using team reporting projects to teach concepts of audience and written, oral, and interpersonal...

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. E-27, NO. 3, AUGUST 1984

Using Team Reporting Projects to Teach Conceptsof Audience and Written, Oral, andInterpersonal Communication Skills

JANET H. POTVIN

Abstract-A series of team reporting projects is used to teach conceptsof audience and written, oral, and interpersonal communication skills intechnical and professional communication courses at the University ofTexas at Arlington. Supplemental to conventional reporting assignments,the projects range from short exercises done in a single class period toextended out-of-class projects involving both a literature review andprimary research. In each, students work in small, interdisciplinary groups

to solve a problem, prepare a team-written report, and deliver an oralpresentation. Short exercises are graded by the instructor; the more

extensive reporting projects are graded by peers and by the instructor usingevaluation checklists. Students have responded favorably to the projects,and as a result of their team work have enhanced not only communicationskills, but problem-solving, decision-making, planning, and managementskills as well. Team projects are an effective supplement to conventionalreporting assignments.

INTRODUCTION

AMONG the keys to success in an engineering career

are technical competence; knowledge of professional

pr-actices; effective teamwork and participation in group

decision-making (the ability to function as one of a team ofspecialists working together cooperatively to help an organi-zation achieve its goals [1]; the ability to implement know-ledge and ideas through cooperative interaction with others[2]); and effective communication skills (the ability to write,to speak and listen, to display information graphically,and to select and use appropriate communication mediaand techniques for varied audiences). Of particular im-portance is the ability to communicate well.The engineer's need for effective communication skills

is not new;1 however, as Jewell [18], [19] has noted, "the

Manuscript received December 12, 1983; revised May 24, 1984.The author was with the Department of English, University of Texas

at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019. She is now with Lilly Research Labora-tories, Indianapolis, IN 46285.

'Surveys [3]-[7] have shown both engineers' need for and lack of effectivecommtinication skills, and a number of articles have dealt with methods andapproaches for teaching engineers to communicate (see, for example, [8]-[19] as well as articles in Engineering Education in January 1979 [20]-[24],April 1980 [25]-[30], and January 1983 [31]-[33]). Educators and industryrepresentatives have debated whether the instruction should be in the formof independent courses in written and oral communication or in the formof communication skills modules integrated in engineering courses; andwhether it should be given by engineers, English teachers, or technicalcommunications specialists; given by individuals or interdisciplinary teams;given strictly for engineers or for heterogeneous groups of students; andhoused in engineering, English, or elsewhere. A number of innovativeapproaches have been reported. Despite increasing attention to developingcommunication skills, however, recent surveys [5]-[7] continue to showengineers deficient in such skills.

need has grown more acute" [ 18, p. 400] as a result of tech-nological advances, greater specialization of engineeringwork, public interest in technology, increased citizen partici-pation in decision-making for public and private engineer-

ing pf6jects, and the accompanying need to communicatetechnital information to more diverse audiences. For ex-

ample, "an engineer may be several steps removed from thefinal end product, yet his or her ideas must be communi-cated through the subsequent steps without error or mis-

understanding if the final product is to be successfullycompleted. Communications ... may be oral, written, or

graphical. Communication may be with other members ofthe design / production team, with other design / productionteams, or with interested third parties such as citizensgroups or regulatory agencies" [ 18, p. 400]. The growth ofelectronic communication networks to create, store, andtransmit scientific and technical information is also a factor.At the same time that the need for effective communi-

cation skills has become critical, there has been increasingdemand from business and industry for individuals with theability to work effectively on teams and to manage projectssuccessfully [1], [2], [7], [10], [12], [20]. With such changeshave come the need for new approaches for teachingtechnical communication and the need to teach a widerrange of communication skills.

This paper describes a series of team reporting projectsused in technical and professional communication courses

at the University of Texas at Arlington to teach conceptsof audience and written, oral, visual, and interpersonalcommunication skills, as well as to introduce group prob-lem-solving and decision-making techniques. Supplementalto conventional reporting assignments, the team projectsextend the range of communication skills covered withoutdetracting from the primary emphasis of the courses upon

written communications. The projects are applicable notonly for technical communication courses, but for com-

munication skills modules in engineering courses as well.While team projects in themselves are not new (they havebeen used in engineering courses as well as in technicalcommunication courses), no one appears to have reportedthe applications described here.The paper begins with background and rationale, then

describes a series of team reporting projects. Next, sugges-

tions are given to aid in planning such projects. The paper

concludes with a discussion of the approach.

