Features of success in engineering design presentations: A call for relational genre knowledge

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 399-427

  Dannels, Deanna P ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication across the curriculum; Communication in engineering; Communication in the disciplines; Relational genre knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 70349267964     PISSN: 10506519     EISSN: 15524574     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1050651909338790     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Anson, C., & Forsberg, L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community: Transitional stages in professional writing. Written Communication, 7, 200-231.
2. Anthony, K.H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
3. 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, 389-421.
4. Artemeva, N. (2008). Toward a unified social theory of genre learning. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 160-185.
5. Artemeva, N., & Freedman, A. (2001). "Just the boys playing on computers": An activity theory analysis of differences in the cultures of two engineering firms. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 164-194.
6. Baren, R. (1993). Teaching writing in required undergraduate engineering courses: A materials course example. Journal of Engineering Education, 82, 59-61.
7. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359.
8. Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62, 335-360.
9. Berkenkotter, C., Huckin, T.N., & Ackerman, J. (1988). Conventions, conversations, and the writer: Case study of a student in a rhetoric PhD program. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 9-44.
10. Bitzer, L. (1998). Political rhetoric. In T. Farrell (Ed.), Landmark essays on contemporary rhetoric (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Blatner, A. (2003). The art of case presentation. Arts in Psychotherapy, 30, 131-135.
12. Burke, K. (1969). The rhetoric of motives. Berkley: University of California Press.
13. Cronin, M.W. (1993). Empirical measures of learning outcomes from oral communication across the curriculum. Miami Beach, FL: Speech Communication Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED366025).
14. Cronin, M.W., & Glenn, P. (1991). Oral communication across the curriculum in higher education: The state of the art. Communication Education, 40, 356-367.
15. Dannels, D.P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14, 5-37.
16. Dannels, D.P. (2001). Time to speak up: A theoretical framework of situated pedagogy and practice for communication across the curriculum. Communication Education, 50, 144-158.
17. Dannels, D.P. (2002). Communication across the curriculum and in the disciplines: Speaking in engineering. Communication Education, 51, 254-268.
18. Dannels, D.P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of "crits" in design studios. Communication Education, 54, 136-160.
19. Dannels, D.P., Anson, C.M., Bullard, L., & Peretti, S. (2003). Challenges in learning communication skills in chemical engineering. Communication Education, 52, 50-56.
20. Dannels, D.P., Housley Gaffney, A.L., & Norris Martin, K. (2008). Beyond content, deeper than delivery: What critique feedback reflects about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2. Retrieved July 30, 2008, from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v2n2.html
21. Dannels, D.P., & Norris Martin, K. (2008). Critiquing critiques: A genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22, 135-159.
22. Darling, A. (2005). Public presentations in mechanical engineering and the discourse of technology. Communication Education, 54, 20-33.
23. Darling, A.L., & Dannels, D.P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education, 52, 1-16.
24. Devitt, A.J. (2000). Integrating rhetorical and literary theories of genre. College English, 62, 696-717.
25. Dias, P., Freedman, A., Medway, P., & Paré, A. (1999). Worlds apart: Acting and writing in academic and workplace contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. Evans, D.L., Beakley, G.C., Crouch, P.E., & Yamaguchi, G.T. (1993). Attributes of engineering graduates and their impact on curriculum design. Journal of Engineering Education, 82, 203-211.
27. Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class: Simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11, 193-226.
28. Garside, C. (2004). A qualitative analysis of verbal interaction in mechanical engineering design teams: Genres of practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
29. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
30. Haber, R.J., & Lingard, L. (2001). Learning oral presentation skills: A rhetorical analysis with pedagogical and professional implications. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 308-314.
31. Hart, R., & Daughton, S. (2005). Modern rhetorical criticism (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
32. Jacoby, S., & McNamara, T. (1999). Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 213-241.
33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34. Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2005). Conceptualizing the awareness of collaboration: A qualitative study of a global virtual team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14, 301-322.
35. Leinonen, P., Järveä, S., & Lipponen, L. (2003). Individual students' interpretations of their contribution to the computer-mediated discussions. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14, 99-122.
36. Lingard, L., Garwood, K., Schryer, C.F., & Spafford, M.M. (2003). A certain art of uncertainty: Case presentation and the development of professional identity. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 603-613.
37. Lingard, L., & Haber, R.J. (1999). Teaching and learning communication in medicine: A rhetorical approach. Academic Medicine, 74, 507-510.
38. Lingard, L., Schryer, C., Garwood, K., & Spafford, M. (2003). "Talking the talk": School and workplace genre tension in clerkship case presentations. Medical Education, 37, 612-620.
39. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
41. Morreale, S., Shockley-Zalabak, P., & Whitney, P. (1993). The center for excellence in oral communication: Integrating communication across the curriculum. Communication Education, 42, 10.
42. Morton, J. (2006). The integration of images into architecture presentations: A semiotic analysis. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5, 21-37.
43. Morton, J., & O'Brien, D. (2005). Selling your design: Oral communication pedagogy in design education. Communication Education, 54, 6-19.
44. Nardi, B.A., & Whittaker, S. (2002). The place of face-to face communication in distributed work. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 83-112). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45. Oak, A. (2000). It's a nice idea, but it's not actually real: Assessing the objects and activities of design. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 19, 86-95.
46. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.
47. Ostermann, A.C. (1998, September). Drawing on words and words on drawings: Construction of identify and negotiation of expertise in design juries in the school of architecture. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, Seattle, WA.
48. Paradis, J., Dobrin, D., & Miller, R. (1985). Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the writing environment of an R & D organization. In L. Odell, & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in non-academic settings (pp. 281-307). New York: Guilford Press.
49. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50. Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
51. Russell, D.R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
52. Schryer, C.F., Lingard, L., & Spafford, M.M. (2005). Techne or artful science and the genre of case presentations in healthcare settings. Communication Monographs, 72, 234-260.
53. Spafford, M.M., Schryer, C.F., Mian, M., & Lingard, L. (2006). Look who's talking: Teaching and learning using the genre of medical case presentations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20, 121-158.
54. Spilka, R. (1993). Influencing workplace practice: A challenge for professional writing specialists in academia. In R. Spilka (Ed.), Writing in the workplace (pp. 207-219). Carbon-dale: Southern Illinois University Press.
55. Steinfatt, T.M. (1986). Communication across the curriculum. Communication Quarterly, 34, 460-470.
56. Swales, J.M., Barks, D., Ostermann, A.C., & Simpson, R.C. (2001). Between critique and accommodation: Reflections on an EAP course for masters of architecture students. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 439-458.
57. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
58. Weed, L.L. (1969). Medical records, medical education, and patient care: The problem-oriented medical record as a basic tool. Cleveland, OH: Case Western University Press.
59. Winsor, D.A. (1998). Rhetorical practices in technical work. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 12, 343-370.
60. Winsor, D.A. (1999). Genre and activity systems: The role of documentation in maintaining and changing engineering activity systems. Written Communication, 16, 200-224.