interaction, and Authority: Learning to Write Scientific Papers In Situ.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication11 (1997): 125-69.
8.
Brennan, Marin. “Job Market Healthy for New Chemistry Graduates.” Chemical and Engineering News75 (1997): 10.
9.
Brown, John Seeley, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher18 (1989): 32-42.
10.
Burke, James D. “The Emergence of Career Wellness Programs.” Chemical and Engineering News76 (1998): 77-78.
11.
Chiseri-Strater, Elizabeth. Academic Literacies: The Public and Private Discourse of University Students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1991.
12.
Dannels, Deanna P. “Learning to Be Professional: Technical Classroom Discourse, Practice, and Professional Identity Construction.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication14 (2000): 5-37.
13.
———. “Time to Speak Up: A Theoretical Framework of Situated Pedagogy and Practice for Communication across the Curriculum.” Communication Education50 (2001): 144-58.
14.
Engineering Accreditation Commission. Engineering Criteria 2000: Criteria for Accrediting Programs in Engineering in the United States. Baltimore: Engineering Accreditation Commission, 1998.
15.
Evans, Don, George Beakley, Peter Crouch, and Gary Yamaguchi. “Attributes of Engineering Graduates and Their Impact on Curriculum Design.” Journal of Engineering Education82 (1993): 203-11.
16.
Freedman, Aviva, and Christine Adam. “Learning to Write Professionally: ‘Situated Learning’ and the Transition from University to Professional Discourse.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication10 (1996): 395-427.
17.
Freedman, Aviva, Christine Adam, and Graham Smart. “Wearing Suits to Class: Simulating Genres and Simulations as Genre.” Written Communication11 (1994): 193-226.
18.
Haas, Christina. “Learning to Read Biology: One Student’s Rhetorical Development in College.” Written Communication11 (1994): 43-84.
19.
Herrington, Anne. “Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Writing in Two College Chemical Engineering Courses.” Research in the Teaching of English19 (1985): 331-59.
20.
Herrington, Anne, and C. Moran. Writing, Teaching, and Learning in the Disciplines. New York: Modern Languages Association, 1992.
21.
Hunkeler, David, and Julie Sharp. “Assigning Functional Groups: The Influence of Group Size, Academic Record, Practical Experience, and Learning Style.” Journal of Engineering Education (1997): 321-32.
22.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979.
23.
Lave, Jean. “Situated Learning in Communities of Practice.” Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Ed. Lauren Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991. 63-83.
24.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
25.
Lincoln, Yvonna A., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. London: Sage, 1985.
26.
McCarthy, Lucille P., and Stephen M. Fishman. “Boundary Conversations: Conflicting Ways of Knowing in Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Research.” Research in the Teaching of English25 (1991): 419-68.
27.
Mehren, Elizabeth. “Colleges, Like, Focus on Speech.” Los Angeles Times February 22, 1999: A1.
28.
Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.
29.
Monteith, Lawrence K. “Engineering Education—A Century of Opportunity.” Journal of Engineering Education83 (1994): 22-24.
30.
Moriarty, Gene. “Engineering Design: Content and Context.” Journal of Engineering Education83 (1994): 135-40.
31.
Myers, Greg. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
32.
National Research Council: Board on Engineering Education. Engineering Education: Designing an Adaptive System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
33.
Olds, Barbara, and Ronald Miller. “An Assessment Matrix for Evaluating Engineering Programs.” Journal of Engineering Education87 (1998): 173-78.
34.
Ong, Walter J. Orality & Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1982.
35.
Paradis, James, David Dobrin, and Richard Miller. “Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the Writing Environment of an R&D Organization.” Writing in Nonacademic Settings. Ed. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. New York: Guilford, 1985. 281-308.
36.
Piirto, John. “Speech: An Enhancement to (Technical) Writing.” Journal of Engineering Education89 (2000): 21-3.
37.
Reither, James A. “Bridging the Gap: Scenic Motives for Collaborativem Writing in Workplace and School.” Writing in the Workplace. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 195-206.
38.
Russell, David R. “Activity Theory and Its Implications for Writing Instruction.” Reconceiving Writing, Rethinking Writing Instruction. Ed. Joseph Petraglia. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995. 51-77.
39.
———. “Rethinking Genre in School and Society.” Written Communication14 (1997): 504-55.
40.
Schneider, Alison. “ Taking Aim at Student Incoherence.” Chronicle of Higher Education March 26, 1999: A16.
41.
Selzer, Jack. “The Composing Processes of an Engineer.” College Composition and Communication34 (1983): 178-87.
42.
Spilka, Rachel. “Influencing Workplace Practice: A Challenge for Professional Writing Specialists in Academia.” Writing in the Workplace. Ed. Rachel Spilka. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 207-19.
43.
Spradley, James P. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979.
44.
Vest, David, M. Long, and T. Anderson. “Electrical Engineers’ Perceptions of Communication Training and Their Recommendation for Curricular Change: Results of a National Survey.” IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication39 (1996): 38-42.
45.
Winsor, Dorothy A. “An Engineer’s Writing and the Corporate Construction of Knowledge.” Written Communication6 (1989): 270-85.
46.
———. “Genre and Activity Systems: The Role of Documentation in Maintaining and Changing Engineering Activity Systems.” Written Communication16 (1999): 200-24.
47.
———. “Learning to Do Knowledge Work in Systems of Distributed Cognition.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication15 (2001): 5-28.
48.
———. “Rhetorical Practices in Technical Work.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication12 (1998): 343-70.
49.
Yu, K., and Peter Liaw. “Ceramic-Matrix Composites: An Integrated Interdisciplinary Curriculum.” Journal of Engineering Education87 (1998): 539-43.
50.
Zernike, Kate. “ Talk Is, Like, You Know, Cheapened: Colleges Introduce Classes to Clean Up Campus ‘Mallspeak.’ ” The Boston Globe January 31, 1999: A1.