0018-9359/84/0800-0129$01.00 1984 IEEE

129


BACKGROUND AND RATIONALEAt the University of Texas at Arlington, we have de-

veloped six courses (five undergraduate; one graduate) intechnical and professional communication which are opento students in all majors: an introductory technical writingcourse; a two-course advanced sequence in technical writing;a two-course advanced sequence in professional and busi-ness writing; and a graduate technical communicationcourse. The undergraduate courses are offered by theDepartment of English and are taught by technical com-munication faculty with industrial technical writing experi-ence. The graduate course [34] is offered jointly by theCollege of Engineering and the Department of English andis team taught by a technical writer and a mechanicalengineer.The technical communication courses are project-ori-

ented, designed to simulate real-world reporting require-ments and communication situations found in business,government, industry, the professions, and the sciences.The courses are process-based and are taught using aworkshop approach. Each course includes one or more teamprojects to supplement individual report writing assign-ments and to expand the range ofcommunication situationscovered.Team projects are included in the courses for several

reasons. Previous reports, as Covington [35] has stated, haveindicated that team projects successfully teach writing, edit-ing, and oral and visual presentation skills, as well as groupinteraction techniques, and that they help students learngroup problem-solving, decision-making, planning, man-agement, and budgeting skills. Further, team projectssimulate both actual research, reporting, and communica-tion situations and enhance students' concept of audience.The intent is not to teach problem-solving, organizationaldecision-making, or design, which students learn in themajor courses in their technical disciplines, but to helpstudents relate these processes to the communication pro-cess and to communication situations, as well as to enablethem to gain additional experience in team interaction andteam writing. It may be argued that in order to preparestudents for the communication situations of their careersand to fully simulate the reporting requirements and com-munication situations of business and industry, both writtenand oral, individual and team reporting assignments shouldbe included in technical communication courses, particu-larly at the advanced level.The courses are typically taken by students from a number

of disciplines. As a result, students have an opportunityto work with inter-, multi-, and crossdisciplinary teams forthe various projects and to become familiar with teaminteraction and group dynamics.

TEAM PROJECTS: AN APPROACH FOR TEACHINGCONCEPTS OF AUDIENCE AND WRITTEN, ORAL,AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS

The projects described below range from brief exercisesdone in a single class period (or part ofa period) to extendedresearch, writing, and oral presentation projects prepared

out of class. All are adapted from individual reportingassignments and include a research or problem-solvingcomponent, a written component, and an oral component.The projects are described in order of increasing complexity.

Interview, Written Biographical Sketch, and OralIntroduction ofa Class MemherOn the first day of class when the workshop approach

of the course is discussed, students are told that for thepurposes of the course, each will be considered an expertin his/ her respective discipline and that during the semester,one of each student's tasks will be to convey his/her tech-nical knowledge/expertise to the other members of theworkshop group. The opener tends to startle some students:they are not used to thinking of themselves as experts(or as having expertise in a discipline) and often they are notused to thinking of a report audience as an interdisciplinarygroup. The approach is intended

* to establish a concept of multiple and multidisciplinaryaudiences (a contrast to the more common class situationof students writing to an audience of one-an instructorwho is more knowledgeable about the subject than thestudent);

* to establish a sense of a group working together co-operatively to solve a problem;

. to introduce students to the concept of serving as bothcommunicator of information and evaluator of written,oral, and graphic presentations; and, most important,

. to enable students to begin to gain confidence in theirability to communicate technical information to others withvaried technical specialties.To follow up the discussion of the workshop approach

and the concept of multiple audiences and also to givestudents an opportunity to become acquainted with themembers of the workshop group, each student is askedto select, interview, and introduce a partner to the class.

After spending a few minutes to become acquainted andto obtain information about the partner's major field ofstudy, personal interests, career goals, course goals, and thelike, students prepare a brief written biographical sketchof the person interviewed. (The sketches are turned in aswriting samples at the end of the class.) Each student thengives a brief oral introduction of the partner to the othermembers of the class. If the number of students in the classis uneven, the instructor participates in the interviewprocess, so that all members of the workshop group areinterviewed and introduced.The project is not time-consuming, but gives students

an opportunity to become acquainted and to use a primaryresearch technique to gain information for a report. Italso introduces students. to a form of team interaction.

Observation of the interview process generally indicatesthat students are very concerned about the accuracy of theinformation they present. When students are writing theirbiographical sketches after they have completed their inter-views, it is common to see them asking further questionsand checking the accuracy of their reports, even to the pointof asking the partner to read what they have written beforethey submit the paper or give their oral summary.

130

POTVIN: USING TEAM REPORTING PROJECTS

For this exercise, students select a partner of choice.The assignment is ungraded; however, students receivefeedback from peer approval (or disapproval) of the intro-duction given. The students' partners and the members ofthe class offer suggestions. The written biographical sketchesare used by the instructor to assess the students' general levelof writing skills and to structure individual writing assign-ments for the course based on the students' interests andmajor fields of study.

