How Issues Of Enrollment, Funding, And Resource Allocation Have Shaped Three Engineering Communication Programs At Georgia Tech

Lisa Rosenstein, Jeffery Donnell, Christina Bourgeois
2005 Annual Conference Proceedings   unpublished
Motivated in part by ABET's emphasis on communication skills, many engineering schools have chosen to integrate explicit communication instruction into their existing technical curricula. Regardless of the motivation for creating them, engineering communication programs are commonly administered at the school level, with each school having the freedom to implement instruction in a way that best fits with its particular sequence of laboratory, design, and capstone courses. As a result, within
more » ... one engineering college, a variety of successful writing program models can exist. The choice of paradigm reflects not only the communications norms of the particular disciplines, but also the constraints presented by the number of students enrolled in each school and by limitations on staff and resources. At Georgia Tech, several models of meeting the technical communications requirement have been developed. Within the College of Engineering (COE), some schools outsource technical communication instruction, requiring students to take a stand-alone course taught by faculty in the School of Literature, Communication, and Culture. Other schools have developed in-house, discipline-specific communications programs in which written, oral, and visual communication instruction is integrated into existing technical courses in the undergraduate program. One program uses the aforementioned undergraduate model but offers in-house, stand-alone courses on the graduate level. All of the schools within the COE at Georgia Tech have met the communications requirement by assessing their individual department's needs and resource allocations in an effort to create a model that works best within their local environment. While institutional context helps to inform how communication instruction is handled at the school level, local/departmental issues of enrollment, funding, and faculty attitudes and perceptions of technical communications ultimately shape the genesis, development, and growth of each school's communication program. It is important to note that there were three common motivating factors that led each School to develop an in-house program. These common factors were the following: • EAC/ABET's requirement that competence in written and oral communication must be demonstrated by each engineering graduate (Section I.C.3.g.); • Growing awareness within the Schools of the need for engineers to be able to clearly and directly communicate with their colleagues and clients; and • Feedback from industry and alumni that explicitly identifies communication skills among the most desirable traits a new hire can possess. or her colleagues. Finally, give the program administrator the authority to design, develop, and implement a program that meets the School's individual needs. Incorporate assessment activities: Assessment helps legitimize any educational program. It also helps people evaluate the quality of the program and shows them where changes or improvements need to be made. Assessment tools for in-house engineering communications programs include grading, surveys, focus groups, and creating student portfolios that document student improvement over time. The importance of fitting technical communication instruction to the local needs and resources of any given department, School, or program cannot be emphasized enough. Long term success of an in-house technical communications program hinges on understanding the local environment, the attitudes and perceptions faculty and administration have about the role technical communication education should play in the curriculum, and the availability of funding. Getting a program started is relatively easy compared to the effort it takes to sustain and develop it over time.
doi:10.18260/1-2--14801 fatcat:fgdlxi4zircqrnktexsqic7bpm