The Role of Technical Expertise in Engineering and Writing Teachers’ Evaluations of Students’ Writing

Written Communication

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 37-80

  Smith, Summer ^a  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

engineering communication; expertise; reading; response to writing; teaching of writing; technical writing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001197323     PISSN: 07410883     EISSN: 15528472     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0741088303253570     Document Type: Article

References (28)

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.