Case Solution, Memorandum Report, and Oral BriefingEarly in the semester when concepts of audience, purpose,

and style are covered, students do a problem-solving caseas a group project. Although a case describing an actualproblem is usually written for the assignment, publishedcases may also be used. (For a discussion of the case method,see articles by Skarzenski [36] and Barnum [17]; for textsusing a case approach, see works by Blicq [37], Brockman[38], Couture and Goldstein [39], and Holcombe andStein [40]).

Students are divided into groups of three to five students,depending upon class size (15-20 students total), and eachgroup member is given a copy of the case to solve. Studentsare instructed to formulate a group solution to the problem,then to produce a team-written report in memorandumform. Each group works independently on the same problemso that solutions can be compared. After students havediscussed the problem, formulated a solution, and prepareda memorandum, each group presents its solution to theother members of the class, and the proposed solutions andstrategies are discussed. If desired, a case can be prepared orchosen for the assignment so that the discussion includescoverage of not only strategy and communication style, butprofessional ethics as well.The writing portion of the assignment can be handled in

two ways: each group of students may together produce onememo, or each member of the group may produce a memoreporting the group's solution to the problem.

Similarly, the oral portion of the assignment may behandled in two ways: presentation and discussion of thesolutions may be done on the same day as the problemis solved and the memo is written, or it may be reservedfor the next class period, with copies of the memos writtenin class reproduced and distributed to the students fordiscussion along with the oral presentation of the solutions.Duplicating copies of the memos and distributing themanonymously to the members of the class so that studentscan discuss not only strategy but effectiveness of the com-munications (organization, readability and style, and memoformat) is worthwhile.

Although a simple assignment that requires little classtime, this type of project is useful because it introducesstudents to two group problem-solving techniques-brain-storming and analysis and to team interaction. Studentsmust weigh alternatives and come up with the "best" solu-tion. Invariably, one of the first questions students ask whenthey begin the project is, "But what if we can't agree on asolution?" (A reminder that the assignment requires thegroup's consensus may be required.) Although the groups

are not formally competing, they do compete indirectly toachieve the best solution in the class.For this exercise, students form their own groups, usually

based on proximity in the classroom. The exercise is gradedby the instructor. When a single memorandum is writtencooperatively by each group, each member of the groupreceives the group grade for the project. When each studentwrites a memorandum, each receives an individual gradebased on his/ her skill in presenting the group's solution.

Comparative Analysis of the Style and Structure of FourReports on a Topic of Current InterestThe style analysis project is a more extensive assignment

that requires out-of-class research, a written summaryreport, and an oral presentation accompanied by visualaids. It is used in conjunction with a study of technicalstyle, audience characteristics, and adaptation of materialsfor different reader groups.For this project, students first select several topics of

current interest in science and technology about which theywould like to learn more. After suggesting topics in a groupbrainstorming session until a suitable number (six to ten)have been listed, students vote to determine the three to fivetopics of most interest. Topics for a recent project includedcomputers, cancer research, solar energy, and pollutioncontrol, for example. Groups of four or five students arethen formed, with individuals volunteering to research thetopic of choice.Each group locates, reads, and analyzes four or five

journal articles on one topic, with each article written fora different audience (e.g., technical, semitechnical, profes-sional, popular; expert, executive, layman, technician, op-erator). Prior to the project, students read excerpts fromPearsall's Audience Analysisfor Technical Writing [41] andMathes and Stevenson's Designing Technical Reports:

HE SAYS ME'S THE ONLY SURV/WVO OF AN SXTE#KEOOr- OF- UAS55AZSEN PROJFcr. t ES M'5 70,tE' TEMR REPORr

131


Writing for Audiences in Organizations [42], as well as theinformation on audience and style in their text; they also doan audience analysis assignment using Mathes and Steven-son's approach.For the group project, students divide responsibility for

locating the articles, then read, analyze, and compare thevarious works to determine the way in which each authoror group of authors has handled components such as

. stylelanguage

. organization

. graphics (illustrations and format devices such as

typography and headings). literary devices. viewpoint. opening (type and length of introduction)

definition of terms. technical detail (degree of)

presentation of conclusionspresentation of recommendations

. abstract/ summary

As part of the evaluation of the style of the articles, studentsanalyze readability and interest using the Gunning FogIndex and the Flesch Readability Formula, and assess theoverall effectiveness of each of the articles in view of theintended audience.Each group prepares a short team-written report which

includes a summary of the analyses of the articles and a

commentary on the author's (authors') success in conveyingthe information to the intended readers of the article.The assignment is adapted from exercises given by Weismanin Basic Technical Writing [43].The students also present a short summary of their

analyses to the members of the class. The oral presenta-tions are accompanied by visual aids (e.g., comparisoncharts, excerpts from articles, the actual articles). Followingthe oral presentations, students compare their analyses ofthe articles for each of the audiences in class discussion.The project helps students understand the concept of

audience, to appreciate the features of materials written fordifferent audiences (and intended for publication in variousjournals), and to identify the techniques used to adaptmaterials for different audiences. At the same time, they are

introduced to group problem-solving techniques, projectplanning, team writing, and team presentation. Additionalbenefits of the assignment are the study of a topic of currentinterest in science and technology and the fact that studentslocate articles of interest which can be used as samplesfor subsequent class discussions of technical reports andjournal articles.

For this project, students form groups by volunteeringfor the topic of their choice. The oral and the writtenportions of the assignment are graded by the instructor.

A Seminar on a Technical Communication Topic: A TeamResearch, Writing, and Oral Presentation ProjectA more complex project incorporating research, writing.

and oral presentation is the team seminar project on a special

topic in technical or professional communication, in whichgroups of three or four students work together to plan,research, prepare, and present a seminar to the members ofthe technical writing class. Two versions of the seminarproject have been used: one in an advanced technical com-munication course; one in an advanced professional com-munication course. Each is described below.A Team Seminar Project on the Special Techniques in

Technical Writing: As a project for the first advanced tech-nical writing course, students are divided into groups of fourstudents, and each group is asked to present a seminar (1lhours) on one of the special techniques in technical writing(e.g., definition, description, explanation of a process,instruction writing, analysis). Topics for the most recentseminars have included technical description, explanationof a process, and instruction writing. Students are requiredto do research, prepare a handout explaining the techniqueand giving sources of information for further study, andprovide examples (models) of the type of writing underdiscussion-either professional examples or materials theythemselves have prepared, or a combination. A uniquefeature of the project is the preparation of a writing assign-ment for the class, which the presenting group then gradesprior to giving it to the instructor for review.

Students have used a series of innovative approaches forthe presentations, employing interesting visuals and well-written handout materials to explain and illustrate thetechniques, and including both lecture and demonstration.The approach was chosen to add interest to the course,

to extend the range of communication situations covered,and to give students an opportunity to act as both instructorand learner as well as to meet the needs of students in thecourse. While some students who enroll in this course havepreviously taken a course in technical writing and arefamiliar with basic principles (rhetorical modes) such asdefinition, description, and process explanation, the major-ity have not previously studied the subject and are un-familiar with the techniques. The seminar approach givesstudents an opportunity to research and learn about a topic,synthesize information, and present it to others in written,oral, and graphic form as well as to apply what they alreadyknow in a new way.Groups are formed by the instructor so that, if possible,

at least one student who has previously studied technicalwriting is included in each group and so that a range ofdisciplines is represented on each team.The seminars are graded by students and by the instructor;

each member receives the group grade for the project.A Team Seminar Project on the Special Topics in

Professional Communication: A variation of the full-lengthseminar project has recently been developed and used in aprofessional communication course. For this project, stu-dents prepare a short seminar (20-25 minutes) for presenta-tion to the class on one of the special topics in the discipline:for example, automation of the office and its implicationsfor managers, technologists, and professional writers; legalaspects of professional communication; product liability;professional ethics; and intercultural or crosscultural com-munication. Students are divided into groups of three to

132


five students and each group develops a bibliography onthe topic, prepares a short team-written summary report(three to five single-spaced typed pages plus bibliography)for distribution to the members of the class, and delivers anoral presentation.The project can be combined with a group computer

search demonstration, so that each group completes a listof key words for the topic, works out a search strategywith the computer search librarian, then does the search asa team. Such a combination gives students practical ex-perience with computer searching independent of a formalreport project, and also results in a fairly extensive list ofresources for the bibliography.For the team seminar project, groups are formed by allow-

ing students to volunteer for the topic of their choice, untila maximum of five students per topic is reached.Both the oral and the written presentations are evaluated

by the students and by the instructor using a standardizedevaluation checklist. Each member of the group receives thegroup grade for the project.

A Simulated Research Grant ProjectThe most complex of the team reporting projects is the

team-written formal research proposal (grant) project. Itwas developed as part of a new advanced professional com-munication course in the spring of 1983, and will be usedin the second advanced technical communication coursethe next time it is offered.

For this project, students prepare a long formal proposal(research grant) on a topic (specified by the instructor) ofcurrent research interest in the field of technical/ profes-sional communication. The formal proposal project followscompletion of a conventional formal report project on atopic of current interest in the student's major field of studyfor which students select a topic, devise a research strategy,do a literature search (manual or computerized biblio-graphic search), prepare a short proposal in letter form,carry out research after receiving approval of the project,prepare a progress report at the midway point of the project,and prepare a draft and a final formal report followed bya formal oral presentation on the same topic.

For the formal proposal project, students are given a topicand a research prospectus as well as detailed projectguidelines and grant application forms. Each team preparesa proposal on the same topic. Students organize projectteams; divide responsibility for the project; determine atentative proposal plan and method of approach for theproject; identify needed sources of information (primary andsecondary); prepare a bibliography; locate resources; collectand analyze information; determine key themes and capturestrategy for the proposal; then draft, edit, revise, andproduce a formal proposal according to the guidelines of agovernment agency that might be likely to fund such aproject. In conjunction with the project, students do bothprimary and secondary research in order to devise a suitableresearch design and effective proposal strategy.

Proposals are graded by the instructor according toevaluation criteria established as part of the proposalguidelines. Although peer grading is not used for the pro-

posal itself, students participate in a simulated merit reviewproject prior to completing the formal proposal to introduceconcepts of proposal evaluation as well as proposal re-sponsiveness.The initial proposal project emphasized the written

presentation: informal oral progress reports were givenduring the project, but a formal oral presentation or briefingwas not included at the end of the project. A formal oralpresentation component will be included when the project isused in the advanced technical communication course.When the project was done previously, the groups were

formed arbitrarily, using an alphabetic sequence, althoughconsideration was given to the distribution of the students'major fields of study, expertise in the technical discipline,communication skills, potential leadership ability, andability to work with other personalities in the groups thatsuch an ordering would produce. On evaluation ques-tionnaires, students expressed a preference for formingtheir own groups; however, such an approach could resultin a "leaderless" team. A better method might be the oneused by Neumann [44] where project leaders are selectedby the instructor based on management potential (deter-mined by a questionnaire) and expressed interest in leadinga project. The project leaders then select the members ofthe teams.

Informal Team Projects: Report EvaluationIn addition to the more formally structured team projects

described above, various informal group projects are usedthroughout the courses as part of the writing workshops.For example, in conjunction with several of the shortreporting assignments, students form groups of four to fiveto review each others' reports using standardized evaluationchecklists. Each student reads the reports of the othermembers in his/ her group and prepares a short writtencommentary to accompany the checklist markings, afterdenoting any grammatical errors in the margins of the paperitself. When each student's paper has been evaluated, thepapers and the accompanying commentaries are returned tothe authors, and authors and reviewers discuss the strengthsand weaknesses of the reports. The students are then givenan opportunity to revise their work, taking into accountthe comments they believe relevant. Students are told at theoutset that the process is intended to help them by givingthem additional feedback, but that they are not bound bythe reviewers' comments.A similar approach is used to evaluate the first drafts

of the students' formal reports. The evaluation checklistused for the final report is given to students in a discussionof evaluation methods when the report project begins.Students also receive copies of a set of reports (student-written and professional models) to read and evaluate outof class. In a subsequent workshop, students divide intogroups of four to five to compare their analyses. Eachgroup of students is given primary responsibility for re-viewing one of the reports and presenting an oral summaryof the analysis to the class. The same type of review pro-cedure is then used for the students' formal report drafts,except that all evaluation is done in the writing workshop

133


and the oral summaries are directed to authors by reviewers.In conjunction with the evaluation, editing, and revision

workshops, students read articles on the process of editingby Blicq [45] and by Buehler [46], and the review processis discussed. Students also read an excerpt from Holcombeand Stein's Writing for Decision Makers [40] which dealswith the processes of editing and appraising others' work.The use of the checklists reinforces the process approach tothe instruction; the supplemental articles provide a pro-fessional context for the workshop exercises.

While informal, such projects give students an oppor-tunity to pool their ideas on a particular report; to expressand compare their views with those of other students, ofother student groups, and of the instructor; and to integratewritten and oral presentation of information at the sametime they develop skill in interpersonal relations and inprofessional practices. Such interaction is also helpful forfostering students' sense of professionalism and confidencein their ability to write and to speak.

MAKING TEAM PROJECTS WORKThe team projects described here were adapted from

conventional exercises and assignments intended to be doneas individual efforts. Making them work as team effortsentails establishing project groups of workable size; allowingsufficient time for completion but without encouraginglaxity of effort; and involving students in the evaluationprocess.

Establishing Project Groups of Workable SizeGroups must be small enough so that each member has a

sufficient role to play. Generally four to five students pergroup works well; although groups of three can also com-plete the projects successfully. Groups should be formedso as to ensure a range of disciplines and personalities.Several approaches have been used. Smith and colleagues[2] have indicated that although the instructor may at timeswant to allow students to form their own groups or tomake arbitrary assignments, a random grouping methodis generally preferable for it usually ensures a good mixtureof males and females, highly verbal and passive students,leaders and followers, and enthusiastic and reluctantlearners. Goldstein [47] has indicated that he prefers agrouping method whereby at least one or two good studentsare included in a group because it optimizes performancewithin groups. Poor students rely on the better students asresources; the better students benefit by responding to theneeds of the poorer ones. Covington [35] reported dividingstudents into groups of four with names drawn by lot tosimulate the nature of a project team often found in industry.Neumann [44] establishes project teams by selecting teamleaders based on an attitudes questionnaire and expressedinterest in project leadership, then allows team leaders toselect the members of their respective groups.

In the projects described here, several grouping patternswere used, with the pattern chosen depending upon thenature and complexity of the assignment. On evaluationquestionnaires, students have expressed a preference forforming groups by volunteering to work on a particular

topic (even over selecting individual team members), andthat method is used when feasible.

For the assignments, project groups have freedom andflexibility to structure their teams and to plan and handlethe assignments; they receive guidance as needed so as toenable them to avoid major difficulties leading to inabilityto complete the more complex projects.

Allowing Sufficient Time for Completion of AssignmentWhen team projects are planned, the instructor should

allow slightly more time for the assignment than for thesame assignment if done as an individual project, in orderto allow for group meetings and managing the logisticsof team research, writing, and report production. Sometime should also be allowed in class for groups to meetbriefly and to plan the assignment strategy.

Detailed project guidelines are helpful as is a specificstatement of the evaluation criteria. Checklists are usefulto aid students in planning the assignment and in evaluatingthe completed reports and presentations. Giving specificinformation for the projects enables students to managethe time constraints of the assignments more easily.

Involving Students in the Evaluation ProcessStudent involvement in the evaluation process is impor-

tant to the success of team projects for at least two reasons:it enhances the concept of the students as audience fororal and written reports and it provides a better measureof the students' success in communicating with that audi-ence. Involving students in the evaluation process also givesstudents a greater sense of professionalism. A combinationof peer and instructor evaluation works well [35]; however,a combination of peer, instructor, and student self-evalua-tion can also be used [48]. When evaluation criteria areestablished, a decision may be made to give each studentthe group grade for the project, a combination of an indi-vidual and a team grade, or simply individual grades. Onquestionnaires, students have expressed a preference for agrading system that rewards not only group performancebut individual effort as well.

CONCLUSIONCross [12] has noted that one of the major differences

between the school and the work environments is the rarityin the college or university setting of "the evolution of 'workteams'-of many individuals working together to fulfilla common objective"; that "'people experiences' learningto work with others, to compete and cooperate at the sametime, getting people to work with .. and for ... [a com-pany], to manage, to function successfully within a complexcorporate structure . . ."' are not common to the studentand virtually demand a process of adjustment for the entry-level engineer. That process is complicated by the differencesin value systems of young people and those of older em-ployees and managers, and by "the growing distance be-tween the theory the undergraduate is taught and what thecompany must know as . .. [the] business environmentbecomes more complex and . . . technology more sophisti-cated" [ 12, pp. 198-199]. While increasing attention is being

134


given to the teaching of management, decision-making, andinterpersonal communication skills in engineering courses(see, for example, articles on the use of the cooperative learn-ing structure [2], [47], participation training [49], video-tapes of actual engineering meetings [50], team projectsin engineering design courses [44], and internships withactual industry projects and reports [51]), some emphasison such skills is needed in technical communication courses,too, as an adjunct to emphasis on written communicationskills.

Today's students must be able to communicate effectivelyin several modes (written, oral, audiovisual, graphic2); tointegrate written, oral, and visual elements and to work withboth print and electronic communication media; to adaptmaterial prepared in one form for presentation in another;to understand multiple, multidisciplinary audiences; and toselect appropriate means for communicating with diverseaudiences. They must also be able to work effectively onteams and to participate in group decision-making. AsSmith and colleagues [2] have stated, "knowledge and skillsare of no use if students cannot apply them in cooperativeinteraction with other people" [2, p. 32].The team projects described here are one method of

helping students develop and enhance a range of commu-nication skills, of fostering team interaction, and of teachingconcepts of audience without detracting from primaryemphasis on written communication. Having teams ofstudents present information to interdisciplinary audienceswho will be responsible for evaluating their performanceprovides a more realistic reporting situation than havingstudents prepare all material for a simulated audience.While students may be told that they are to prepare a reportfor an executive audience or for an intelligent but unin-formed group of professionals, students realize that thework is to be evaluated by the instructor, and beyond theimage of the simulated multiple audience is often that ofanother the audience of one-the more knowledgeableinstructor. Students need to gain expertise in writing formore than one audience as in the simulated assignments, butthey also need to write for real audiences. The studentaudience provides that context [52].

Students' responses to course and project evaluationquestionnaires administered anonymously at the end of thesemester have been favorable. Students have cited a numberof advantages of team projects; for example, studentscan learn from the research techniques of others; morematerial can be researched; others may be more knowledge-able of a subject and their expertise may be shared; andresponsibility for a project can be divided. Students havecited some disadvantages, too; for example, all members ofa group may not be equally committed to a project, andgroup logistics may be difficult because of students' differingattitudes or schedules. Overall, students have found the teamprojects interesting and challenging and they have indicatedthat participation in such projects has enabled them toimprove communication skills.

Effective communication skills include not only writing

2Some would include computer communication in this list.

and speaking well, but also integrating written, oral, andgraphic elements; using print and electronic communicationmedia; selecting appropriate modes of communication fordiverse audiences; and accomplishing goals and effectingchange through cooperative interaction with others. Teamprojects, when balanced with individual reporting assign-ments, are an effective means of teaching this wider rangeof communication skills.

REFERENCES

[1] W. A. Damerst, Clear Technical Reports, 2nd ed. New York: HBJMedia Syst., 1982.

[2] K. A. Smith, D. W. Johnson, and R. T. Johnson, "The use ofcoopera-tive learning groups in engineering education," in Proc. 1981 Frontiersin Education Conf. New York: IEEE, 1981, pp. 28-32.

[3] H. P. Erickson, "English skills among technicians in industry," in TheTeaching of Technical Writing, D. H. Cunningham and H. Estrin,Eds. Urbana, IL: Nat. Council Teachers of English, 1975, pp. 153-160.

[4] R. M. Davis, "Technical writing: Who needs it?" Eng. Educ., vol. 68,no. 2, pp. 209-211, 1977.

[5] W. R. Kimel and M. E. Monsees, "Engineering graduates: How goodare they?" Eng. Educ., vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 210-212, 1977.

[6] P. M. Schiff, "Speech: Another facet of technical communication,"Eng. Educ., vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 180-181, 1980.

[7] C. M. Krowne and D. H. Covington, "A survey of technical communi-cation students: Some implications for engineering educators," Eng.Educ., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 247-251, 1982.

[8] D. C. Andrews, "Teaching writing in the engineering classroom," Eng.Educ., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 169-174, 1975.

[9] J. C. Mathes and D. W. Stevenson, "Completing the bridge: Reportwriting in 'real life' engineering courses," Eng. Educ., vol. 67, no. 2,pp. 154-158, 1976.

[10] P. Chenea, "What industry looks for in graduate engineers," Eng.Educ., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 172-173, 1977.

[11] 0. E. Lancaster, "Do we believe in communication?" Eng. Educ.,vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 780, 846, 1978.

[12] H. Cross, "A critical confluence: From graduate to entry-levelengineer," Eng. Educ., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 197-200, 1978.

[13] H. F. Keedy and D. H. Covington, "A technical communicationscourse using peer evaluation of reports," Eng. Educ., vol. 69, no. 5,pp. 417-419, 1979.

[14] D. H. Covington and H. F. Keedy, "Convergence of the twain: Theadvantages of team-teaching a technical communications course withan engineer," in Proc. 26th Int. Tech. Commun. Conf. Washington,DC: Soc. Tech. Commun., 1979, pp. E25-E29.

[15] R. Dulek, "Writing to unidentified readers," IEEE Trans. Prof.Commun., vol. PC-23, no. 3, pp. 125-127, 1980.

[16] C. M. Krowne and D. H. Covington, "Integrating engineering andtechnical communications in sophomore electrical engineering proj-ects," IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. E-23, no. 4, pp. 210-212, 1980.

[17] C. M. Barnum, "Teaching technical writing to the engineering student:Industry's needs, the students' expectations," IEEE Trans. ProfCommun., vol. PC-25, no. 3, pp. 136-139, 1982.

[18] T. K. Jewell, "Communications education for the engineer," Proc.1983 ASEEAnnu. Conf, vol. II. Washington, DC: Amer. Soc. Eng.Educ., 1983, p. 400.

[19] F. E. Griggs, Jr. and T. K. Jewell, "Communications courses-Anicety or necessity?" in Proc. 1983 ASEEAnnu. Conf, vol. II. Wash-ington, DC: Amer. Soc. Eng. Educ., 1983, pp. 401-408.

[20] J. C. Mathes, D. W. Stevenson, and P. Klaver, "Technical communi-cation: The engineering educator's responsibility," Eng. Educ., vol. 69,no. 4, pp. 331-334, 1979.

[21] K. Kiyama and E. Nold, "Engineering students teach each other towrite," Eng. Educ., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 334-337; 1979.

[22] M. E. Leesley and M. L. Williams, "Improving the writing of freshmenchemical engineers," Eng. Educ., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 337-339, 1979.

[23] S. Feinberg, "Feedback on format improves technical writing," Eng.Educ., vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 339-342, 1979.

[24] J. E. Spears, "A simulated writing experience," Eng. Educ., vol. 69,no. 4, pp. 342-345, 1979.

[25] N. D. Sylvester, "Engineering education must improve the communi-cation skills of its graduates," Eng. Educ., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 739-740,1980.

135


[26] E. Tebeaux, "Technical writing is not enough," Eng. Educ., vol. 70,no. 7, pp. 741-743, 1980.

[27] C. H. Sides, "What should we do about technical writing,"Eng. Educ.,vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 743-744, 1980.

[28] D. R. Woods and I. A. Feuerstein, "On teaching technical communi-cation," Eng. Educ., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 745-749, 1980.

[29] S. W. Wilcox, "Communication courses for engineering students,"Eng. Educ., vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 750-752, 1980.

[30] J. Skerl, "A writing center for engineering students," Eng. Educ.,vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 752-755, 1980.

[31] M. Harris, "Supplementary writing instruction for engineering stu-dents," Eng. Educ., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 311-313, 1983.

[32] P. A. Robinson, "Technical writing workshops: An alternative tolectures," Eng. Educ., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 314-315, 1983.

[33] S. Moger, "Using current technological issues in a writing course forengineers," Eng. Educ., vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 316-318, 1983.

[34] J. H. Potvin and R. W. Woods, "Teaching technical communicationat the graduate level: An interdisciplinary approach," J. Tech. WritingCommun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 235-246, 1983.

[35] D. H. Covington, "Making team projects work in a technical com-

munication course," presented at the 1981 Conf. College Composi-tion and Commun., Dallas, TX, Mar. 1981.

[36] D. Skarzenski, "A problem-solving case for technical writing courses,"Tech. Writing Teacher, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 97-98, Spring 1978.

[37] R. S. Blicq, Technically- Write! 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, 1981.

[38] R. J. Brockman, Ed., An Anthology of Cases. Morehead, KY: Ass.Teachers Tech. Writing, to be published.

[39] B. Couture and J. Goldstein, A Casebook for Technical Writing.Boston, MA: Little, Brown, to be published.

[40] M. Holcombe and J. Stein, Writingfor Decision Makers. Belmont,CA: Lifetime Learning, 1981.

[41] T. E. Pearsall, Audience Analysisfor Technical Writing. Beverly Hills,CA: Glencoe, 1976.

[42] J. C. Mathes and D. W. Stevenson, Designing Technical Reports:Writing for Audiences in Organizations. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1976.

[43] H. M. Weisman, Basic Technical Writing, 4th ed. Columbus, OH:Merrill, 1980.

[44] E. S. Neumann, "Teaching management skills in a comprehensiveproject course," Eng. Educ., vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 790-794, 1981.

[45] R. S. Blicq, "'Editing' guidelines for supervisory enginers," IEEETrans. Prof. Commun., vol. PC-19, no. 2, pp. 33-37, 1976.

[46] M. F. Buehler, "Creative revision: From rough draft to publishedpaper," IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun., vol. PC-19, no. 2, pp. 26-32,1976.

[47] H. Goldstein, "Learning through cooperative groups," Eng. Educ.,vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 171-174, 1982.

[48] J. S. Horobetz, "No chapter on proposal writing-No proposalwriting," Tech. Writing Teacher, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 95-96, Spring 1978.

[49] W. F. McMahill, "Participation training: A method of teachingcommunication skills to engineers," in Proc. 1983 ASEEAnnu. Conf.,vol. II. Washington, DC: Amer. Soc. Eng. Educ., 1983, pp.416-419.

[50] S. Vuchinich, "Bringing the real world into the classroom. Usingvideotapes of engineering staff meetings to teach decision-makingskills," in Proc. 1983 ASEEAnnu. Conf., vol. II. Washington, DC:Amer. Soc. Eng. Educ., 1983, pp. 306-309.

[51] W. P. Betty, C. B. Estes, and R. L. Lowery, "Students who work withthe problems of real businesses," Eng. Educ., vol. 67, no 5, pp. 377-380, 1977.

[52] H. L. Sachs, "Technical writing students as audiences," Tech. WritingTeacher, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 97-98, Spring 1978.

Janet H. Potvin received the A.B. degree from Stanford University, Stan-ford, CA, in 1965 and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Texas ChristianUniversity, Fort Worth, TX, in 1968 and 1972, respectively.

She spent six years in industry as a Technical Writer/Editor beforejoining the faculty of the University of Texas at Arlington, where she servedas Director of Technical Writing from 1975 to 1984. She is now a MedicalWriting Associate with Lilly Research Laboratories in Indianapolis, IN,where she is Project Coordinator for the Medical Writing Services Group.She is the author/coauthor of over 85 publications, including 5 books and25 refereed journal articles.

Dr. Potvin is a member of the American Society for Engineering Educa-tion, the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, the Conference ofCollege Composition and Communication, and the Society for TechnicalCommunication. She is a past Coeditor of the IEEE Education Society/ASEE Electrical Engineering Division Newsletter.

136

using team reporting projects to teach concepts of audience and written, oral, and interpersonal...

Documents